[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 111 (Thursday, July 25, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H8458-H8516]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM ACT OF 1996

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 481 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 481

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3820) to amend the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 to reform the financing of Federal election 
     campaigns, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on House Oversight. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. No 
     amendment shall be in order except an amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 3505, modified 
     by the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. That amendment may be 
     offered only by the minority leader or his designee, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and 
     shall not be subject to amendment. All points of order 
     against that amendment are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendment as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto 
     to final passage without intervening motion except one motion 
     to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes 
of debate only.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and to include extraneous material).
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 481 is a modified closed 
rule providing for the consideration of the bill H.R. 3820, which is 
the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1996.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
House Oversight.
  The rule makes in order one amendment in the nature of a substitute 
if offered by the minority leader or his designee, consisting of the 
text of H.R. 3505 that I believe was introduced by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr], as modified by an amendment printed in the 
report and the rule.
  All points of order are waived against the substitute, the Democrat 
substitute, as modified. The substitute will be debated for 1 hour 
equally divided between the proponent and an opponent.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, just as the rule now self-executes a further amendment 
to the Farr substitute by the Democrats, I will also offer an amendment 
to this rule at the conclusion of my opening remarks that will self-
execute the adoption of an amendment to the base bill printed in 
yesterday's Congressional Record by Chairman Thomas. In other words, an 
equal situation.

  Since the rule was reported last week, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Thomas] has had further discussions with Members and leadership to 
reach a compromise that is acceptable to a larger group of Members of 
this House, including a number of Democrats as well as some 
Republicans.
  The provisions of that compromise will be discussed in greater detail 
during further debate on this rule and, of course, on the bill itself. 
Suffice it to say that it will reduce the contribution limits for 
individuals, for PAC's and for parties that are now in the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule was reported to the House by voice vote after 
a motion was agreed to that it be reported without recommendation. 
While that is an unusual action for the Committee on Rules to take, it 
does reflect a sincere difference of opinion among our members over the 
proper course of action to take on this issue and this rule at this 
point in our session.
  On the one hand, there is a strong case to be made on an issue such 
as this to allow for just one minority substitute. In fact, in the last 
two Congresses, the 102d and 103d Congresses, controlled then by the 
Democratic Party, only one amendment was allowed on the campaign reform 
bill considered, and that was a minority substitute.
  On both of those occasions, the majority party, the Democrats, even 
denied the minority a motion to recommit with instructions. That is 
something that we are not going to do, we have not denied to the 
minority in this rule, because we have guaranteed that right by a new 
House rule adopted at the beginning of this Congress; and the minority, 
whether they be Republicans or Democrats, ought to have that right to 
put forth a position of their party.
  So we are actually giving the minority twice as many amendments as 
they gave us over the last 2 Congresses for the last 4 years.
  Notwithstanding that precedent of allowing only one minority 
substitute on campaign reform bills, there were some of our Members who 
thought we should make, in order, more amendments out of the 27 or so 
that were filed with the Rules Committee.
  There were other Members who thought we should not even take up any 
campaign reform bill since it was already dead, defeated in the Senate 
and stood no chance of becoming law, so why waste the valuable time of 
the House considering what we have to accomplish here in just the next 
26 legislative days, which is all that is left.
  But politics is the art of compromise, and this rule is a product of 
compromise. Our leadership has committed to bring this issue to the 
floor for a vote, and that is what we are doing today. In the final 
analysis we are the leadership's procedural committee, so we are 
carrying out their wishes.

[[Page H8459]]

  Moreover, as I stated earlier, the leadership has further agreed to 
allowing the new compromise language of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Thomas] to be offered by way of an amendment to the rule that I 
have just explained. That compromise does accommodate recommendations 
made in other amendments filed with the Committee on Rules.
  So we have honored our responsibility to the leadership by bringing 
this rule to the floor in order to allow the House to vote on whether 
it wants to consider the majority or minority campaign reform 
alternatives.
  Mr. Speaker, the issue of campaign finance reform is a very sensitive 
and important matter for all of our colleagues, for nonincumbent 
candidates, and for the people that we represent. Every Member of this 
body is an expert of sorts on campaign financing since we have all been 
through that at least one successful campaign or else we would not be 
here, in my case it is 17 campaigns, and we all favor a campaign system 
that is open, that is fair, and that is clean and competitive.

  Mr. Speaker, we have come a long way over the past several decades in 
achieving a more open and more above-board campaign financing system, 
due largely to the detailed disclosure laws we now have for 
individuals, for party and PAC contributions. However, when it comes to 
how we might further improve that system, there is a wide divergence of 
opinion, both inside and outside this House, as to what we ought to do.
  That was certainly in evidence in the variety of amendments filed 
before our Rules Committee last week, all of which were by very sincere 
Members on both sides of the aisle who have very strong feelings about 
the way they think we should go. I think it is fair to say that there 
is very little support either inside this House or among our 
constituents for funding congressional campaigns with taxpayer dollars. 
I for one am unalterably opposed to that. Yet, that is how we finance 
Presidential campaigns to a greater degree.
  Another alternative is to encourage candidates to agree to certain 
contributions and spending limits in return for certain other benefits 
such as reduced rates for postage and broadcast time. I am unalterably 
opposed to that. Under no circumstances should we be giving discounts 
on postage, which is going to drive up the cost of letters that our 
constituents might want to mail. That is the wrong way to go, and by 
all means we should never be placing a mandate on the private sector to 
help fund our campaigns. That is outrageous. It is ridiculous.
  There are others who argue just as forcibly that imposing spending 
limits, even on such a voluntary basis, inures to the benefits of 
incumbents who have better name recognition to begin with by virtue of 
their holding office.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, no matter how we squeeze this balloon, no 
matter whose idea of reform we adopt, someone will be considered as 
having a greater advantage depending on how we devise the campaign 
financing mechanisms. There will always be perceived winners and losers 
and at will always be in the eye of the beholder as to who has the 
upper hand. In the final analysis, however, there is no such thing as a 
perfect or pristine campaign financing system.
  As I indicated at the outset, probably one of the most important 
reforms ever adopted was the current disclosure system which allows the 
voters to decide how much weight to give to the mix of contributions a 
candidate receives and from what sources.
  I for one think there is more that we can do to improve our campaign 
financing system, but I also have a lot more confidence in the wisdom 
of the voters to take into account how we each finance our campaigns 
than I do in those who would severely limit the ability of all 
candidates, incumbents, and challengers alike, to raise sufficient 
funds to run a competitive and credible campaign, given the costs 
involved.
  I do not subscribe to the view espoused by some that any candidate, 
regardless of party or political philosophy, is somehow bought, 
tainted, or beholden to his or her campaign contributors. The fact is 
we all receive contributions from a wide variety of individuals and 
groups who choose to support us because of our views and our campaign 
promises and/or because of our previous voting record.
  I know of very few Members of this body, or challengers for that 
matter, whose views are shaped by the amounts of money that they might 
receive from campaign contributions. I think we demean ourselves and 
this system by giving credence to such a cynical view. I for one resent 
it when such accusations are made of honorable men and women who run 
for office. It is tough enough to get good, capable people to run these 
days.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I reserve decision on whether or 
not to vote for the bill that this rule makes in order, I do urge every 
single Member to come over and vote for the rule. While we already know 
that the other body will take no further action on this issue in this 
Congress, at least our debate today in this House on two alternatives 
before us will give us a better idea of what we might want to do in the 
next Congress. We will have moved the process at least one step closer 
to arriving at some consensus in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record:

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                              [As of July 24, 1996]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-Open \2\..............                 46                 44                 81                 60
Structured/Modified Closed \3\......                 49                 47                 37                 27
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                 17                 13
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................                104                100                135                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A      
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\ A structured or modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may  
  be offered only to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany 
  it, or which preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be   
  completely open to amendment.                                                                                 
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the     
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                              [As of July 24, 1996]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Disposition of 
    H. Res. No. (Date rept.)         Rule type           Bill No.              Subject                rule      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)...........  O................  H.R. 5...........  Unfunded Mandate        A: 350-71 (1/19/ 
                                                                        Reform.                 95).            
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)...........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 17..  Social Security.......  A: 255-172 (1/25/
                                                    H.J. Res. 1......  Balanced Budget Amdt..   95).            
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 101.........  Land Transfer, Taos     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Pueblo Indians.         1/95).          
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 400.........  Land Exchange, Arctic   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Nat'l. Park and         1/95).          
                                                                        Preserve.                               
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 440.........  Land Conveyance, Butte  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        County, Calif.          1/95).          
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............  O................  H.R. 2...........  Line Item Veto........  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                2/95).          
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 665.........  Victim Restitution....  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                7/95).          
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 666.........  Exclusionary Rule       A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Reform.                 7/95).          
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............  MO...............  H.R. 667.........  Violent Criminal        A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Incarceration.          9/95).          
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............  O................  H.R. 668.........  Criminal Alien          A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Deportation.            10/95).         
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 728.........  Law Enforcement Block   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Grants.                 13/95).         
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 7...........  National Security       PQ: 229-199; A:  
                                                                        Revitalization.         227-197 (2/15/  
                                                                                                95).            

[[Page H8460]]

                                                                                                                
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 831.........  Health Insurance        PQ: 230-191; A:  
                                                                        Deductibility.          229-188 (2/21/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)...........  O................  H.R. 830.........  Paperwork Reduction     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Act.                    22/95).         
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 889.........  Defense Supplemental..  A: 282-144 (2/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 450.........  Regulatory Transition   A: 252-175 (2/23/
                                                                        Act.                    95).            
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1022........  Risk Assessment.......  A: 253-165 (2/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95)..........  O................  H.R. 926.........  Regulatory Reform and   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Relief Act.             28/95).         
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 925.........  Private Property        A: 271-151 (3/2/ 
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1058........  Securities Litigation   .................
                                                                        Reform.                                 
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 988.........  Attorney                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Accountability Act.     6/95).          
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)...........  MO...............  .................  ......................  A: 257-155 (3/7/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)...........  Debate...........  H.R. 956.........  Product Liability       A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Reform.                 8/95).          
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)...........  MC...............  .................  ......................  PQ: 234-191 A:   
                                                                                                247-181 (3/9/   
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1159........  Making Emergency Supp.  A: 242-190 (3/15/
                                                                        Approps.                95).            
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95)..........  MC...............  H.J. Res. 73.....  Term Limits Const.      A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Amdt.                   28/95).         
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95)..........  Debate...........  H.R. 4...........  Personal                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Responsibility Act of   21/95).         
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95)..........  MC...............  .................  ......................  A: 217-211 (3/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1271........  Family Privacy          A: 423-1 (4/4/   
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 660.........  Older Persons Housing   A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        Act.                    6/95).          
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1215........  Contract With America   A: 228-204 (4/5/ 
                                                                        Tax Relief Act of       95).            
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 483.........  Medicare Select          A: 253-172 (4/6/
                                                                        Expansion.              95).            
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 655.........  Hydrogen Future Act of  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1995.                   2/95).          
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1361........  Coast Guard Auth. FY    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1996.                   9/95).          
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)...........  O................  H.R. 961.........  Clean Water Amendments  A: 414-4 (5/10/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 535.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Arkansas.               15/95).         
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 584.........  Fish Hatchery--Iowa...  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                                                15/95).         
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 614.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Minnesota.              15/95).         
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95)..........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 67..  Budget Resolution FY    PQ: 252-170 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   255-168 (5/17/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1561........  American Overseas       A: 233-176 (5/23/
                                                                        Interests Act.          95).            
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1530........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY   PQ: 225-191 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   233-183 (6/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1817........  MilCon Appropriations   PQ: 223-180 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                245-155 (6/16/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1854........  Leg. Branch Approps.    PQ: 232-196 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                236-191 (6/20/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1868........  For. Ops. Approps. FY   PQ: 221-178 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   217-175 (6/22/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1905........  Energy & Water          A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       12/95).         
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 79.....  Flag Constitutional     PQ: 258-170 A:   
                                                                        Amendment.              271-152 (6/28/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1944........  Emer. Supp. Approps...  PQ: 236-194 A:   
                                                                                                234-192 (6/29/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 235-193 D:   
                                                                        1996.                   192-238 (7/12/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 230-194 A:   
                                                                        1996 #2.                229-195 (7/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1976........  Agriculture Approps.    PQ: 242-185 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2020........  Treasury/Postal         PQ: 232-192 A:   
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 96.....  Disapproval of MFN to   A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        China.                  20/95).         
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2002........  Transportation          PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       95).            
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 70..........  Exports of Alaskan      A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Crude Oil.              24/95).         
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2076........  Commerce, State         A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       25/95).         
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2099........  VA/HUD Approps. FY      A: 230-189 (7/25/
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95)..........  MC...............  S. 21............  Terminating U.S. Arms   A: voice vote (8/
                                                                        Embargo on Bosnia.      1/95).          
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2126........  Defense Approps. FY     A: 409-1 (7/31/  
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1555........  Communications Act of   A: 255-156 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1995.                   95).            
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 2127........  Labor, HHS Approps. FY  A: 323-104 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1594........  Economically Targeted   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Investments.            12/95).         
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1655........  Intelligence            A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Authorization FY 1996.  12/95).         
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1162........  Deficit Reduction       A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Lockbox.                13/95).         
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1670........  Federal Acquisition     A: 414-0 (9/13/  
                                                                        Reform Act.             95).            
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1617........  CAREERS Act...........  A: 388-2 (9/19/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2274........  Natl. Highway System..  PQ: 241-173 A:   
                                                                                                375-39-1 (9/20/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 927.........  Cuban Liberty & Dem.    A: 304-118 (9/20/
                                                                        Solidarity.             95).            
H. Res. 226 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 743.........  Team Act..............  A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1170........  3-Judge Court.........  A: voice vote (9/
                                                                                                28/95).         
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1601........  Internatl. Space        A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Station.                27/95).         
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 108....  Continuing Resolution   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        FY 1996.                28/95).         
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2405........  Omnibus Science Auth..  A: voice vote (10/
                                                                                                11/95).         
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2259........  Disapprove Sentencing   A: voice vote (10/
                                                                        Guidelines.             18/95).         
H. Res. 238 (10/18/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2425........  Medicare Preservation   PQ: 231-194 A:   
                                                                        Act.                    227-192 (10/19/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 239 (10/19/95).........  C................  H.R. 2492........  Leg. Branch Approps...  PQ: 235-184 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (10/ 
                                                                                                31/95).         
H. Res. 245 (10/25/95).........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 109.  Social Security         PQ: 228-191 A:   
                                                    H.R. 2491........   Earnings Reform.        235-185 (10/26/ 
                                                                       Seven-Year Balanced      95).            
                                                                        Budget.                                 
H. Res. 251 (10/31/95).........  C................  H.R. 1833........  Partial Birth Abortion  A: 237-190 (11/1/
                                                                        Ban.                    95).            
H. Res. 252 (10/31/95).........  MO...............  H.R. 2546........  D.C. Approps..........  A: 241-181 (11/1/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 257 (11/7/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 115....  Cont. Res. FY 1996....  A: 216-210 (11/8/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 258 (11/8/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2586........  Debt Limit............  A: 220-200 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 259 (11/9/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2539........  ICC Termination Act...  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                14/95).         
H. Res. 262 (11/9/95)..........  C................  H.R. 2586........  Increase Debt Limit...  A: 220-185 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 269 (11/15/95).........  O................  H.R. 2564........  Lobbying Reform.......  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                16/95).         
H. Res. 270 (11/15/95).........  C................  H.J. Res. 122....  Further Cont.           A: 249-176 (11/15/
                                                                        Resolution.             95).            
H. Res. 273 (11/16/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2606........  Prohibition on Funds    A: 239-181 (11/17/
                                                                        for Bosnia.             95).            
H. Res. 284 (11/29/95).........  O................  H.R. 1788........  Amtrak Reform.........  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                30/95).         
H. Res. 287 (11/30/95).........  O................  H.R. 1350........  Maritime Security Act.  A: voice vote (12/
                                                                                                6/95).          
H. Res. 293 (12/7/95)..........  C................  H.R. 2621........  Protect Federal Trust   PQ: 223-183 A:   
                                                                        Funds.                  228-184 (12/14/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 303 (12/13/95).........  O................  H.R. 1745........  Utah Public Lands.....  PQ: 221-197 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (5/15/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 309 (12/18/95).........  C................  H. Con. Res. 122.  Budget Res. W/          PQ: 230-188 A:   
                                                                        President.              229-189 (12/19/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 313 (12/19/95).........  O................  H.R. 558.........  Texas Low-Level         A: voice vote (12/
                                                                        Radioactive.            20/95).         
H. Res. 323 (12/21/95).........  C................  H.R. 2677........  Natl. Parks & Wildlife  Tabled (2/28/96).
                                                                        Refuge.                                 
H. Res. 366 (2/27/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2854........  Farm Bill.............  PQ: 228-182 A:   
                                                                                                244-168 (2/28/  
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 368 (2/28/96)..........  O................  H.R. 994.........  Small Business Growth.  Tabled (4/17/96).
H. Res. 371 (3/6/96)...........  C................  H.R. 3021........  Debt Limit Increase...  A: voice vote (3/
                                                                                                7/96).          
H. Res. 372 (3/6/96)...........  MC...............  H.R. 3019........  Cont. Approps. FY 1996  PQ: voice vote A:
                                                                                                235-175 (3/7/   
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 380 (3/12/96)..........  C................  H.R. 2703........  Effective Death         A: 251-157 (3/13/
                                                                        Penalty.                96).            
H. Res. 384 (3/14/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2202........  Immigration...........  PQ: 233-152 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (3/19/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 386 (3/20/96)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 165....  Further Cont. Approps.  PQ: 234-187 A:   
                                                                                                237-183 (3/21/  
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 388 (3/21/96)..........  C................  H.R. 125.........  Gun Crime Enforcement.  A: 244-166 (3/22/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 391 (3/27/96)..........  C................  H.R. 3136........  Contract w/America      PQ: 232-180 A:   
                                                                        Advancement.            232-177, (3/28/ 
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 392 (3/27/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 3103........  Health Coverage         PQ: 229-186 A:   
                                                                        Affordability.          Voice Vote (3/29/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 395 (3/29/96)..........  MC...............  H.J. Res. 159....  Tax Limitation Const.   PQ: 232-168 A:   
                                                                        Amdmt..                 234-162 (4/15/  
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 396 (3/29/96)..........  O................  H.R. 842.........  Truth in Budgeting Act  A: voice vote (4/
                                                                                                17/96).         
H. Res. 409 (4/23/96)..........  O................  H.R. 2715........  Paperwork Elimination   A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        Act.                    24/96).         
H. Res. 410 (4/23/96)..........  O................  H.R. 1675........  Natl. Wildlife Refuge.  A: voice vote (4/
                                                                                                24/96).         
H. Res. 411 (4/23/96)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 175....  Further Cont. Approps.  A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        FY 1996.                24/96).         
H. Res. 418 (4/30/96)..........  O................  H.R. 2641........  U.S. Marshals Service.  PQ: 219-203 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (5/1/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 419 (4/30/96)..........  O................  H.R. 2149........  Ocean Shipping Reform.  A: 422-0 (5/1/   
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 421 (5/2/96)...........  O................  H.R. 2974........  Crimes Against          A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Children & Elderly.     7/96).          
H. Res. 422 (5/2/96)...........  O................  H.R. 3120........  Witness & Jury          A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Tampering.              7/96).          
H. Res. 426 (5/7/96)...........  O................  H.R. 2406........  U.S. Housing Act of     PQ: 218-208 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   voice vote (5/8/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 427 (5/7/96)...........  O................  H.R. 3322........  Omnibus Civilian        A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Science Auth.           9/96).          
H. Res. 428 (5/7/96)...........  MC...............  H.R. 3286........  Adoption Promotion &    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Stability.              9/96).          
H. Res. 430 (5/9/96)...........  S................  H.R. 3230........  DoD Auth. FY 1997.....  A: 235-149 (5/10/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 435 (5/15/96)..........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 178.  Con. Res. on the        PQ: 227-196 A:   
                                                                        Budget, 1997.           voice vote (5/16/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 436 (5/16/96)..........  C................  H.R. 3415........  Repeal 4.3 cent fuel    PQ: 221-181 A:   
                                                                        tax.                    voice vote (5/21/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 437 (5/16/96)..........  MO...............  H.R. 3259........  Intell. Auth. FY 1997.  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                                                21/96).         
H. Res. 438 (5/16/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 3144........  Defend America Act....  .................
H. Res. 440 (5/21/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 3448........  Small Bus. Job          A: 219-211 (5/22/
                                                                        Protection.             96).            
                                 MC...............  H.R. 1227........  Employee Commuting      .................
                                                                        Flexibility.                            

[[Page H8461]]

                                                                                                                
H. Res. 442 (5/29/96)..........  O................  H.R. 3517........  Mil. Const. Approps.    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        FY 1997.                30/96).         
H. Res. 445 (5/30/96)..........  O................  H.R. 3540........  For. Ops. Approps. FY   A: voice vote (6/
                                                                        1997.                   5/96).          
H. Res. 446 (6/5/96)...........  MC...............  H.R. 3562........  WI Works Waiver         A: 363-59 (6/6/  
                                                                        Approval.               96).            
H. Res. 448 (6/6/96)...........  MC...............  H.R. 2754........  Shipbuilding Trade      A: voice vote (6/
                                                                        Agreement.              12/96).         
H. Res. 451 (6/10/96)..........  O................  H.R. 3603........  Agriculture             A: voice vote (6/
                                                                        Appropriations, FY      11/96).         
                                                                        1997.                                   
H. Res. 453 (6/12/96)..........  O................  H.R. 3610........  Defense                 A: voice vote (6/
                                                                        Appropriations, FY      13/96).         
                                                                        1997.                                   
H. Res. 455 (6/18/96)..........  O................  H.R. 3662........  Interior Approps, FY    A: voice vote (6/
                                                                        1997.                   19/96).         
H. Res. 456 (6/19/96)..........  O................  H.R. 3666........  VA/HUD Approps........  A: 246-166 (6/25/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 460 (6/25/96)..........  O................  H.R. 3675........  Transportation Approps  A: voice vote (6/
                                                                                                26/96).         
H. Res. 472 (7/9/96)...........  O................  H.R. 3755........  Labor/HHS Approps.....  PQ: 218-202 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (7/10/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 473 (7/9/96)...........  MC...............  H.R. 3754........  Leg. Branch Approps...  A: voice vote (7/
                                                                                                10/96).         
H. Res. 474 (7/10/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 3396........  Defense of Marriage     A: 290-133 (7/11/
                                                                        Act.                    96).            
H. Res. 475 (7/11/96)..........  O................  H.R. 3756........  Treasury/Postal         A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps.                16/96).         
H. Res. 479 (7/16/96)..........  O................  H.R. 3814........  Commerce, State         A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps.                17/96).         
H. Res. 481 (7/17/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 3820........  Campaign Finance        .................
                                                                        Reform.                                 
H. Res. 482 (7/17/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 3734........  Personal                A: 358-54 (7/18/ 
                                                                        Responsibility Act.     96).            
H. Res. 483 (7/18/96)..........  O................  H.R. 3816........  Energy/Water Approps..  A: voice vote (7/
                                                                                                24/96).         
H. Res. 488 (7/24/96)..........  MO...............  H.R. 2391........  Working Families......  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; S/C-structured/closed rule; A-adoption vote;
  D-defeated; PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.   




                    amendment offered by mr. solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 2, line 8, strike 
     ``No'' and insert the following:

     ``The amendment numbered 1 printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 
     of rule XXIII on Wednesday, July 24, 1996, by Representative 
     Thomas of California shall be considered as adopted in the 
     House and in the Committee of the Whole. No other''.

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is such a bad rule for such a bad bill that even my 
Republican colleagues had difficulty last week when the time came to 
vote to report it. For the first time in my memory, and I am assured 
for the first time in history, the Committee on Rules has reported a 
rule without recommendation. This rule is so bad that the Republican 
leadership was forced to postpone its consideration for a week. I was 
under the impression that campaign finance reform had been envisioned 
as the centerpiece for Reform Week. But because this rule has 
engendered significant opposition as evidenced by the manner in which 
it was reported from the Rules Committee, perhaps it was postponed 
until a fix for the bad rule and the bad Republican bill could be 
pieced together. Otherwise it seems that this rule might have been in 
danger of losing had it been brought to the floor last week.
  So in an attempt to reform this so-called reform proposal, my 
Republican colleagues are now proposing an amendment to H.R. 3820 which 
will not be considered by the Committee on House Oversight nor will it 
be considered by the House Rules Committee and in fact it really will 
not be considered by the full House.

                              {time}  1145

  The chairman of the Committee on Rules has been forced to come to the 
floor and offer an amendment to the rule which will self-enact 
significant changes in the bill authored by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas] in the hopes of passing a rule for a bill which 
he admits is going nowhere.
  But in the interest of full and open debate, I will oppose the 
previous question at the conclusion of the debate on this rule. I will 
oppose the previous question in the hopes that the rule can be changed 
to not just insert the changes proposed by the gentleman from 
California, Chairman Thomas, to his bill, but to allow any Member to 
offer any germane amendment to the base bill.
  The Thomas-Solomon amendment still does not address the significant 
philosophical differences expressed by the gentlewoman from Washington 
[Mrs. Smith], by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], and by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan]. I hope the House will vote 
against the previous question in order to allow debate on this 
important proposal offered by these three Members as well as many other 
Members of the House.
  Chairman Solomon is asking the House to adopt an amendment to the 
Thomas bill when the reported rule itself only allows for consideration 
of one other amendment, a Demoractic substitute to be offered by the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Farr. The House should have the 
opportunity to consider the Smith-Shays proposal, as well as a number 
of other important amendments that were presented to the Rules 
Committee.
  Chairman Solomon has offered an amendment which significantly changes 
the Thomas proposal. I must ask, Mr. Speaker, why is this amendment 
being brought to the floor with little or no consideration or debate 
when other amendments have been shut out? Could this amendment be a 
bone tossed to those Republican Members who objected to the original 
Thomas proposal as one that gave wealthy individuals inordinate 
influence in the political process?
  The Solomon-Thomas amendment to the Thomas bill reduces the amount of 
permissible individual contributions from $2,500 to $1,000, the 
allowable contribution under current law. PAC contributions are 
unchanged from the Republican bill, $2,500 per election and $5,000 per 
cycle. The amendment does establish an aggregate annual limit for 
individuals at $50,000 per year, the same as the Democratic substitute. 
But even if hard money contributions have been reduced from the 
original Thomas proposal, soft money contributions remain unlimited.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment does reduce some of the difference 
between the Republican bill and the Democratic substitute, but there 
are still significant differences that are at play. The Republican bill 
still does not limit campaign expenditures. The Democratic substitute 
does, by limiting spending to $600,000 per election.
  In spite of these new amendments offered today, by not limiting 
campaign spending, the Republican bill still says there is not enough 
money in campaigns. The Thomas bill will still adhere to the philosophy 
espoused by Speaker Gingrich last fall when he told the Committee on 
House Oversight, ``One of the greatest myths of modern politics is that 
campaigns are too expensive. The political process, in fact, is 
underfunded.''
  The Thomas amendment appears to limit the influence of wealthy 
contributors, but in fact, that is an illusion. The illusion becomes 
especially apparent when examining those provisions of the Thomas bill 
which require that 50.1 percent of a candidate's total fund-raising 
must come from in-district contributions.
  I am particularly troubled by this provision, since those candidates 
with wealthy friends who happen to live within the boundaries of the 
congressional district can raise virtually unlimited amounts of money, 
which will then be matched by PAC contributions and contributions from 
individuals who live outside the district.
  While the in-district fundraising requirement raises serious 
constitutional freedom of speech questions, it is also inherently 
unfair to those candidates who either represent areas with low-income 
residents or who cannot depend on wealthy individuals to up the 
fundraising ante for them. I fear the candidates who will be most 
adversely affected will be African-Americans, Hispanics, and women. I 
must hold suspect and I will oppose any system which systematically 
denies those groups access to the political process, and that is what 
the Thomas proposal does.

[[Page H8462]]

  I would like to elaborate on a specific example that I raised in the 
Rules Committee on this point. If an individual candidate happens to 
have two wealthy precincts in his district, and he has 100 people from 
those two wealthy precincts out to the local country club and they give 
him $2,000 each, he can raise $200,000 from 100 people in those two 
wealthy precincts in his district. Then he can match that with $200,000 
from PAC's and from wealthy individuals who do not live in his 
district, thereby raising $400,000.
  If the challenger has a lot of small events and raises a lot of small 
contributions totaling $50,000 inside his district, he can then match 
that with $50,000 from outside his district. He will only be able to 
spend $100,000. The other candidate, who can raise a lot of large 
dollar contributions inside his district, would be able to spend 
$400,000, four times as much as the second candidate.
  What kind of reform is this? I contend that the end result of the 
Thomas proposal will be to distort the original purpose of campaign 
finance reform as well as the current calls for reform of the system. I 
urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question to allow for 
free and open debate on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], one of the very valuable members of the 
Committee on Rules, the subcommittee Chair.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from new York, [Mr. Solomon] 
who is the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding 
me the time. I must commend him on his handling of this extraordinarily 
difficult piece of legislation. His leadership and open-mindedness on 
this matter I think have been exemplary. This rule has truly required 
the wisdom of Solomon.
  Most agree that the current system is not working, and we all 
understand that Americans have become disillusioned with the political 
process. But the proposed solutions that we have got really run the 
gamut, and generating a consensus is extremely difficult, not quite 
impossible but extremely difficult.
  Our Committee on Rules action on this matter represents a microcosm 
of the divergence of views, as we have heard from the two previous 
speakers. Even our majority Members in the committee were torn about 
what is the best way to go, which explains why this rule did originally 
come forward without our expressed endorsement. It is also why we have 
an amendment to the rule to incorporate additional changes in the base 
bill, as we have heard.
  Although I believe the amendment to the rule makes improvements in 
the base bill, most notably by sending a stronger signal that we want 
to control the flow of money into campaigns, it is still my view that 
this bill needs lots more time, lots more work. It is not comprehensive 
campaign reform, and I make no pretense that it is. But it is an 
important, if small, step toward full reform for the first time in this 
Congress in decades.
  Mr. Speaker, it is true the 104th Congress has made some remarkable 
changes in how we do business. We adopted a stringent gift ban. We 
implemented real lobby disclosure reform. We put in place changes to 
promote accountability. We brought sunshine in. We restored some public 
confidence.
  Yet, even with these landmark reforms, Congress continues to suffer 
from a serious credibility problem, based in part on the skepticism 
with which people view political campaigns. I must say, I agree. The 
Federal election laws are outdated. They are overdue for reform.
  H.R. 3820, as improved by this rule, has some very good features. It 
requires that 50 percent of all contributions come from a candidates's 
home district.
  It bans soft money. It eliminates leadership PAC's. While the 
original bill recognized that individuals and PAC's should be treated 
equally when it comes to contribution limits, albeit at a higher limit 
than exists today, the amendment to the rule would maintain a 
discrepancy between levels of contributions by individuals and PAC's.
  This provision, to me, represents sort of a mixed bag. It is 
preferential to the original language in the bill since it maintains 
the current $1,000 threshold for individual donations. it keeps them 
low, but I believe it loses almost as much ground as it gains in giving 
up on the idea of equalizing PAC's with individuals, since a lot of us 
think it is very important to treat PAC's and individuals the same.
  My proposal and my practice is to keep the individual limit at $1,000 
and lower the PAC limit to that same $1,000 amount, and it works well 
for me. Not only does my bill, which is not in order today, equalize 
contribution limits at the $1,000 level, it also requires that 50 
percent of contributions come from a candidate's district and that 90 
percent come from within a candidate's State. Other Members have 
similar thoughts.
  I think it is vital that we restore the direct link of accountability 
between elected officials and the people they represent and work for. 
That is what this is about, accountability. The bill before us makes 
progress in that regard, and obviously it needs to go further.
  I must say I do not believe the Democratic substitute we will 
consider today is a worthwhile alternative, in that it advocates 
retaining higher spending by PAC's, even more money from PAC's, and 
provides roundabout incentives for overall spending limits which tilt 
the field toward incumbents, and that we hear a lot about. We do not 
want to give the incumbents the advantage.
  In addition, the Democratic substitute makes no attempt to protect 
union members from misuse of their dues, and that is an issue this 
year, some 35 million dollars' worth of issue, something that H.R. 3820 
does address in a very meaningful way.
  In closing, I commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] and 
him committee for trying to bring a consensus measure forward, a 
measure I will support on the understanding that more will be done 
toward full reform.
  Meanwhile, Members have another option, and it is one I am going to 
take. That is the choice to voluntarily self-impose more stringent 
standards in one's own campaign, including things like tighter limits 
on PAC's, perhaps fewer dollars spent on franked election pieces, which 
are thinly disguised as newsletters sometimes. Those options are out 
there for each Member.
  Meanwhile, I urge support of this rule in order to begin the debate 
on reform that I predict will last for years before consensus is found, 
but at least we are beginning the debate.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman indicated that 
this Republican bill bans soft money. I think that is a gross 
misstatement. The bill does not change existing law as to how soft 
money would be transferred among committees, nor does it limit it, but 
it does open up an exceedingly large new approach to spending soft 
money.
  Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, I will leave the debate on the merits 
of the bill, as it should be, to the debate on the subject, not a 
debate on the rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Clay].
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I will not oppose the rule, but I do oppose 
the underlying purpose driving this legislation.
  In addition to seeking to increase the ability of the wealthy to 
dominate the political process, this bill also contains labor law 
provisions that have never been reported by committee and are 
nongermane to the issue of campaign finance reform.
  Title IV of the bill requires unions to obtain annual written 
authorization from a worker before that worker may pay any money to a 
union for services not directly related to the provision of 
representation. In effect, this section repeals the right of workers to 
voluntarily join unions. It also diminishes a right to organize or 
litigate on behalf of their members.
  H.R. 3820 imposes costly and burdensome paperwork requirements on 
unions. The cost of these reporting requirements alone has been 
estimated at approximately $200 million a year.

[[Page H8463]]

  Mr. Speaker, this provision is placed in the bill solely to harass 
and harm labor unions. It is absolutely unnecessary.
  Unions are democratic organizations whose officers and policies are 
determined by the majority will of their members. Unions are already 
under more extensive reporting and disclosure requirements than 
virtually all other institutions. No one is required to join a union.
  Unions are obligated by law to inform relevant employees that they 
are not required to pay full union dues. Unions must inform such 
employees of the percentage of their union dues that are used for 
purposes other than directly related to collective bargaining.
  The alleged evil that this legislation seeks to address is already 
fully regulated by law. Employees can protect their rights simply by 
filing a charge with the National Labor Relations Board. The Beck 
decision created a right for workers who disagree with the majority of 
their fellow workers to object to paying for certain union activities.
  Rather than protecting the right of the minority to object to certain 
expenditures, this legislation imposes absurd obstacles in the path of 
the majority's ability to engage in political activity.
  Both labor unions and corporations participate in politics. 
Corporations spend millions of shareholder dollars for the purpose of 
directly influencing the political process. Views expressed by 
corporations do not necessarily reflect the views of those who are 
paying for that expression, the shareholders, or those who are 
generating the money, the employees.
  The Republican majority has singled out labor unions for a kind of 
harsh, punitive treatment not imposed on corporations.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not about protecting free and open 
political discourse, and I urge Members to vote against H.R. 3820.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Naperville, IL, Mr. Harris Fawell.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I certainly rise in support of this rule and of the campaign 
reform legislation which we will be debating today.
  Title IV, as has already been indicated, of the campaign finance bill 
is a revised version of legislation that I introduced, which is 
referred to as the Worker Right to Know Act. This legislation is 
designed to implement the basic rights of workers established in the 
U.S. Supreme Court Beck decision back in 1988. It has never been 
implemented.
  Although the Worker Right to Know Act is being portrayed by some as 
something of a Trojan horse that will destroy unions, I hope that my 
colleagues will view the legislation for what it is; namely an 
empowerment for working men and women who, in order to keep their jobs, 
and this is very important, in order to keep their jobs they are 
obligated to pay collective-bargaining union dues. It is called a union 
security agreement, and that is key to the discussion.
  Why is this legislation necessary? The fact of the matter is that 
almost a decade after the Beck decision, workers are required to pay 
union dues as a condition of employment and are not aware that under 
Beck they are not obligated to pay non-collective-bargaining dues, nor 
do they know, really, how to implement the Beck rights.
  A recent poll conducted for Americans for a Balanced Budget found 
that, of the 1,000 union members polled, 78 percent did not even know 
that they had a right to a refund of the non-collective-bargaining 
portion of their dues. And 58 percent did not know their dues were even 
used to support political activities.
  I held a hearing on the issue of mandatory union dues in the 
Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations of the Committee on 
Economic and Educational Opportunities. We heard the frustration being 
expressed by the employees caught up in the current system who feel 
forced to support ideological, political, and social causes that they 
do not agree with. They cannot walk away and leave the union because 
they must pay the dues. My colleagues would also find it impossible, as 
I did, to tell them that the time is not right for reform.
  The Worker Right to Know Act thus provides that an employee cannot be 
required to pay to a union nor can a union accept payment of any dues 
not necessary for collective bargaining unless the employee consents in 
writing in a written agreement with the union.
  The bill also provides that the agreement must also include a ratio 
of both collective bargaining and non-collective-bargaining dues. The 
legislation requires such agreements to be renewed annually, and that 
is basically it. That seems to me to be basic democracy.
  What we have here is we have revised this bill to basically say 
written consent and just tell us what the ratios are. That is all.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have been at the center of virtually every 
effort to reform campaign finance since the day I walked into this 
institution, but this exercise today is absolutely useless. It is going 
to produce a useless bill, which is an absolutely fraudulent imitation 
of real campaign reform. It gives the wealthy an even greater lock on 
the political system than they have right now.
  The main issue in campaign finance is simply, how do we change the 
fact that wealthy people have far too much influence on politics today, 
whether they give individually or collectively?
  The existing campaign finance system is beyond repair. It ought to be 
blown up. What amazes me is that we continue this fiction in this place 
that somehow elections ought to be handled as a private matter. There 
is no more public activity in which American citizens engage than 
electing the leaders who are supposed to help run the country.
  This is a public responsibility. It should not be financed by the 
richest private deep-pockets people in this country. That is why the 
electoral system is virtually owned lock, stock, and barrel by the 
economic elite in this country, and we are not going to change that 
until we blow up the existing system.
  I am against this silly rule because it refused to allow my amendment 
to be offered which would have banned all private money whatsoever in 
general elections. It would have eliminated all soft money loopholes. 
It would have eliminated the fiction that we have something called 
independent expenditures, which are just another legalized sham to get 
around the law. It would have imposed limits on what political 
candidates can spend, and it would have ended the ability of both 
parties to launder money and get it to their own candidates.
  It would have financed that by imposing a one-tenth of 1 percent 
assessment on all corporations who make profits of more than $10 
million. It would have created a fund into which individual Americans 
can voluntarily, I emphasize voluntarily, voluntarily contribute as 
much money as they choose in order to create a grassroots democracy 
fund out of which campaigns would be funded on a public basis.
  The Republican bill that is being brought out here today, for 
instance, says there ought to be a 50 percent requirement for funds 
that are raised in a Member's district. What an absolute sham. That 
means that someone under independent expenditures can spend $100,000 or 
$200,000 raised outside of a candidate's State. They can go into his 
district and spend a million bucks if they want to in an independent 
expenditure, and yet the target of that expenditure is defenseless 
because he has to limit what he can raise to his own district.
  What an absolute prescription to give the millionaires and 
billionaires of this country an opportunity to own the system even more 
than they do today. It is a disgrace and the Democratic alternative is 
too weak to do any good. I am against the whole shebang.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington State [Mrs. Smith].
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I stand today against this 
rule because we are right at the same place we have been for many 
years. A

[[Page H8464]]

couple of powerful people will decide what is going to be their 
partisan bill and bring them out to the floor and beat each other up 
with them.
  I do have to say there seems to be a little more openness on the 
Democrat side to try to come up with something than there was on the 
Republican side, but what we find here is a question of why do we need 
reform. Simple as this: The Republicans, who have the Contract With 
America, promised this. The gentleman from Texas, Dick Armey, said we 
are united in the belief the people's House must be wrested from the 
grip of special interests and handed back to the American people.
  It is as simple as this. We made our commitments. Promises made. Now 
it is time to keep those promises.
  Neither one of the bills included in this rule do anything but 
tighten the grip or give credibility to the grip. The American people 
need to understand that the Republican bill before us today tightens 
the grip. It gives credibility to the money-laundering soft money 
system. It solidifies it in law. If people do not think the tobacco 
industry has some kind of a toehold, at least a little grip on this 
place, hang around here for a year as I have.
  The Democrat bill still lets big groups give $8,000, one check at a 
time, night after night, at fund raisers here in Washington, DC. We all 
can do better than that.
  What I challenge both sides to do is, we have 3 hours. The American 
people are watching. Are we going to beat each other up the rest of the 
day over partisan positioning, making nasty remarks about each other, 
or are we going to spend these 2 hours trying to come together? We have 
a recommittal vote that will take the Democrats agreeing, working 
together with some Republicans. We can still bring a good bill to this 
floor. I would ask that we think about that and vote against the rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise on the rule. This rule brings two bills to the 
floor. It brings the Republican bill, H.R. 3820, authored by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], and it brings the Democrat 
bill, H.R. 3505, which I have authored. I have authored it as a 
substitute to the Republican bill.
  The rule, as it is designed in coming before us right now, reflects 
what the Republicans want, which is new law with no spending limits; no 
limits, no caps, and no reform.
  But, I say to my colleagues, we have a choice: true reform with 
limits, which is the alternative. It limits PAC's, limits large 
contributions, and it limits what rich candidates can put into their 
own campaigns. It allows small contributors to contribute and bring 
back into the role of choosing their candidates for public office.
  I support the rule and I urge my colleagues to support the rule. The 
rule is tight, but it is the only way that it allows us to debate 
campaign reform this year.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, there comes a time in a legislator's life 
when he or she has to be held accountable. On the issue of campaign 
finance reform that day has arrived.
  We have been talking about reforming the way Congress does business 
for this entire Congress. Fundamentally, there is no more effective way 
to change the way Congress does business but than to change our 
campaign finance laws. We have cajoled. The Republican leadership has 
delayed this issue, played games with this issue.
  We were supposed to deal with it last week, now we are going to deal 
with it this week. And what do we have? We have a group of us who have 
worked in a bipartisan way, 21 Democrats and 20 Republicans, in a 
bicameral way, working with Members of the U.S. Senate to come up with 
a bill that will do two things: first, voluntarily cap how much money 
is spent in elections and, second, curb the influence of special 
interest PAC's.
  The President is waiting at the White House for that bill and he is 
ready, willing, and able to sign it. But that has the Republican 
leadership nervous, so we have a rule before the House that does not 
allow the bill, the bipartisan bill, which has more editorial and 
public support all across America than any legislation on campaign 
finance reform that we have dealt with in recent years.
  What do they put in its place? They put in a bill that is such an 
embarrassment to their own membership that, when we were debating 1-
minutes this morning, not one Republican came to the floor to defend 
that phony, foolish piece of legislation called campaign finance 
reform.
  There are no spending limits. It codifies the corrupt soft money 
loophole. It doubles the aggregate amount that an individual can 
contribute to parties and Federal candidates without capping the 
contributions. There are so aggregate limits.
  This bill that they have submitted is a sham. This debate is a sham, 
and the American people are going to call it for what it is.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Rocklin, CA, [Mr. John Doolittle].
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule because it 
only allows two versions of campaign finance reform, both of which miss 
the mark. They are both based on the false diagnosis that campaign 
spending is out of control. They are both offering the false 
prescription that more regulation and limits are needed.
  With reference to the false diagnosis, indeed, looking back over 
history, we can see election spending since 1980 has been fairly 
constant, fluctuating between four one-hundredths of 1 percent and six 
one-hundredths of 1 percent of gross domestic product.

                              {time}  1245

  Americans spend more each year buying yogurt and buying potato chips 
than they do on congressional elections. Clearly, we are not spending 
too much money when juxtaposed with other legitimate expenditures that 
we are making.
  As to the prescription that more regulation is needed, has anyone 
heard of the first amendment? Congress shall make no law abridging the 
freedom of speech. I listened to the gentleman from Wisconsin over 
here. Congress specifically and the people of this country specifically 
did not want government regulating this with all the force that 
government can bring. They wanted people to be able to vote, and that 
is how they would make their decisions. When we imposed campaign 
spending limits, we hurt the challenger.
  If you do not believe that, just listen to what Mr. David Broder had 
to say recently in the Washingtonian. He said, raise the current $1,000 
limit on personal campaign contributions to $50,000, maybe even go to 
$100,000. Today's limits are ridiculous, given television and campaign 
costs. Raising the limit with full disclosure would enable some people 
to make really significant contributions to help a candidate.
  For these reasons, we should oppose the rule and the bills.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time. I stand in strong support of this rule. This is the so-called 
Reform Week, but the most important reform, campaign finance reform, 
will not be reformed.
  We have before us today two drastically different approaches to 
campaign finance. The Republican bill puts more money in the system. 
The Democratic bill limits the amount, voluntarily limits 
contributions, expenditures, and limits soft money. The two bills are 
miles apart, and really dead on arrival.
  This rule is an extremely interesting one. For the first time in 
recent memory, the Committee on Rules reported out a bill that does not 
urge the adoption of the rule. I commend my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from New York, for this legislative innovation. I believe the 
Republicans are pulling out all stops to save the Republicans from the 
major embarrassment of having to vote on their radical, out of touch, 
more money, more special interest in politics.
  We need a vote on this rule. We need to let our constituents and the 
American public know whether their Congressperson supports more money

[[Page H8465]]

in the system or less money in the system, so that when they go to vote 
this fall when we are up for election they will know how their 
Congressperson voted on campaign finance reform: More money, more 
special interests or less money and less special interests.
  I truly believe that given the fact that these bills, campaign 
finance bills, died in the Senate that both of these bills are dead on 
arrival. The only real chance for campaign finance reform in this 
session is an independent commission.
  Mr. Speaker, you publicly endorsed it. You shook hands on it. Let us 
turn the promise of your handshake into the reality of a law.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, the previous gentleman from California 
lamented that the American people spend more on potato chips than they 
do on campaigns. The problem is that in campaigns, they are spending 
$1,000 a bag. Some of them just cannot stop with one.
  Democrats say they want campaign finance reform. Republicans say they 
want campaign finance reform. The public demands campaign finance 
reform. Mr. Speaker, this is not campaign finance reform.
  Most people think the problem with campaigns today is that there is 
too much spending in elections. This bill on the floor says the problem 
is there is not enough spending in elections.
  This bill increases the amount that the wealthiest can contribute. 
That is not reform. This bill increases the amount that individuals can 
give to political parties. That is not reform. It does nothing to stop 
the unlimited soft money, the real loophole in this present process. 
That is not reform. It does nothing to limit giving to the political 
parties. In fact, it increases how much you can give. That is a big 
loophole. It does nothing to reign in independent expenditures, one of 
the biggest loopholes around right now. It does nothing to limit how 
much political parties can spend in behalf of a candidate. That is a 
big loophole. That is not reform. It has nothing to do with what the 
American people want and what they tell me. It does nothing to limit 
the cost of a congressional campaign. That is not reform.
  There is already too much spending in elections, too much time spent 
on fundraising. So presumably then reform would limit this, would it 
not? Not this bill. It means more spending, more fundraising, more 
costs, more money in elections. That is not reform.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me the public is going to have to demand 
and take this matter into their own hands by demanding that candidates 
live up to a voluntary code. The public is going to have to demand its 
own reform because this leadership is not bringing that reform to the 
floor today. It is not reform.
  Please, vote against the bill. But let us vote for the rule to get 
this debate started, and maybe 1 day we are going to get some real 
campaign reform around here.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, this is always a very difficult time for 
Members because we are dealing with something which affects every one 
of us.
  It is also especially troublesome because we are dealing with an 
attempt to write law in an area where the Constitution is fairly clear 
and the Supreme Court, periodically and most recently, reclarified 
where we are dealing with people's fundamental first amendment right of 
freedom of speech.
  But I do have to say that the gentleman from West Virginia and 
several other speakers have certainly exercised their free speech 
rights in characterizing and perhaps overzealously characterizing 
provisions in both bills.
  These bills do in fact limit. Ours limits, it limits in a different 
way. When we get into discussions about the bills and their substance, 
we obviously will have a lot of time to talk about the new way in which 
wee limit.
  I am going to spend some time talking about the common way in which 
both bills limit and reform. It just seems to me that as we discuss 
what we are doing here, we do have to keep in mind that there is a 
Constitution, that there are rights.
  The Supreme Court has corrected the overzealousness of Congress in 
the past. We should move reform. It should be done carefully. We will 
talk about the substance.
  But as we deal with the rhetoric, and it appears that we are warming 
up on the rhetoric, we really ought to try to stick to the facts and 
the substance, because, frankly, some folks are getting just a little 
carried away.
  For example, the gentleman said that there were no limits whatsoever 
on the amount that individuals could give to parties. There is. There 
is an aggregate limit in the Democrats' bill and in our bill, and it is 
the same amount.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. WISE. Does the gentleman do anything to limit soft money? Does 
the gentleman's bill do anything to limit soft money?
  Mr. THOMAS. Yes. In our bill we take that money which can now be 
spent, the money which national parties can now spend in mixed activity 
in which they can utilize all soft money, and say, any time the 
national party is involved with Federal candidates, it must be so-
called hard money, you cannot use soft money. That is a change.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I would like nothing better than to reach 
out and work with the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], with the 
gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith], with other Members of the 
Republican side of this House and try to develop a genuinely bipartisan 
approach to this very difficult problem. So long as campaign finance 
reform is just a matter of how you can do more harm to your opponents 
than you can do unto yourself, we are not going to get anywhere.
  That is where we are this morning, because the Republican leadership 
of this House is so afraid of a bipartisan approach, the Clean Congress 
Act, they will not even permit a vote on it. They have come this 
morning, determined to poison the well with their labor baiting, which 
they could have handled in a separate piece of legislation. But just in 
case there was any chance this Congress really might get down to the 
business of reform, they added a little poison, just to be sure that 
this Congress did not clean itself up.
  You talked about having a shovel up here to clean up the Congress, 
but what you really have in mind through this bill is to shovel in just 
a little more special interest money.
  One partisan after another gets up to defend this approach. Do not 
look to the Democrats or to the Republicans on this. Look to every 
nonpartisan organization that has ever tried to clean up the campaign 
finance system. You will not find one, not one organization in this 
country that endorses the kind of sham that we are offered today in 
this piece of legislation.
  Whether it is the League of Women Voters, whether it is Common Cause, 
whether it is the National Council of Churches, they reject this 
because it is not reform. It leads us down the road to one roadblock 
after another to block the legitimate concerns of the American people.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], chairman of Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, yet another example of overzealousness.
  The gentleman said that what we do is allow more folks to shovel in 
even more special interest money. Special interest money is usually 
defined as political action committee money. Our bill cuts political 
action committee contributions by 50 percent, far more than the 
Democrats' bill provides.
  We had testimony in front of the committee that labor unions are now 
involving themselves in the political process to the tune of $300 to 
$400 million. That amount is not disclosed.
  The provisions that we have in the bill requires that union political 
money to be disclosed. What we do is empower the rank and file to say, 
if you want your money spent for those political purposes, by all 
means, tell the unions to go ahead. But if you do not, following the 
court's decision, you can say no. We allow the rank and file to say no 
to the unions if they want to. It is their choice.
  That is the kind of positive reform many Democrats are afraid of.

[[Page H8466]]

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] is correct on 
one point; that is, that campaign finance affects each Member of this 
House and we are not exactly objective. But we should be concerned when 
every interest group, public interest group, has said that the 
Republican bill is phony and it is worse than no change in the current 
law. There is good reason for that.
  I am concerned that this rule does not give us the opportunity to 
have a free and open debate in this House.
  The Republicans told us that we were going to have open debates on 
the floor, but this rule does not permit it. There is a bipartisan bill 
that was developed by Democrats and Republicans. We are not going to 
have the opportunity under this rule to offer that bipartisan 
substitute.
  There are concerns that many of us have. The Thomas bill allows soft 
money to be used by special interests, by corporations, by large 
contributors to now do new things to influence congressional campaigns. 
I would like to be able to offer an amendment to change that.
  This bill will now not allow me to offer such an amendment. I believe 
that our constituents want us to limit the total amount of money spent 
in congressional campaigns. This rule will not allow me to offer such 
an amendment.
  I believe there should be overall limits on the amount of PAC 
contributions that we can accept. This rule will not allow me to offer 
that amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to do what the gentleman from Texas has 
suggested. Let us defeat the previous question so we can have a true, 
open debate on this floor.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the previous gentleman 
that he should not stand up and say that the rule prevents the 
bipartisan alternative to be offered on the floor. We are giving you 
twice the time that you have given us in the past two Democrat 
Congresses when you were in power. We are giving you two bites, and you 
just heard the main sponsor say that she was going to have the 
opportunity to offer that in the motion to recommit.
  Please do not try to confuse the Members. You will have two bites at 
the apple.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Bloomfield Hills, MI [Mr. Knollenberg].

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me, and I appreciate the mention of Bloomfield. It is my home.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. This rule would allow us 
to continue the debate not only on campaign finance but on the 
important issue of a workers right to know.
  Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that the union leaders grab anywhere 
from $709 to $2,019 each year in membership dues. Yet, if you asked the 
worker how his or her hard-earned money is spent, they probably could 
not tell you.
  After all, Mr. Speaker, union leaders like nothing more than to have 
their rank and file uninformed about their actions. And when they do 
decide to inform its membership or the public, it is a sad commentary 
on truthfulness. Just ask the radio and TV stations who have pulled 
union ads because of mistruths, distortions, and outright lies.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to let the Sun shine in. Language in H.R. 
3760 lets union members decide for themselves whether they want their 
hard-earned union dues to go toward political scare tactics and 
misinformation. Whether you are for or against a balanced budget or 
increasing minimum wage, H.R. 3760 empowers each and every union member 
to see how their money is spent and object to dues taken out beyond 
those necessary for collective bargaining purposes.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule. I urge my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to vote for the rule and allow us to continue the debate. 
Employees have the right to know.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule. The 
American people deserve a full and open debate on the issue of campaign 
finance reform. They truly do want to see the system cleaned up.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill makes a mockery of 
the reform that is needed to restore integrity to our political 
process. The American people look at this Republican Congress, and they 
see an institution that is being sold out to the highest bidder.
  When my Republican colleagues took over this Congress 18 months ago, 
they promised to change the way business is done in Washington. Instead 
they have proved themselves to be masters at the special interest game.
  Common Cause, the good government reform lobby, says that the bill 
that is on the floor today, and I quote: The Thomas bill is a fraud. 
End quote.
  It does not improve our system of campaign finance, it makes the 
system worse. Wealthy individuals who have reaped the lion's share of 
Republican tax cuts will be able to contribute even more money to 
Republicans in the future and have even more influence. The wealthy 
will still be allowed to funnel unlimited amounts of cash to the 
Republican Party, and this bill does absolutely nothing to limit 
campaign spending in congressional races.
  But let me just say this is in keeping with what the Speaker, the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] has talked about in this issue. 
Speaker Gingrich has said that we need more money, not less money in 
our political system and, sadly, this bill lives up to Newt Gingrich's 
vision of reform.
  This bill sadly misses an opportunity we so desperately need for 
reform, and it continues the same old Washington game.
  Again quoting Common Cause: Any Member of Congress who votes for the 
Thomas bill is voting to protect a corrupt way of life in Washington, 
DC.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this phony reform bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Bakersfield, CA [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for 
yielding once again. I think we are getting carried away with our own 
rhetoric. The gentlewoman from Connecticut just said this is the same 
old Washington game. Apparently she does not understand that in the 
majority's legislation we end the same old Washington game. We say, 
``You have to get a majority of your money from people who live back 
home.'' We say that the incumbents who had a monopoly on the Washington 
game do not get it anymore.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a fundamentally changed system, and I understand 
that a number of folk who are, and I will not yield at this point, 
there are a number of people who are getting carried away with their 
rhetoric. And I will tell my colleagues that if they do not like the 
majority's provision, if they do not like the minority's provision, I 
implore them to talk to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Frost].
  Under this rule we have provided a motion to recommit with or without 
instructions. The gentleman from Wisconsin can have his wishes met, the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut, if she has a wish, can have her wishes 
met, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] can have his wishes 
met.
  If my colleagues do not like what is in front of them, offer it as 
the motion to recommit. Then we will determine whether they are in this 
process to promote reform or whether they are in the process to stir 
the pot and create more rhetoric and confusion in the minds of the 
American people.
  Mr. Speaker, during general debate I will be more than willing to 
discuss the substance of the bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me. I must say, for me this is a very sad day, because if my 
colleagues really believe we need the best government money can buy, 
they must be thrilled.

[[Page H8467]]

  Let me put this in some kind of context. My average campaign 
contribution when I first got elected was $7.50. Today it is $50. So I 
really believe in the Jeffersonian concept that we should not have 
special interest money here. But nevertheless, this is going to allow 
more, more, more.
  Now we saw something historic. We saw the Committee on Rules report 
this first reform bill out, without any recommendation, because even 
they were embarrassed. It allowed a family of four to give $12.4 
million. Oh, yes, they would be a real free agent if somebody gave them 
$12.4 million, and so what they had to do, and let me finish and then I 
will be happy to yield--
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentlewoman said my name indirectly.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I said the Committee on Rules. I thought the 
gentleman's name was Solomon. Is the gentleman's name Committee on 
Rules? I am sorry.
  OK. But then what happened is they called on the gentleman from 
California to do this radical surgery on the bill and so, voila, we now 
have another bill because they have been promising reform and we have 
not seen it.
  And now we just had the gentleman from California say, ``Our big 
chance to do something that's really pure is we can all arm wrestle 
over here for who gets the motion to recommit.'' Well, I mean there are 
lots of different ideas. What is wrong with the rule that allows us to 
mend things, discuss things, and so forth?
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say what I think the problem is. I think the 
problem goes back to that bipartisan handshake that we saw the 
President and the Speaker have in New Hampshire over a year ago when 
they said, look, this is like base closing. The Congress is not 
different than any other group. The hardest thing for any group to do 
is reform itself, and it is especially hard when they are weaning 
themselves off money. We ought to go back to that concept, get a 
commission in here and move forward on that. Maybe that should be the 
motion to recommit, Mr. Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume 
just to say to my good friend who is retiring, and we are going to miss 
her dearly in a number of different ways, but I happen to think she is 
a nice person, and I like her, but let me just say she says the 
Committee on Rules was embarrassed. That is not true.
  I tell my colleagues we have 9 Republicans, we have 4 Democrats, and 
I would say that of the 13 members, that there were 13 different 
opinions up there. And when I looked back and look at what we are going 
to do, and I looked at the 102d Congress which the gentlewoman was 
involved with and the 103d which she was involved with, and she voted 
to gag Republicans, according to what she is saying here, the same as 
she says we are gagging them now, which is not the case. Actually we 
are giving them twice as many opportunities to work their will on the 
floor.
  As I understood it, the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith] was 
here earlier, and she said that the Democrats were going to give her 
the opportunity to offer what she called an alternative, a bipartisan 
alternative. I do not know that, now I understand that is not going to 
happen. But as my colleagues know, let us let the House work its will, 
let us bring this bill to the floor, and let us have meaningful debate, 
and let us not be so partisan about it. Why do we not just try to 
discuss the issue and have a good solid debate that the American people 
understand?
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just say that it is very interesting, and I 
appreciate the chairman of the Committee on Rules speaking in favor of 
an open rule on this bill, and that is exactly what I am trying to 
achieve. The chairman of the Committee on Rules just said, ``Well, 
let's let this be debated, let's vote on these issues.''
  Well, that is what I am proposing, and, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' 
vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I 
shall offer an open rule which will allow Members to offer any germane 
amendment to the bill.
  I include the text of the amendment and accompanying documents for 
the Record at this point in the debate:

Previous Question Amendment Text--House Resolution -- for Consideration 
               of H.R. 3820, Campaign Finance Reform Act

       In lieu of the amendment offered by Representative Solomon 
     of New York insert the following:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following: ``That at any time after the adoption 
     of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) 
     or rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee 
     of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 3820) to amend the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act to reform the financing of Federal 
     election campaigns, and for other purposes. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on House Oversight. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the 
     bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion, except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.''

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this Congress the 
Republican majority claimed that the House was going to consider bills 
under an open process.
  I would like to point out that 60 percent of the legislation this 
session has been considered under a restrictive process.
  


          FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION; COMPILED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Process used for floor   Amendments in
            Bill No.                    Title           Resolution No.         consideration           order    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1*........................  Compliance........  H. Res. 6            Closed................           None.
H. Res. 6......................  Opening Day Rules   H. Res. 5            Closed................           None.
                                  Package.                                                                      
H.R. 5*........................  Unfunded Mandates.  H. Res. 38           Restrictive...........            N/A.
H.J. Res. 2*...................  Balanced Budget...  H. Res. 44           Restrictive...........         2R; 4D.
H. Res. 43.....................  Committee Hearings  H. Res. 43 (OJ)      Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Scheduling.                                                                   
H.R. 101.......................  To transfer a       H. Res. 51           Open..................            N/A.
                                  parcel of land to                                                             
                                  the Taos Pueblo                                                               
                                  Indians of New                                                                
                                  Mexico.                                                                       
H.R. 400.......................  To provide for the  H. Res. 52           Open..................            N/A.
                                  exchange of lands                                                             
                                  within Gates of                                                               
                                  the Arctic                                                                    
                                  National Park                                                                 
                                  Preserve.                                                                     
H.R. 440.......................  To provide for the  H. Res. 53           Open..................            N/A.
                                  conveyance of                                                                 
                                  lands to certain                                                              
                                  individuals in                                                                
                                  Butte County,                                                                 
                                  California.                                                                   
H.R. 2*........................  Line Item Veto....  H. Res. 55           Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 665*......................  Victim Restitution  H. Res. 61           Open..................            N/A.
                                  Act of 1995.                                                                  
H.R. 666*......................  Exclusionary Rule   H. Res. 60           Open..................            N/A.
                                  Reform Act of                                                                 
                                  1995.                                                                         
H.R. 667*......................  Violent Criminal    H. Res. 63           Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Incarceration Act                                                             
                                  of 1995.                                                                      
H.R. 668*......................  The Criminal Alien  H. Res. 69           Open..................            N/A.
                                  Deportation                                                                   
                                  Improvement Act.                                                              
H.R. 728*......................  Local Government    H. Res. 79           Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Law Enforcement                                                               
                                  Block Grants.                                                                 
H.R. 7*........................  National Security   H. Res. 83           Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Revitalization                                                                
                                  Act.                                                                          
H.R. 729*......................  Death Penalty/      N/A                  Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Habeas.                                                                       
S. 2...........................  Senate Compliance.  N/A                  Closed................           None.
H.R. 831.......................  To Permanently      H. Res. 88           Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  Extend the Health                                                             
                                  Insurance                                                                     
                                  Deduction for the                                                             
                                  Self-Employed.                                                                
H.R. 830*......................  The Paperwork       H. Res. 91           Open..................            N/A.
                                  Reduction Act.                                                                
H.R. 889.......................  Emergency           H. Res. 92           Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  Supplemental/                                                                 
                                  Rescinding                                                                    
                                  Certain Budget                                                                
                                  Authority.                                                                    
H.R. 450*......................  Regulatory          H. Res. 93           Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Moratorium.                                                                   
H.R. 1022*.....................  Risk Assessment...  H. Res. 96           Restrictive...........            N/A.
H.R. 926*......................  Regulatory          H. Res. 100          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Flexibility.                                                                  
H.R. 925*......................  Private Property    H. Res. 101          Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  Protection Act.                                                               
H.R. 1058*.....................  Securities          H. Res. 105          Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  Litigation Reform                                                             
                                  Act.                                                                          
H.R. 988*......................  The Attorney        H. Res. 104          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Accountability                                                                
                                  Act of 1995.                                                                  
H.R. 956*......................  Product Liability   H. Res. 109          Restrictive...........         8D; 7R.
                                  and Legal Reform                                                              
                                  Act.                                                                          

[[Page H8468]]

                                                                                                                
H.R. 1158......................  Making Emergency    H. Res. 115          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Supplemental                                                                  
                                  Appropriations                                                                
                                  and Rescissions.                                                              
H.J. Res. 73*..................  Term Limits.......  H. Res. 116          Restrictive...........          1D; 3R
H.R. 4*........................  Welfare Reform....  H. Res. 119          Restrictive...........        5D; 26R.
H.R. 1271*.....................  Family Privacy Act  H. Res. 125          Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 660*......................  Housing for Older   H. Res. 126          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Persons Act.                                                                  
H.R. 1215*.....................  The Contract With   H. Res. 129          Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  America Tax                                                                   
                                  Relief Act of                                                                 
                                  1995.                                                                         
H.R. 483.......................  Medicare Select     H. Res. 130          Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  Extension.                                                                    
H.R. 655.......................  Hydrogen Future     H. Res. 136          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Act.                                                                          
H.R. 1361......................  Coast Guard         H. Res. 139          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Authorization.                                                                
H.R. 961.......................  Clean Water Act...  H. Res. 140          Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 535.......................  Corning National    H. Res. 144          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Fish Hatchery                                                                 
                                  Conveyance Act.                                                               
H.R. 584.......................  Conveyance of the   H. Res. 145          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Fairport National                                                             
                                  Fish Hatchery to                                                              
                                  the State of Iowa.                                                            
H.R. 614.......................  Conveyance of the   H. Res. 146          Open..................            N/A.
                                  New London                                                                    
                                  National Fish                                                                 
                                  Hatchery                                                                      
                                  Production                                                                    
                                  Facility.                                                                     
H. Con. Res. 67................  Budget Resolution.  H. Res. 149          Restrictive...........         3D; 1R.
H.R. 1561......................  American Overseas   H. Res. 155          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Interests Act of                                                              
                                  1995.                                                                         
H.R. 1530......................  National Defense    H. Res. 164          Restrictive...........     36R; 18D; 2
                                  Authorization                                                      Bipartisan.
                                  Act; FY 1996.                                                                 
H.R. 1817......................  Military            H. Res. 167          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Construction                                                                  
                                  Appropriations;                                                               
                                  FY 1996.                                                                      
H.R. 1854......................  Legislative Branch  H. Res. 169          Restrictive...........       5R; 4D; 2
                                  Appropriations.                                                    Bipartisan.
H.R. 1868......................  Foreign Operations  H. Res. 170          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
H.R. 1905......................  Energy & Water      H. Res. 171          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
H.J. Res. 79...................  Constitutional      H. Res. 173          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Amendment to                                                                  
                                  Permit Congress                                                               
                                  and States to                                                                 
                                  Prohibit the                                                                  
                                  Physical                                                                      
                                  Desecration of                                                                
                                  the American Flag.                                                            
H.R. 1944......................  Recissions Bill...  H. Res. 175          Restrictive...........            N/A.
H.R. 1868 (2nd rule)...........  Foreign Operations  H. Res. 177          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
H.R. 1977 *Rule Defeated*......  Interior            H. Res. 185          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
H.R. 1977......................  Interior            H. Res. 187          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
H.R. 1976......................  Agriculture         H. Res. 188          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
H.R. 1977 (3rd rule)...........  Interior            H. Res. 189          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
H.R. 2020......................  Treasury Postal     H. Res. 190          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
H.J. Res. 96...................  Disapproving MFN    H. Res. 193          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  for China.                                                                    
H.R. 2002......................  Transportation      H. Res. 194          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
H.R. 70........................  Exports of Alaskan  H. Res. 197          Open..................            N/A.
                                  North Slope Oil.                                                              
H.R. 2076......................  Commerce, Justice   H. Res. 198          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
H.R. 2099......................  VA/HUD              H. Res. 201          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
S. 21..........................  Termination of      H. Res. 204          Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  U.S. Arms Embargo                                                             
                                  on Bosnia.                                                                    
H.R. 2126......................  Defense             H. Res. 205          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
H.R. 1555......................  Communications Act  H. Res. 207          Restrictive...........     2R/3D/3 Bi-
                                  of 1995.                                                             partisan.
H.R. 2127......................  Labor/HHS           H. Res. 208          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations                                                                
                                  Act.                                                                          
H.R. 1594......................  Economically        H. Res. 215          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Targeted                                                                      
                                  Investments.                                                                  
H.R. 1655......................  Intelligence        H. Res. 216          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Authorization.                                                                
H.R. 1162......................  Deficit Reduction   H. Res. 218          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Lock Box.                                                                     
H.R. 1670......................  Federal             H. Res. 219          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Acquisition                                                                   
                                  Reform Act of                                                                 
                                  1995.                                                                         
H.R. 1617......................  To Consolidate and  H. Res. 222          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Reform Workforce                                                              
                                  Development and                                                               
                                  Literacy Programs                                                             
                                  Act (CAREERS).                                                                
H.R. 2274......................  National Highway    H. Res. 224          Open..................            N/A.
                                  System                                                                        
                                  Designation Act                                                               
                                  of 1995.                                                                      
H.R. 927.......................  Cuban Liberty and   H. Res. 225          Restrictive...........          2R/2D.
                                  Democratic                                                                    
                                  Solidarity Act of                                                             
                                  1995.                                                                         
H.R. 743.......................  The Teamwork for    H. Res. 226          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Employees and                                                                 
                                  Managers Act of                                                               
                                  1995.                                                                         
H.R. 1170......................  3-Judge Court for   H. Res. 227          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Certain                                                                       
                                  Injunctions.                                                                  
H.R. 1601......................  International       H. Res. 228          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Space Station                                                                 
                                  Authorization Act                                                             
                                  of 1995.                                                                      
H.J. Res. 108..................  Making Continuing   H. Res. 230          Closed................  ..............
                                  Appropriations                                                                
                                  for FY 1996.                                                                  
H.R. 2405......................  Omnibus Civilian    H. Res. 234          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Science                                                                       
                                  Authorization Act                                                             
                                  of 1995.                                                                      
H.R. 2259......................  To Disapprove       H. Res. 237          Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  Certain                                                                       
                                  Sentencing                                                                    
                                  Guideline                                                                     
                                  Amendments.                                                                   
H.R. 2425......................  Medicare            H. Res. 238          Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  Preservation Act.                                                             
H.R. 2492......................  Legislative Branch  H. Res. 239          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Appropriations                                                                
                                  Bill.                                                                         
H.R. 2491......................  7 Year Balanced     H. Res. 245          Restrictive...........             1D.
H. Con. Res. 109...............   Budget                                                                        
                                  Reconciliation                                                                
                                  Social Security                                                               
                                  Earnings Test                                                                 
                                  Reform.                                                                       
H.R. 1833......................  Partial Birth       H. Res. 251          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Abortion Ban Act                                                              
                                  of 1995.                                                                      
H.R. 2546......................  D.C.                H. Res. 252          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Appropriations FY                                                             
                                  1996.                                                                         
H.J. Res. 115..................  Further Continuing  H. Res. 257          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations                                                                
                                  for FY 1996.                                                                  
H.R. 2586......................  Temporary Increase  H. Res. 258          Restrictive...........             5R.
                                  in the Statutory                                                              
                                  Debt Limit.                                                                   
H.R. 2539......................  ICC Termination...  H. Res. 259          Open..................  ..............
H.J. Res. 115..................  Further Continuing  H. Res. 261          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations                                                                
                                  for FY 1996.                                                                  
H.R. 2586......................  Temporary Increase  H. Res. 262          Closed................            N/A.
                                  in the Statutory                                                              
                                  Limit on the                                                                  
                                  Public Debt.                                                                  
H. Res. 250....................  House Gift Rule     H. Res. 268          Closed................             2R.
                                  Reform.                                                                       
H.R. 2564......................  Lobbying            H. Res. 269          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Disclosure Act of                                                             
                                  1995.                                                                         
H.R. 2606......................  Prohibition on      H. Res. 273          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Funds for Bosnia                                                              
                                  Deployment.                                                                   
H.R. 1788......................  Amtrak Reform and   H. Res. 289          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Privatization Act                                                             
                                  of 1995.                                                                      
H.R. 1350......................  Maritime Security   H. Res. 287          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Act of 1995.                                                                  
H.R. 2621......................  To Protect Federal  H. Res. 293          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Trust Funds.                                                                  
H.R. 1745......................  Utah Public Lands   H. Res. 303          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Management Act of                                                             
                                  1995.                                                                         
H. Res. 304....................  Providing for       N/A                  Closed................         1D; 2R.
                                  Debate and                                                                    
                                  Consideration of                                                              
                                  Three Measures                                                                
                                  Relating to U.S.                                                              
                                  Troop Deployments                                                             
                                  in Bosnia.                                                                    
H. Res. 309....................  Revised Budget      H. Res. 309          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Resolution.                                                                   
H.R. 558.......................  Texas Low-Level     H. Res. 313          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Radioactive Waste                                                             
                                  Disposal Compact                                                              
                                  Consent Act.                                                                  
H.R. 2677......................  The National Parks  H. Res. 323          Closed................            N/A.
                                  and National                                                                  
                                  Wildlife Refuge                                                               
                                  Systems Freedom                                                               
                                  Act of 1995.                                                                  
                                   PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION                                   
                                                                                                                
H.R. 1643......................  To authorize the    H. Res. 334          Closed................            N/A.
                                  extension of                                                                  
                                  nondiscriminatory                                                             
                                  treatment (MFN)                                                               
                                  to the products                                                               
                                  of Bulgaria.                                                                  
H.J. Res. 134..................  Making continuing   H. Res. 336          Closed................            N/A.
H. Con. Res. 131...............   appropriations/                                                               
                                  establishing                                                                  
                                  procedures making                                                             
                                  the transmission                                                              
                                  of the continuing                                                             
                                  resolution H.J.                                                               
                                  Res. 134.                                                                     
H.R. 1358......................  Conveyance of       H. Res. 338          Closed................            N/A.
                                  National Marine                                                               
                                  Fisheries Service                                                             
                                  Laboratory at                                                                 
                                  Gloucester,                                                                   
                                  Massachusetts.                                                                
H.R. 2924......................  Social Security     H. Res. 355          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Guarantee Act.                                                                
H.R. 2854......................  The Agricultural    H. Res. 366          Restrictive...........       5D; 9R; 2
                                  Market Transition                                                  Bipartisan.
                                  Program.                                                                      
H.R. 994.......................  Regulatory Sunset   H. Res. 368          Open rule; Rule tabled            N/A.
                                  & Review Act of                                                               
                                  1995.                                                                         
H.R. 3021......................  To Guarantee the    H. Res. 371          Closed rule...........            N/A.
                                  Continuing Full                                                               
                                  Investment of                                                                 
                                  Social Security                                                               
                                  and Other Federal                                                             
                                  Funds in                                                                      
                                  Obligations of                                                                
                                  the United States.                                                            
H.R. 3019......................  A Further           H. Res. 372          Restrictive...........          2D/2R.
                                  Downpayment                                                                   
                                  Toward a Balanced                                                             
                                  Budget.                                                                       
H.R. 2703......................  The Effective       H. Res. 380          Restrictive...........       6D; 7R; 4
                                  Death Penalty and                                                  Bipartisan.
                                  Public Safety Act                                                             
                                  of 1996.                                                                      
H.R. 2202......................  The Immigration     H. Res. 384          Restrictive...........     12D; 19R; 1
                                  and National                                                       Bipartisan.
                                  Interest Act of                                                               
                                  1995.                                                                         
H.J. Res. 165..................  Making further      H. Res. 386          Closed................            N/A.
                                  continuing                                                                    
                                  appropriations                                                                
                                  for FY 1996.                                                                  
H.R. 125.......................  The Gun Crime       H. Res. 388          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Enforcement and                                                               
                                  Second Amendment                                                              
                                  Restoration Act                                                               
                                  of 1996.                                                                      
H.R. 3136......................  The Contract With   H. Res. 391          Closed................            N/A.
                                  America                                                                       
                                  Advancement Act                                                               
                                  of 1996.                                                                      
H.R. 3103......................  The Health          H. Res. 392          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Coverage                                                                      
                                  Availability and                                                              
                                  Affordability Act                                                             
                                  of 1996.                                                                      
H.J. Res. 159..................  Tax Limitation      H. Res. 395          Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  Constitutional                                                                
                                  Amendment.                                                                    
H.R. 842.......................  Truth in Budgeting  H. Res. 396          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Act.                                                                          
H.R. 2715......................  Paperwork           H. Res. 409          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Elimination Act                                                               
                                  of 1996.                                                                      
H.R. 1675......................  National Wildlife   H. Res. 410          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Refuge                                                                        
                                  Improvement Act                                                               
                                  of 1995.                                                                      
H.J. Res. 175..................  Further Continuing  H. Res. 411          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations                                                                
                                  for FY 1996.                                                                  
H.R. 2641......................  United States       H. Res. 418          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Marshals Service                                                              
                                  Improvement Act                                                               
                                  of 1996.                                                                      

[[Page H8469]]

                                                                                                                
H.R. 2149......................  The Ocean Shipping  H. Res. 419          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Reform Act.                                                                   
H.R. 2974......................  To amend the        H. Res. 421          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Violent Crime                                                                 
                                  Control and Law                                                               
                                  Enforcement Act                                                               
                                  of 1994 to                                                                    
                                  provide enhanced                                                              
                                  penalties for                                                                 
                                  crimes against                                                                
                                  elderly and child                                                             
                                  victims.                                                                      
H.R. 3120......................  To amend Title 18,  H. Res. 422          Open..................            N/A.
                                  United States                                                                 
                                  Code, with                                                                    
                                  respect to                                                                    
                                  witness                                                                       
                                  retaliation,                                                                  
                                  witness tampering                                                             
                                  and jury                                                                      
                                  tampering.                                                                    
H.R. 2406......................  The United States   H. Res. 426          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Housing Act of                                                                
                                  1996.                                                                         
H.R. 3322......................  Omnibus Civilian    H. Res. 427          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Science                                                                       
                                  Authorization Act                                                             
                                  of 1996.                                                                      
H.R. 3286......................  The Adoption        H. Res. 428          Restrictive...........         1D; 1R.
                                  Promotion and                                                                 
                                  Stability Act of                                                              
                                  1996.                                                                         
H.R. 3230......................  Defense             H. Res. 430          Restrictive...........      41 amends;
                                  Authorization                                                      20D; 17R; 4
                                  Bill FY 1997.                                                      bipartisan.
H.R. 3415......................  Repeal of the 4.3-  H. Res. 436          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Cent Increase in                                                              
                                  Transporation                                                                 
                                  Fuel Taxes.                                                                   
H.R. 3259......................  Intelligence        H. Res. 437          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Authorization Act                                                             
                                  for FY 1997.                                                                  
H.R. 3144......................  The Defend America  H. Res. 438          Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  Act.                                                                          
H.R. 3448/H.R. 1227............  The Small Business  H. Res. 440          Restrictive...........             2R.
                                  Job Protection                                                                
                                  Act of 1996, and                                                              
                                  The Employee                                                                  
                                  Commuting                                                                     
                                  Flexibility Act                                                               
                                  of 1996.                                                                      
H.R. 3517......................  Military            H. Res. 442          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Construction                                                                  
                                  Appropriations FY                                                             
                                  1997.                                                                         
H.R. 3540......................  Foreign Operations  H. Res. 445          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations FY                                                             
                                  1997.                                                                         
H.R. 3562......................  The Wisconsin       H. Res. 446          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Works Waiver                                                                  
                                  Approval Act.                                                                 
H.R. 2754......................  Shipbuilding Trade  H. Res. 448          Restrictive...........             1R.
                                  Agreement Act.                                                                
H.R. 3603......................  Agriculture         H. Res. 451          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations FY                                                             
                                  1997.                                                                         
H.R. 3610......................  Defense             H. Res. 453          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations FY                                                             
                                  1997.                                                                         
H.R. 3662......................  Interior            H. Res. 455          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations FY                                                             
                                  1997.                                                                         
H.R. 3666......................  VA/HUD              H. Res. 456          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                                                               
H.R. 3675......................  Transportation      H. Res. 460          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations FY                                                             
                                  1997.                                                                         
H.J. Res. 182/H.Res 461........  Disapproving MFN    H. Res. 463          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Status for the                                                                
                                  Peoples Republic                                                              
                                  of China.                                                                     
H. Con. Res. 192...............  Making in order a   H. Res 465           Closed................            N/A.
                                  Concurrent                                                                    
                                  Resolution                                                                    
                                  Providing for the                                                             
                                  Adjournment of                                                                
                                  the House over                                                                
                                  the 4th of July                                                               
                                  district work                                                                 
                                  period.                                                                       
H.R. 3755......................  Labor/HHS           H. Res. 472          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations FY                                                             
                                  1997.                                                                         
H.R. 3754......................  Legislative Branch  H. Res. 473          Restrictive...........         3D; 5R.
                                  Appropriations FY                                                             
                                  1997.                                                                         
H.R. 3396......................  Defense of          H. Res. 474          Restrictive...........             2D.
                                  Marriage Act.                                                                 
H.R. 3756......................  Treasury, Postal    H. Res. 475          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations,                                                               
                                  FY 1997.                                                                      
H.R. 3814......................  Commerce, Justice,  H. Res. 479          Open..................            N/A.
                                  State                                                                         
                                  Appropriations,                                                               
                                  FY 1997.                                                                      
H.R. 3820......................  Campaign Finance    H. Res. 481          Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  Reform Act of                                                                 
                                  1996.                                                                         
H.R. 3734......................  The Personal        H. Res. 482          Restrictive...........         1D; 1R.
                                  Responsibility                                                                
                                  Act of 1996.                                                                  
H.R. 3816......................  Energy and Water    H. Res. 483          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations,                                                               
                                  FY 1997.                                                                      
H.R. 2391......................  Working Families    H. Res. 488          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Flexibility Act                                                               
                                  of 1996.                                                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. All legislation 1st Session, 53% restrictive; 47% open. *** All    
  legislation 2d Session, 60% restrictive; 40% open. All legislation 104th Congress, 56% restrictive; 44% open. 
  ***** NR indicates that the legislation being considered by the House for amendment has circumvented standard 
  procedure and was never reported from any House committee. PQ Indicates that previous question was ordered on 
  the resolution. Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and    
  include so-called modified open and modified closed rules as well as completely closed rules and rules        
  providing for consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. This definition of         
  restrictive rule is taken from the Republican chart of resolutions reported from the Rules Committee in the   
  103d Congress. N/A means not available.                                                                       


  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
rule of H.R. 3820. This bill was originally reported out of the Rules 
Committee without any recommendation.
  H.R. 3820 is a bad bill. Instead of improving the campaign election 
process, it makes the current situation worse by increasing the amount 
of money, particularly special interest money, in the system. The 
average American gives about $200 to a Federal campaign so it is clear 
that provisions of this bill that increase the caps on donations to 
candidates and to political parties is designed to favor wealthy 
individuals and not the average citizen.
  H.R. 3820 should be sent back to the House Oversight Committee and 
the House Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee for further 
review. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule on H.R. 3820 and 
work to pass a real campaign finance reform bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield myself such time as I might consume to say, Mr. 
Speaker, I am a little confused because my good friend, the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Frost] did not offer an amendment in the Committee on 
Rules to have an open rule. We might have considered that along with 
all of the other requests. As a matter of fact, I seem to recall that 
he said that they were going to give us enough votes on the floor to 
pass this rule to get the bill out of the floor, and that is really why 
we are here.
  I really have not made up my mind how I am going to vote on either 
the Republican or the Democratic alternative, but the one thing I am 
going to do, I am going to support the attempt of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas] to try to bring forth a more bipartisan 
approach on the floor of this House, and that is exactly what my 
colleagues are going to be voting on when they vote for this rule. They 
are going to be voting to bring the two bills closer together and give 
us that kind of an alternative.
  So I hope the Members will come over. Whether they are going to vote 
for the bill or not, I hope they will come over here and support this 
rule which brings the bill to the floor so that we can have this open 
and meaningful debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 193, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 361]

                               YEAS--221

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand

[[Page H8470]]


     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--193

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Flake
     Forbes
     Ford
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Lincoln
     Markey
     McDade
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Rose
     Roth
     Smith (NJ)
     Tanner
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1301

  Messrs. JEFFERSON, JOHNSTON of Florida, and ROBERTS changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. LATHAM, FLANAGAN, HANSEN, BUNN of Oregon, FRISA, and KING, 
Mrs. ROUKEMA, and Mr. BEREUTER changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 270, 
nays 140, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 362]

                               YEAS--270

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Yates
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--140

     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bunn
     Burton
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Davis
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Graham
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     King
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Luther
     Manton
     Martinez
     Martini
     McCollum
     McHale
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal
     Obey
     Orton
     Packard
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Roberts
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Thompson
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weldon (FL)
     White
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Bono
     Bryant (TX)
     Chrysler
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Cox
     Dornan
     Forbes
     Ford
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Kasich
     Lincoln
     Markey
     McDade
     Peterson (FL)
     Rose
     Roth
     Smith (NJ)
     Tanner
     Torricelli
     Walsh
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1310

  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 481 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3820.

[[Page H8471]]

                              {time}  1311


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
3820) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reform the 
financing of Federal election campaigns, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Inglis of South Carolina in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 9 minutes.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, this is an important day. There were a 
number of people who never thought it would come about. The argument 
that the House simply cannot address reform of its own rules, many 
said, would lead us not to this day.
  Notwithstanding whatever occurred over in the Senate, we have in 
front of us two reform pieces of legislation with the opportunity for 
the minority, on the motion to recommit, to offer some variation that 
they choose to offer.
  No one doubts that the job in front of us is a difficult one. As we 
heard on the rule, there are any number of Members who would like to 
offer a substitute. As a matter of fact, if we had an open rule, there 
would probably be 435 different reform procedures, which means everyone 
could find a home and there would not be a majority to try to bring 
about change.
  What we have here are clearly two different approaches to reform: 
First of all, let me say that I want to commend the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio] and his staff, and I want to commend the 
majority on our side of the aisle on the Committee on House Oversight 
and out staff.
  Trying to put together a package which meets the various needs of the 
Members even required an amendment to the rule. I do not think anyone 
should criticize that process. I think people sent us here to get it 
right. If it requires adjustments right up to the time that we discuss 
the bill, it is better to do that than to lock in stone some position 
which may not afford us an opportunity to move forward.

                              {time}  1315

  What we are trying to do today is move forward. I am very pleased 
that in both bills there are a significant number of common reforms. In 
the longest and most extensive hearings on campaign finance reform 
since the law was passed, we heard from a number of different 
witnesses. No two witnesses stressed the same theme more than the 
chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Don Fowler, and the 
chairman of the Republican national committee, Haley Barbour, when they 
sat side-by-side and talked about the perhaps good intentions of the 
reformers in the 1970's but the very serious unforeseen consequences of 
the law over the last 20 years on the question of political parties.
  In both bills today, we see very positive reform in the area of 
political parties, expanded opportunities to participate in the system, 
fewer restrictions in trying to support the issues and the candidates 
that the parties put forward. As a matter of fact, one of America's 
foremost experts on political parties, Professor Larry Sabato, who has 
also coauthored a book entitled ``Dirty Little Secrets,'' about the way 
money flows in Washington, said this about our bill, but it extends to 
a certain extent to the Democrats' provisions about political parties, 
as well. He says, ``No title is as welcome as strengthening political 
parties.'' He says, ``The parties are essential, stabilizing 
institutions in an increasingly chaotic political environment. In our 
society's self-interest, they deserve to be bolstered in every 
reasonable way.'' He says, ``I enthusiastically support the provision 
on party reform.''

  Also, I think a number of cynics say that we, since we are 
incumbents, cannot reform ourselves. I think it is important to note 
that in both bills, both the Republican and the Democratic bill, we ban 
leadership PAC's, just 1 day after one of our local newspapers ran an 
article about how through leadership PAC's Members of Congress are 
raising significant new, and in fact record, amounts of money. No one 
can say we are not interested in reform if we are in fact denying this 
kind of a structure. Banning leadership PAC's is in the Republican 
bill, and it is in the Democrat bill.
  There are additional disclosure requirements, and we will go into 
some of the differences, but fundamentally both bills tighten up in the 
area of disclosure. However, Mr. Chairman, there are obviously 
fundamental differences, and the fundamental differences in the bill 
center around the way in which the Democrats and the Republicans choose 
to use government, the role of government and the use of government.
  In the minority's bill, they use government to control and limit. In 
our bill, we use government to empower individuals. For example, in the 
Farr bill, there are a very confusing set of dollar amounts which are 
used to determine how one can participate in the political game. One 
can spend $600,000 in the primary and the general, but you have got to 
have a set amount from individuals over a set amount of dollars. If in 
fact you are in a close primary; that is, a primary within 20 points of 
your opponent, then there are new rules that apply. If you are in a 
run-off, there are additional rules. It is a very complicated attempt 
to use government to limit participation in the system.
  On the other hand, we have a new approach. It is a novel approach. As 
a matter of fact, David Broder in The Washington Post said it may point 
the way to the future. It essentially reverses the traditional 
definition of reform. It may offer a way out of the maze. The Cleveland 
Plain Dealer said it comports rather well with political and 
constitutional realities and it is worth a try.
  What we do is empower individuals. We say that the control on the 
amount of money spent in elections is in the hands of the people back 
home, local control of campaign finances. A number of our colleagues 
who have not yet fully appreciated the radicalness of this procedure 
say there are no limits at all. Pretty obviously when they are used to 
staying in Washington and raising money, they are not excited about 
having the people back home determine how much money they can spend. We 
hear criticisms of the system that we have to spend time in New York or 
in Dallas or in Hollywood raising money and we are away from our basic 
job of representing our constituents.
  Well, folks, with the new position, the new thinking, the Republican 
bill, you get to go back home more often than not because you are 
required to raise a majority of your money back home. If that was a 
problem under the current system, we have changed it.
  A number of folks have said special interest control, that in fact 
the problem is the corruption or at least the appearance of corruption 
with special interest money putting in a majority of money in a number 
of campaigns. Folks, we fix that. A majority of money has to come from 
individuals who live in the district. We empower the people back home.
  In addition, we weaken incumbents by allowing parties to offset the 
incumbent carryover. This is a relatively radical idea. There have been 
suggestions to ban carryover, but we are the biggest sharks in the 
water as soon as the bell rings. What we have said is empower political 
parties to offset incumbent advantages.
  But the biggest and the best device to control incumbents is to tell 
them they have to go back home and get a majority of money from people 
who live in the district because in Washington, we have a monopoly on 
attention. In any other major city, we have a monopoly on attention. 
When we go back to the district, we have to share our incumbency with 
the other candidates. We do not have the privilege of exclusivity back 
home. It is the most radical, the best method of controlling 
incumbents. When people say we do not have a limit, no, we do not use 
Government to control, we do not impose a one-size-fits-all limit. What 
we do do is empower people back home. When a majority of people in your 
district have

[[Page H8472]]

said you have spent enough, you have spent enough. Empowering people 
back home is a radical, positive change in campaign finance reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by indicating that we have enjoyed working 
with the majority on this issue. It is never easy to deal with the 
issues of great interests of Members and it is always more difficult to 
try to set the tone to in fact lead, than to critique. We in the 
Democratic Party have experienced that for a number of years.
  It has become obvious to most Americans that there is far too much 
money in politics today, giving wealthy special interests far too much 
influence in the election campaigns and decreasing the voice of every-
day working Americans in their own government.
  Fearful of the effect of big money in our political system, the 
Democrats have for years been fighting for changes in the campaign 
finance laws; however, each time reform legislation has passed this 
House, it has been ultimately rebuffed, either by President Bush's veto 
or by more recent series of Republican-led filibusters in the Senate.
  Having for so long resisted Democratic efforts to limit campaign 
spending, the new majority recently offered its plan for changing our 
political system, and what was that plan of the Republican leadership? 
Put most plainly, the majority's so-called campaign reform was to 
vastly increase the role of money in politics by enormously increasing 
all contribution limits. They sought to ensure that those interests 
with the greatest wealth would be permitted to contribute even greater 
sums into the campaign process as if the wealthiest in our society did 
not already wield enough influence in our politics.
  Indeed, under the majority's bill, a single individual could have 
contributed up to $3.1 million to candidates and political parties; 
that is, $3.1 million from one person. Put another way, under the 
Republican proposal initially proposed, a family of four could have 
contributed nearly $12.5 million per election cycle. It is a 
breathtaking sum and more than 125 times the amount permitted under 
current law.
  Perhaps this is their version of a family's first agenda, but it is 
hardly the change the American people are seeking. While the political 
parties may need strengthening, the majority's bill went to extremes in 
this regard as well, permitting the party to raise obscene sums of 
money from special interests that then in turn funnel unlimited, yes, 
and I mean fully unlimited, amounts of that money back into the 
campaign system, creating what the New York Times called a new class of 
super donors. What a very Republican idea that is.

  Of course the inevitable result of allowing the political parties to 
raise and spend unlimited amounts of money is to further centralize 
political power and political wealth here in Washington, DC. This is 
hardly returning power to the average voter or reducing the influence 
of special interests.
  But as word got out about what the majority wanted to do, Americans 
of all sorts were appalled at this effort to increase the influence of 
the rich and the powerful. Public interest groups, newspaper 
editorials, concerned Democrats, even some reform-minded Republicans 
fought to stop this abomination from becoming law, and now thanks to 
these efforts the Republican leadership has offered an amended version 
of the bill.
  But they still do not get it. There is too much money with too much 
influence in our political system and regrettably the majority's bill 
does absolutely nothing to fix the problem.
  The Democratic approach to campaign finance reform differs 
dramatically from the bill put forth by the Republican leadership. Put 
most plainly, we believe that our political system will not be 
effectively reformed until the role of big money is reduced and the 
influence of special interests decline. Our substitute bill is an 
effort to achieve that goal and to bring some sanity back to our 
campaign system. Our bill is designed to reduce the cost of campaigns 
by establishing voluntary spending limits, and the Democratic bill 
would require candidates to rely much more upon small contributions 
from those givers who donate $200 or less to campaigns.
  Unlike the majority's bill, the Democratic proposal would also reform 
the soft money system by eliminating virtually all such contributions 
to political parties. Our approach to campaign finance reform is 
realistic. It is balanced, and it is achievable. Through these 
measures, we hope to limit the influence of money in our politics and 
restore the influence of ordinary working Americans in their 
government.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge all my colleagues to vote against H.R. 
3820 and to vote for H.R. 3505, the Democratic substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Wamp], a freshman who has had as much influence in 
redirecting campaign finance reform as any Member of the House.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the 
time, but more importantly for his leadership on this issue.
  As a member of the Speaker's task force on reform, I have worked with 
many others tirelessly on this effort for many months. But Chairman 
Thomas has been working on this effort for many years. Unlike other 
senior Members, some other senior Members of this body, he has pursued 
reform on campaign finance for year after year, and I commend him for 
this responsibility and balanced approach.
  Mr. Chairman, I am 1 of only 22 Members of this body that refuses to 
accept any PAC money, so I really come to this argument with a desire 
to eliminate political action committees. As a matter of fact, I 
testified last week before the Committee on Rules and asked for an 
amendment that would ban political action committee contributions and 
force the Supreme Court through expedited review to go ahead now and 
determine should we ban political action committees or can we 
constitutionally do so and, if we cannot, then let us set a new limit, 
but let us go ahead and have the Supreme Court determine as soon as 
possible.
  Obviously, that is not going to be done. That is my preference. But I 
am a reformer, one who refuses to accept the money, and I will tell you 
that this bill is reform. It is a step in the right direction. It is 
certainly not totally comprehensive, it is not perfect. Frankly, no 
bill that I have seen in the last 2 years is perfect, but this is a 
step in the right direction because it cuts PAC's, special interest 
political action committee contributions in half.

                              {time}  1330

  That is a step in the right direction: disconnecting so much of their 
influence. It requires a majority of a Member's money to come from 
individuals in their home district. Another great step in the right 
direction. Why? Because some Members take the majority of their money 
from people outside their district. Some stay here in Washington and 
raise all their money and do not count on the folks back home to tell 
them what to do and then follow their instructions.
  It also leaves the individual limit. The bill that is on the floor 
today, not a bill that was floating around before, the bill this 
majority has brought to the floor leaves the individual limit at a 
thousand dollars, but it indexes it into the future because it is set 
for 22 years at $1,000. The cost of money has changed in the last 22 
years, so it should be indexed into the future, not retroactively. This 
bill indexes it prospectively.
  It is a commnsense solution, and it is real reform. Every Member of 
this body should support this reasonable approach that took many months 
and a roller coaster ride to arrive at.
  I want to say this in closing, Mr. Chairman. The gauntlet should go 
down today. This issue must be addressed early in 1997 by the next 
Congress, regardless of this fall's elections. For the good of this 
country, do not put this issue off until the second year in the 105th 
Congress. Do not put this issue off until late in a cycle. Address it 
early, address it in a bipartisan way.
  We have to do it, and we need to send more Members to this 
institution that will say no to political action committees from both 
parties. Let us address this in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney].

[[Page H8473]]

  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of real 
campaign finance reform. I rise, however, in opposition to the sorry 
excuse that the Republicans are offering today.
  Had it not been for the Democrats, the Republican bill would still 
allow individuals to contribute up to $3.1 million a year. And while 
that provision was revised, the Republicans actually increase the 
influence of soft-money contributions.
  The Democratic substitute, on the other hand, reduces this influence 
and requires a spending limit of $600,000. The Republican bill still 
allows unlimited campaign spending.
  In short, Mr. Chairman, the Democratic substitute offers real reform 
while the born-again Republican bill increases the role of big money in 
politics.
  Once again, Mr. Chairman, the Republican Party has demonstrated its 
desire to perfect the art of cash-and-carry government.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], my good friend and another member 
of the Committee on House Oversight.
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. Since the 
President and Speaker Gingrich shook hands, the American people have 
been expecting progress on campaign finance reform. The public will be 
bitterly disappointed if this bill passes, even with the improvements 
made by the rule, because it fails it fails, it fails to deliver true 
reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to focus on an issue which the chairman speaks 
to, empowering the people of my district. I tell my friend from 
California, I presume, like me, 100 percent of those who will elect me 
live in my district. They are empowered. They have the right to make a 
decision. But I, like the gentleman from California, am very cognizant 
of the demographics of my district and every district in America and 
the spread between Republicans and Democrats.
  We do not have to have a very expensive poll or focus group to find 
out that the wealthier folks in most districts in America tend to be 
Republicans. Not absolutely. And, in fact, from my perspective, I have 
raised to this point in time much more in district, both in terms of 
percentage of givers--over 50 percent of the givers--and in percentage 
of money, than my opponent has in my district. So this will not 
adversely affect me.
  I say to my friend, if one wanted to be cynical, one would say, if we 
were going to devise a system that advantages the wealthy and the 
powerful in America, then limit fund raising in districts so that the 
wealthy and powerful in every district will have the advantage. I say 
to my friends, that this is not reform, this is elitism disguised as 
reform.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  What we just heard was an example of a failure to really understand 
how radical this new idea is, because the gentleman failed to make one 
particular connection, and that is the end in politics are votes, not 
money. Money is the name of the means. If in fact we are in the 
district talking to people, we are in fact going toward the end. If we 
are in New York, outside our district, that is the means: money. If we 
are in Hollywood, that is the means: money. When we are in our 
district, we are working toward the end. Time is money.
  It is a radical change. It will take time for some Members, who are 
so focused on money, to appreciate that we can actually get elected 
without it. It is called hard work. It is called organization. It is 
time we put the common man back in the picture working to elect someone 
without looking at dollars. Majority in district empowers people, not 
big bucks.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Hoekstra], the chairman of the reform task force.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California for 
yielding me this time and compliment him on the fantastic work he has 
done to bring this bill to the floor.
  As a Member of Congress and someone who got out and spent somewhere 
in the neighborhood of 15 to 1 or 20 to 1 in my first election in a 
primary, I come to this debate with a different background than many of 
my colleagues. Also serving in my second term, I think it is important 
for us to take a look at the way things used to be in the House of 
Representatives.
  Let us talk about that, It took the new majority to apply all laws 
that apply to the private sector and make them apply to Congress. It 
was the new majority that took the bold step that banned gifts. It was 
the new majority that conducted the first-ever audit of House finances. 
It was the new majority that passed comprehensive lobby reform. It was 
the new majority that held the first ever vote on term limits for 
Members of Congress. It was the new majority that passed a balanced 
budget amendment to the Constitution. We set term limits for the 
Speaker. We set term limits for committee chairs.
  So for the record, as we go through this debate today, we do not need 
lectures from the other side of the aisle on reform. We have spent the 
last 18 months cleaning up after them.
  As for some of the other participants that have been critical of this 
effort at reform, Common Cause, it is interesting. They created the 
current campaign finance system. Now they want to experiment with 
public funding, more big government, more big bureaucracy, moving 
decision-making away from the people and moving it to Washington. Their 
proposal is based on the myth of the magical Washington bureaucracy. We 
do not need lectures on how to reform a broken campaign finance system 
from the same group that gave us this system in the first place.
  This is a solid campaign finance bill. It has been a frustrating 
process. It has been a tough process. As we have watched through the 
debate, it is much easier to demagog this process than it is to get 
something done, but we have gotten things done. We have moved 
decisionmaking back to the people in the district. We have reduced the 
influence of political action committees. We have put in measures to 
help those challengers who are running against well-entrenched 
incumbents. We have put in measures to address those candidates who are 
running millionaire campaign financed issues. This is real progress. 
This is change from the way that Washington has been doing business.
  Republicans are bringing this forward. Republicans are bringing 
forward this change. We are continuing the process that we have been 
working on for 18 months. This is really one step in a long process 
that we are going to continue.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member for 
yielding me this time. As I indicated on the rule, I regret we are not 
afforded an opportunity for more bipartisanship in presenting campaign 
finance reform. But the Republican bill, to me, moves backward and 
should be rejected by this House.
  We looked at the objective of campaign finance reform, and what our 
primary objective should be is to reduce the cost of campaigns. Between 
1980 and 1994, we have seen a doubling of the cost of campaigns in 
House races. The average winning seat went from $178,000 to $530,000. 
In 1980, 28 candidates spent over $500,000. By 1994 that number grew to 
272 candidates. In 1980, two candidates spent over $1 million in their 
races. By 1994, that grew to over 45 races of over $1 million.
  So one of our primary objectives should be to reduce the cost of 
campaigns and the need to raise special interest funds. The Republican 
bill moves in the opposite direction. It moves toward spending more 
money in campaigns. There is no voluntary campaign limit at all in the 
Republican bill. It continues and expands the use of soft money.
  Now, soft money can come from corporate sources, can come from large, 
wealthy donors. It goes to our political parties. This bill, the 
Republican bill, makes it easier for those funds to end up influencing 
our individual campaigns by relaxing the restrictions on

[[Page H8474]]

the use of soft money. We should be moving in the opposite direction.
  That is why Common Cause said that any Member, and I am quoting, any 
Member of Congress that votes for H.R. 3820 is giving a personal 
blessing and a personal stamp of approval to the corrupt soft money 
system.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], my friend, indicates this 
is empowering the people within our district because we encourage 
contributions from our district. But Mr. Thomas did not explain that 
there are many loopholes to that use of local money. We do not count 
the person's individual contribution. We do not count the political 
party's contribution.
  We are seeing more and more parties from outside of our State 
contributing to our local congressional campaigns. Those funds are not 
counted as far as local funds are concerned. So it is not empowering 
the people in our district.
  Also a wealthy person who contributes a thousand is treated the same 
as someone who does not. And again that is why Common Cause in its 
reason for opposing this bill said that any Member of Congress who 
votes for H.R. 3820 is speaking out for more access and influence in 
the political system for the wealthiest people in America and less for 
average American wage earners.
  Make no mistake about it, look at all of the public interest of 
outside public groups that are opposing this bill: Common Cause, Public 
Citizen, U.S. PIRG, League of Women Voters. There is reason for that. 
We have an alternative. Vote for the Democratic substitute offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr]. It will give us true campaign 
reform.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez], a member of the Committee on 
Economic and Educational Opportunities.
  (Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3820, campaign finance 
reform legislation. Not because I'm against campaign finance reform, 
but because this is not reform.
  The thrust of any reform must be to return the political process to 
the people on the local level, taking it out of the hands of special 
interests. The bill the majority is offering does not do that.
  Mr. Chairman, in my humble opinion, it is merely a half-hearted 
attempt by the leadership to fulfill a promise to its Members that this 
issue would be brought before the House.
  But, Mr. Chairman, to me what is even more objectionable about this 
legislation is the fact that yet another measure, which has seen very 
little committee action, is coming before this body.
  Mr. Chairman, the so-called Worker Right to Know Act, which seeks to 
limit the access of a particular group of Americans to the political 
process, has been attached to this bill, adding another reason for the 
President to veto it.
  Mr. Chairman, the so-called Worker Right to Know Act was never marked 
up by the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee nor the full 
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities to which it was 
referred.
  And yet it is here. It doesn't surprise us. It's par for the course 
for the 104th Congress--as irrelevant as authorizing has become, the 
next step will be abolishment. Maybe that's appropriate since we move 
bills to the floor without markup.
  Mr. Chairman, moving this bill into the Campaign Reform Act, after 
two hearings that in my opinion revealed that the legislation is not 
justified, is simply a political effort to attack a group they disagree 
with. In defense of it, one of my colleagues suggests that it is to 
enforce the Beck decision. Mr. Chairman, this Department of Labor has 
been enforcing the Beck decision. But regardless of that, Mr. Chairman, 
Members on the other side of the aisle have become so worried about the 
increased effort of organized labor to educate Americans about the 
antiworker, antifamily, antichild 104th Congress that through this so-
called Worker Protection Act, they are seeking to stifle that effort.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not the way to practice democracy.
  Mr. Chairman, we all know that protections already exist for workers.
  Workers can object to the use of their union dues for purposes other 
than bargaining, they can request a refund of the portion of their dues 
that are spent on these activities, and file a complaint with the 
National Labor Relations Board if they disagree with the amount that is 
returned to them.
  In contrast to that, the outrage of some Members about the AFL-CIO's 
mobilization is almost comical when you consider that the AFL will 
still be far outspent by the Republicans' business allies.
  In fact, the National Association of Manufacturers, in a recent 
newsletter, solicited donations from its members for a similar voter 
education effort being orchestrated by a business affiliation known as 
the coalition.
  The NAM has gone so far as to propose that each business member 
donate what would amount to $1.80 per employee to present the other 
side. And Mr. Chairman, despite the fact that corporate expenditures on 
the political process greatly exceed those of organized labor, no one 
bothers to address the fact that corporations regularly use stockholder 
money for political purposes with which those investors may disagree. 
Yet I see no one offering legislation to force corporations to disclose 
to the stockholder their political expenditures. This legislation 
itself--as a whole--is so objectionable that it must have been drafted 
to guarantee its defeat.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the legislation.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], chairman of the Republican 
Conference, a member of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas], for granting me the time and for his work on 
this very important legislation.
  I also would like to congratulate my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle on the Committee on House Oversight, who have spent an awful lot 
of time putting this together, and my colleagues on the Committee on 
Economic and Educational Opportunities, who have a section of this 
bill.
  One thing that we have all learned over the last couple of years is 
that the 435 Members of the House each has their own idea about how to 
change the campaign finance system we have in America. One of the most 
difficult things that I have seen in the 5\1/2\ years that I have been 
here is the difficulty that leadership has had on each side of the 
aisle in trying to bring enough consensus around any kind of a bill and 
bring it to this floor and to get it passed.
  I think that the bill that Mr. Thomas and our committee brings to the 
floor today is a sincere, honest attempt at trying to reform the 
system, albeit in a different way than the Washington establishment has 
wanted to do for some time.
  Yes, it is true, we do not have more bureaucracy. We do not have 
phony limits. We do not try to create a bureaucracy to try to control 
campaign spending from here in Washington. Our version says, let us let 
the people in each district around America decide because by requiring 
Members and candidates to raise half of their money for a campaign from 
their own congressional district, it is their contributors, their 
constituents who will determine in effect how much money is spent in 
those campaigns.
  The fact that it reduces the influence of PAC's by cutting the 
maximum PAC contribution in half, I think, further allows the people of 
these local districts to make the decision about how much is going to 
be spent there.
  But there is another very important part of this bill. That is, the 
last section that is the worker's right to know. What we are trying to 
do here is empower workers in America to have more control. Over what? 
Over their hard-earned money that they pay to unions around this 
country.
  There is not an American that has not seen some radical ad being 
sponsored by the AFL-CIO and others attacking freshmen and Republican

[[Page H8475]]

Members. They have been all over the country. They are going to spend, 
according to a professor who came and gave testimony in our committee, 
$300 to $400 million in this cycle trying to influence elections. Yet 
all of the money virtually is being spent on one side of the political 
aisle. It is not on the Republican side.
  Forty percent of union members around America vote for Republican 
candidates. This money, their money is being spent against their will. 
We believe that what we ought to do is to empower those workers by 
doing just two simple things: Requiring unions to tell their employers 
just how much of their union dues is actually used for representational 
costs. So it requires the unions to tell their Members just how much of 
their dues are used for representational costs.
  The second thing that this section of the bill does, very simply, is 
to empower the worker to decide whether any money that he pays in dues, 
he or she pays in dues over the representational costs, can be used for 
other political activities.
  Now, at a time when we are trying to do more to empower workers, to 
encourage teamwork in America, I think this is a very modest proposal 
to help working men and working women in terms of using their hard-
earned money for the purposes that they see fit.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise the Members that the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Thomas] has 10\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the phony campaign 
finance reform that is represented by the Thomas bill. The campaign 
finance reform bill offered by the Republican majority continues a 
pattern that goes back to their earliest days of running this House. 
Promises made and promises broken. They promised real reform in 
Washington, but instead they offer legislation to make a bad system 
worse.
  The GOP legislation does nothing to limit campaign spending in 
congressional raises. Elections will continue to be contests of bank 
accounts and not of ideas. Public Citizen, Common Cause, other public 
interest groups have called the Thomas bill a fraud.
  Business Week magazine, not exactly a liberal publication, commented 
on freshman Republicans earlier this year. They said, and I quote, 
although they stormed Capitol Hill promising to shake up the political 
establishment, the Republican class of 1994 has embraced one time-
honored Washington tradition all too well, shaking the special money 
interest tree.
  The American people truly want an end to business as usual in 
Washington. They deserve real reform of our campaign system. We have an 
opportunity to pass an honest campaign finance reform bill today, a 
bill that will enhance the ability of average Americans to participate 
in the electoral process and diminish the influence of special 
interests.
  The Democratic alternative gives us the chance to pass real reform to 
limit the influence of big money. It limits spending for each 
congressional campaign to $600,000. It limits PAC contributions. It 
limits total contributions from large donors. It limits each 
candidate's use of personal money. It eliminates soft money.
  These limits are reasonable, and they are, in fact, long overdue.
  Mr. Chairman, I call on my colleagues to defeat the Gingrich-Thomas 
big-money bill and vote for the Farr Democratic substitute.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding the time.
  This bill should not be called the campaign finance reform bill. I 
have some better names for it. It should be called the wealthy country 
club set control of American politics bill. How about the fat cat 
influence on American politics bill? How about the rich and incumbent 
protection Republican campaign bill? That is all this is doing. This is 
giving special interests an even larger say in campaigns. But at least 
our Republican friends are consistent.
  They have spent the past 2 years trying to decimate Medicare and give 
huge tax breaks for the rich. This is just a continuation of that 
pattern. Let us continue to give breaks for the rich. Let them control 
politics. Let them have more influence in politics.
  Speaker Gingrich said, there is not enough money in politics right 
now. We ought to have more money in politics. This is exactly the 
opposite direction that we ought to be going toward.
  The Republican bill imposes no limits on how much can be spent in a 
campaign, allowing the influence of special interest money to continue 
to dominate the political system. The Republican bill increases the 
importance of soft money in campaigns; thereby increasing the role of 
special interests in their party.
  The Republican bill imposes huge costs and administrative burdens on 
labor unions; again, a consistent Republican pattern these past 2 years 
of punishing working men and women in this country, punishing labor 
unions for speaking out, for daring to speak out against the Republican 
extremist agenda.
  This is a highly partisan bill which is designed to create an unfair 
advantage to the Republican Party and their wealthy donors. The only 
way we can have real campaign finance reform in this Congress or any 
Congress is to have a bipartisan bill. We ought to do that.
  The Democratic bill attempts to limit big money. It attempts to put 
the amount of money that a candidate can spend on a campaign to have a 
cap. This is the only way we are going to eliminate special interests.
  The big problem to our democracy, in my opinion, is that it costs so 
much to run a campaign, only the very wealthy can run campaigns. Is 
this what we want in this country, where the very wealthy can control 
campaigns and run?
  This goes in the wrong direction. The Republican bill ought to be 
defeated.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Calvert].
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my good friend from 
California for shepherding this important piece of legislation through 
the House.
  In the last Congress I was privileged to be a member of the Task 
Force on Campaign Finance Reform.
  One provision I fought for in particular was that 51 percent of total 
contributions come from within a candidate's congressional district.
  This creates stronger ties to a Member's constituents and will help 
reduce the influence of narrow special interests. No longer will this 
House operate under the image that we are beholden to PAC's or 
individuals based thousands of miles from the people we represent.
  In my past two elections I have promised to raise a majority of my 
money from within my district. Indeed, I have raised an average of over 
60 percent of my funds from the people of the 43d District of 
California.
  Not only does this indicate my support from my constituents, but more 
importantly it allows me to better represent their views.
  They are the citizens who have made my congressional career possible. 
They are the people whom I represent.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan], a real leader in our caucus 
on campaign finance reform and a leader of the bipartisan effort.
  (Mr. MEEHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, you have to sit back and ask yourself, why 
in the world would the Republican Party submit this kind of proposal. 
It has been condemned by every public interest group that has been 
fighting for campaign finance reform in America.
  Condemned by Common Cause, condemned by Public Citizen, United We 
Stand, every group in America who is trying to change the way Congress 
does business through reforming the campaign finance laws is against 
this proposal. Why in the world would they come forward with such a 
proposal that they may not even get the votes for?
  Well, it comes right from the top. That is where it comes from. 
Because

[[Page H8476]]

when the Speaker of the House, if you look at this chart, Newt 
Gingrich, testified before the House Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight on November 2, he made the preposterous statement that, One 
of the greatest myths of modern politics is that campaigns are too 
expensive. The political process in fact is underfunded. It is not 
overfunded.
  That is what the top, the Speaker, said. When he was asked to testify 
on how to reform a system that everyone agrees needs to be reformed, a 
system that everyone agrees there is too much money involved, that is 
what the Speaker said.

                              {time}  1400

  So what happened after that? The Speaker got together with Republican 
leadership, and they came in with a proposal that increases the 
influence of special interest money. Americans who have been fighting 
for campaign finance reform all over this country recognize this bill 
for what it is, and that is a sham. It is nothing but a sham.
  Now why in the world would Republicans go along with a bill that 
codifies the soft money loophole in the Federal election law? This 
legislation will allow special interests to continue setting the 
Republican agenda without restriction, and all we have to do is look at 
the headlines across this country under this Congress. Last year the 
Republicans raised more than $33 million in unrelated soft money 
contributions; 82 percent of these contributions came from businesses, 
17 percent came from individuals, and less than 1 percent came from 
labor unions and single donors.
  Now who are at the top of the Republican donors by industry? It 
should be a surprise to no one that the tobacco companies, big tobacco, 
donated a whopping $2.4 million in 1995; securities and investments, 
insurance, gas, the pharmaceuticals, the telephone utilities, 
telecommunications reform; all of them rank within the top 10 of donors 
to the Republican Party.
  This should not be a surprise as to why we have a bill that increases 
the influence that these special interests will pay. They will pay, and 
they will play, due to the increase in money because they are the ones. 
The Republicans are setting the agenda.
  Now two of the top individual contributors to the Republican Party: 
Philip Morris and R.J. Nabisco. No wonder the Republicans are adamantly 
opposed to regulating tobacco companies.
  This bill is a sham.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Portman].
  (Mr. PORTMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to tell my colleagues it is tough as incumbents 
to change the rules that affect us. That is why campaign finance reform 
is always a hard thing to do. It is also tough because it is 
complicated; we have unintended consequences, as we did after the 1974 
post-Watergate reforms. We now have PAC's that I think are more of a 
problem than a solution.
  But the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] has done a good job. 
He has taken a very tough problem, and he is tried to make a 
difference, and he has, and I commend him for it. I hear my colleagues 
going on and on about how terrible this bill is, and how it does not 
help this and does not help that.
  As my colleagues know, I do not take PAC money. I raised almost all 
the money in my district. This is not perfect. I would like to see a 
total PAC ban. This is a great step forward. That is the point. We make 
incremental steps around here. Maybe next year we will do even better.
  What is good about this bill? It bans leadership PAC's. Who is not 
for banning leadership PAC's, raise their hand. I mean over there. It 
is a good thing. It is a good thing we are doing. It eliminates 
bundling by PAC's and lobbyists. It requires candidates to raise a 
majority of funds in their own districts.
  I heard someone earlier saying that is not a good provision. I am not 
sure why they said it. I mean that is true for everybody. It is going 
to be true for every candidate. They have to raise the majority of 
funds in their own districts so their own voters, not the special 
interests, the people who they are really accountable to, their voters, 
have more of a say.
  Political parties, look at this chart. Despite what the last speaker 
said, it turns out that the chairman of the Democratic Party also feels 
that the great organizers of democracy, our political parties, ought to 
play a bigger role.
  They can scream they are the people in this country who do not have a 
special interest. They have a political interest which is the party's, 
Republican and Democrat. And yes, we should increase, I think, and 
strengthen their role in the political process and get this special 
interest influence that is undue, that is too great, out of the 
process.
  So I do not know what the last speaker was talking about. He should 
talk to his own chairman of the Democrat National Party, who seems to 
agree with us on this.
  Finally, it does something incredible about the war chest that people 
can build up, the insurance policy, essentially roll over year to year. 
It actually discourages people from building up these war chests. That 
is anti-incumbent. I think there are two major purposes to campaign 
finance reform, cutting down on the special interests influences, 
first; and second, taking away the tremendous advantage that incumbents 
have, and that is precisely what this legislation does.
  Again it is a tremendous first step, and I support it. I will say I 
would like to see a total PAC ban. I think we are not really going to 
get to the root of the problem in terms of special interests until we 
have a total ban. But at least we take 50 percent of the PAC money 
away.
  More than half the money now in House elections is PAC money. It goes 
mostly to incumbents, of course. It is a problem in a system. We take 
it away, 50 percent of it away. That is a vast improvement of the 
current system.
  I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Thomas bill, a bill that 
represents a good--and long overdue--first step in giving our elections 
back to the voters. The bill we are considering on the House floor 
today takes some very important steps toward reducing the advantages 
enjoyed by incumbents and the undue influence of special interests.
  This bill bans leadership PAC's; eliminates bundling by PAC's and 
lobbyists; requires candidates to raise a majority of their campaign 
funds from their own district; and bans non-Federal money from Federal 
elections. These are all positive steps. I am also pleased that the 
Solomon amendment codifies the worker right-to-know provisions that 
were set forth in the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Beck. I 
also agree with the provisions of he new bill that would strengthen 
political parties. These measures will increase accountability to the 
voters and make elections a better representation of the people they 
serve.
  Although this bill is a good first step, I am disappointed that it 
does not ban PAC's. The new bill keeps the individual limit a $1,000 
and reduces the PAC limit to $2,500. Adjusting the contribution limits, 
in my view, is mere tinkering at the edges.
  I believe that the only way to reduce both the advantages of 
incumbents and the undue influence of special interests is to ban 
Political Action Committees [PAC's].
  In my view, it is wrong for corporations, labor unions, or trade 
associations to use money that would be an illegal contribution if made 
directly to the campaign for fundraising or administrative subsidies to 
their PAC's. I believe banning those subsidies or PAC's that receive 
those subsidies would clearly stand up to any constitutional test. At 
the very least, we should ban these so-called connected PAC's, which 
constitute a majority of PAC contributions.
  Some have said that a ban on PAC's may be unconstitutional, citing 
the 1976 Supreme Court case Buckley versus Valeo, which upheld the 
Federal Election Campaign Act's limitations on contributions. Three 
points of clarification. First, the Court has never directly considered 
the issue of whether a PAC ban would be unconstitutional. In fact, 
there is helpful language in the opinion that says that limits on 
contributions are reasonable if they stem actual or apparent 
corruption. Second, there are other forms of association that are 
recognized under the Federal Election Campaign Act--for example, 
partnerships. If an individual gives money to a partnership, and the 
partnership in turn donates the money to candidates, that individual's 
contribution is attributed to the individual.
  This is not the case with PAC contributions. Individuals can give to 
PAC's and that amount

[[Page H8477]]

is not attributed back to them for purposes of their own contribution 
limits. In essence, I do not believe there is a constitutional right to 
give an enhanced contribution merely because one affiliates.
  For these reasons and the obvious fact that the makeup of the Supreme 
Court has changed in the 19 years since the Buckley decision, I think 
it is not at all clear that a total ban on PAC's would be found 
unconstitutional.
  We are all aware of the tremendous growth of PAC's, both in number--
from 608 in 1974 to almost 4,000 in 1995--and in influence--PAC 
contributions now account for more than half of the money in the 
typical House race.
  PAC's also contribute substantially to the advantages incumbents 
enjoy. According to the Federal Election Commission [FEC], in recent 
years more than 70 percent of PAC contributions have gone to 
incumbents. In my own State of Ohio, PAC's supported incumbents over 
challengers by a margin of 10 to 1 during the past election cycle.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill--and I commend Chairman Thomas on 
his leadership--but it is just the first step. I hope the next phase of 
campaign finance reform will ban PAC's altogether--an important step 
that will make elections more competitive, more fair, and a better 
reflection of the wishes of our citizens.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues here on the 
floor to think about what is going on today, ask themselves what 
exactly is reform. Less money is certainly reform. More power to small 
contributors is certainly reform. Preventing rich people from buying 
public office is certainly reform. Eliminating soft money is certainly 
reform. Leveling the playing field is certainly reform. Limiting 
special influence in campaigns is special reform.
  Let me tell my colleagues what the President says about this: He 
says,

       Unfortunately the Republican leadership in the House 
     appears determined to block any legitimate reform. The 
     Republican leadership's bill, unlike your own legislation, 
     would drive campaign financing in the wrong direction. Your 
     bill would control campaign spending. The Republican bill 
     would encourage dramatic increases in spending. Your bill 
     reforms the soft money system. The Republican bill would 
     place a premium on soft money contributions from the very 
     wealthy.

  I would like, Mr. Chairman, to enter this letter in the Record:

                                              The White House,

                                        Washington, July 16, 1996.
     Hon. Sam Farr,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Sam: I want to commend you for the leadership you have 
     demonstrated on a matter of major concern to the American 
     people--campaign finance reform. The legislation you 
     introduced in the House of Representatives, HR 3505, embodies 
     principles that I believe are key to real campaign finance 
     reform--effective spending limits, soft money reform, PAC 
     reform, and less costly access to our nation's airwaves for 
     political discourse.
       Your bill would reduce the influence of the special 
     interests and the wealthy few in the outcome of congressional 
     elections. In addition, HR 3505 would put a check on the out 
     of control spending that plagues the current system.
       Although the Senate's recent failure to act on a bipartisan 
     campaign reform bill was a terrible disappointment to the 
     American people, the fight for reform did not end with the 
     Senate's vote. The House of Representatives now has the 
     opportunity to enact real campaign finance reform.
       Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the House 
     appears determined to block any legitimate reform. The 
     Republican leadership's bill, unlike your own legislation, 
     would drive campaign financing in the wrong direction. Your 
     bill would control campaign spending; the Republican bill 
     would encourage dramatic increases in spending. Your bill 
     reforms the soft money system; the Republican bill would 
     place a premium on soft money contributions from the very 
     wealthy.
       I remain committed to making true campaign finance reform a 
     reality and look forward to working with you and other 
     members of the House in a renewed effort to attain meaningful 
     campaign finance reform.
           Sincerely,
                                                             Bill.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger], who has worked actively on that portion 
of the bill which empowers the rank-and-file in the labor union 
movement.
  (Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about the ultimate in 
special interest money and soft money. Much has been written in the 
press about the partisan politics surrounding the issue of mandatory 
union dues. And to be sure, there is a political aspect to this issue 
as there is to virtually every issue we deal with here in Congress.
  But, as the House considers the Worker Right to Know Act, which is 
included in this campaign finance reform bill, I believe it is 
important our colleagues understand that this issue involves a good 
deal more than partisan politics. It is not just about Democrats versus 
Republicans or labor versus management. And, it is not about union-
bashing. When we get right down to it, this is an issue about basic 
fairness.
  For instance, is it fair that any union member should automatically 
have money deducted from his or her paycheck to pay for political 
candidates or causes with which they do not agree? Is it fair that a 
union member should have to battle his or her union in order to object 
to the union's spending of dues for political purposes? And, if he or 
she does object, is it fair that a union member be subjected to 
harassment from the union, or worse, the threat of losing his or her 
job? And, finally, is it fair that a union member should have to resign 
from his or her union and give up all rights to participate in 
important workplace matters, simply because he or she does not agree 
with union politics? I certainly do not think so, Mr. Chairman, and I 
would hope and expect that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
would feel the same way.
  The fact is that many unions are spending their members' dues on 
social and political causes that are not supported by the rank and 
file. Moreover, a number of hurdles are placed in front of employees 
who want to object to such expenditures. The Worker Right to Know Act 
would simply require unions ask their members for permission before 
spending their dues on those social or political causes. Is this too 
much to ask?
  So, as we debate this issue, Mr. Chairman, we must take care that it 
does not get totally lost in the rancor of partisan politics. We must 
not lose sight of the fact that it is an issue affecting the wages of 
working men and women, and that more than anything else, it is an issue 
of basic fairness.
  The Worker Right to Know Act would accord American workers with this 
basic right and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo].
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the campaign 
finance legislation being offered by the Republican leadership and in 
favor of the American Political Reform Act introduced by the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Farr].
  Americans across the political spectrum have raised their voices in 
favor of real campaign finance reform, and I want to underscore that 
word, real campaign finance reform, and every major reform organization 
in America has spoken out against this Republican bill. Yet the 
Republican leadership is offering legislation that would actually turn 
the hands of the clock back on reform by restoring big money abuses 
that made Watergate a household word.
  The Republican leadership bill imposes no spending limits on 
campaigns, increases the amount of money individuals can give to 
candidates, and opens the door to bigger and bigger contributions to 
parties, PAC's and politicians.
  This is not reform. It only has a rubber stamp that someone found 
that stamped the page ``reform.'' It is not reform.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the best and the only campaign 
finance reform bill being offered today, the American Political Reform 
Act, and I hope all my colleagues will on a bipartisan basis so we can 
prove to the American people that we can move along and reform the 
system.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] pointed out that 
the chairman of the Democratic National Committee had urged that there 
be no limit on what a campaign committee could give to a candidate and 
that was originally the position of Mr. Barbour, and until the bill was 
amended here on the floor today, that was the position of the majority.

[[Page H8478]]

  I think cooler heads on the Republican side have now prevailed and an 
amendment providing new limits is now in place as the American people 
would want them to be, and in case there is any confusion about where 
the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Fowler, is on this issue, I 
would now like to include for the Record a stinging critique of this 
legislation:

                                Democratic National Committee,

                                    Washington, DC, July 23, 1996.
     Hon. Vic Fazio,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on House Oversight, 
         Longworth HOB, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Fazio: I am writing to protest in the 
     strongest possible terms the misuse, by Congressman Bill 
     Thomas, of excerpts from my testimony before the Committee on 
     House Oversight last December. To suggest that I in any way 
     endorse any element of the Gingrich/House Republicans' 
     campaign finance reform bill (H.R. 3760) is a false, 
     deliberate attempt to mislead and confuse the debate.
       As I stated in my testimony before the Committee, and again 
     before the Senate Rules Committee on April 17, 1996, there 
     are some principles that I believe should guide the Congress 
     in formulating campaign finance reform legislation. As the 
     President has articulated, real campaign finance reform must 
     limit campaign spending; restrict the role of special 
     interests; open up the airwaves to qualifying candidates; and 
     ban the use of soft money in federal campaigns.
       The Gingrich/Republican bill utterly fails to meet any of 
     these requirements. To the contrary, it would clearly make 
     the problem far worse. the Gingrich/Republican bill would--
       Do nothing whatsoever to cap or reduce total campaign 
     spending.
       Increase the role of special interests, by allowing wealthy 
     individuals to contribute more than ten times the current 
     limit to federal campaigns and the federal accounts of 
     political parties in a single cycle. Indeed, under the 
     Gingrich bill, a single individual could contribute more than 
     $3.1 million to all campaigns and parties, in a single 
     election cycle.
       Do nothing whatever to increase access of candidates to the 
     airwaves.
       Allow political party committees to continue to receive 
     unlimited soft money.
       In that connection, Congressman Thomas's #4 ``Dear 
     Colleague'' represents a particularly twisted distortion. I 
     certainly support some expansion of the grassroots volunteer 
     activities, but that has absolutely nothing to do with 
     continuing to allow soft money--which we oppose and have 
     consistently opposed.
       Under current law, to the extent these grassroots 
     activities benefit federal candidates, they must be paid for 
     with federally-permissible funds (hard money). It has been 
     our consistent position, as I stated in my testimony both 
     before the Committee on House Oversight and the Senate Rules 
     Committee, that real reform requires that both generic and 
     mixed activity--in other words, any activity benefitting a 
     federal candidate--be paid for entirely with federally-
     permissible funds (``hard money''). That would be the case 
     both under the McCain-Feingold bill and the House Democratic 
     bill.
       By limiting the influence of special interest groups, the 
     McCain-Feingold and House Democratic bills would increase the 
     relative importance of the political parties in our system. 
     Further, with spending caps imposed on candidates, candidates 
     would require less total contributions than they do now, and 
     more federally permissible funds would be freed to be 
     contributed to the parties. Party resources spent on 
     candidates--both under the section 441a(d) limits and the 
     volunteer grassroots activities--would represent a greater 
     portion of the candidates' total resources. Thus parties 
     would become more significant players in our system.
       By contrast, under the Gingrich/Republican bill, total 
     contributions by wealthy individuals to campaigns would 
     increase by enormous amounts, while the amounts parties could 
     contribute to or expend on behalf of candidates would not 
     increase by nearly the same proportion. Thus parties would 
     play a less significant role, under the Gingrich/Republican 
     bill.
       Finally, Congressman Thomas has completely distorted the 
     position of the DNC in its amicus brief filed with the U.S. 
     Supreme Court in the Colorado Republican case. Under current 
     law, a membership organization's communication with the 
     public is subject to the federal campaign finance law only 
     when it ``expressly advocates'' the election or defeat of a 
     candidate, and we believe that standard should apply in 
     determining when expenditure limits apply to the 
     communications of political parties. The question is the 
     definition of ``express advocacy.'' In our brief filed with 
     the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the 
     Christian Action Network case, the DNC urged the Court to 
     reject the definition adopted by the House Republicans and 
     instead adopt the broader definition used by the Federal 
     Election Commission.
       In short, there should be no confusion about the fact that 
     the Gingrich/Republican bill is a sham which would make the 
     current system much worse. By no meaningful measure can this 
     bill be called ``reform.'' It goes without saying that 
     nothing I have ever said can or should be construed as an 
     endorsement of any part of this bill. We urge the Congress of 
     the United States to reject the Gingrich/Republican bill.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                 Donald L. Fowler,
                                                National Chairman.

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  In addition to the statement in front of the committee by the 
chairman of the Democratic National Committee about having no limits, 
which we finally decided was not as wise as we thought it was 
initially, this is another quote. He said on December 12 in front of 
the committee: ``I do believe that the contributions from individuals 
should be increased. If you asked me for a number, I would say 
$2,500.''
  We thought that perhaps was an appropriate suggestion, as well. When 
we then began listening to the kind of outrageous statements made by 
people that we were enabling fat cats, we decided not to listen to the 
Democratic National chairman, and keep it at $1,000.
  And so it is interesting the kind of quotes the Democratic National 
Committee chairman actually believed when it was not rhetoric.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Rivers].
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, well, welcome to reform week; where is it? 
Instead of a week, we are going to have 120 minutes of reform and, as a 
freshman who has worked very hard with others and on my own to 
introduce several bills that would deal with reform, I am quite 
disappointed. I took the time to testify to the Committee on Rules last 
week on several bills that would save money, establish accountability, 
reestablish trust between Congress and the American people, the bills 
that dealt with PAC checks on the floor, adding sunshine to our 
campaign reporting procedures, and what has happened? Nothing. No 
action.
  Today, as we consider the issue of campaign finance reform, the 
majority bill provides more of the same, no action. For limits we find 
that instead of the truly egregious bill that we saw last week, now we 
are just going to double the individuals' ability to put money into the 
system.
  Where is the accountability? Well, none that I can see. Soft money 
will still be a huge part of how we finance campaigns in this country.
  Will we put less power in parties as many people in this country 
want? No; not at all. In fact, parties will probably see more money, 
the same sort of soft money that they have used up until now, and under 
the newest court rulings probably the ability to spend as much as they 
want in any race in the country.

  And what will happen to ordinary people? The wealthy can now double 
their investment. Ordinary people, people like bricklayers, nurses, 
flight attendants who participate as a group through PAC organizations 
will see their influence cut in half under this bill. They will become 
spectators in a game where only the wealthy and the powerful may play.
  The Farr amendment is a good bill, and I support it. It provides for 
real accountability by eliminating soft money, real limits on spending 
and donations and a real balance between the rich and poor, the 
powerful and the ordinary.
  This is what normal, every day people in this country want, 
accountability, limits, balance. Please support the Farr substitute. It 
is a far, far better bill.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], vice chairman of the Committee on House 
Oversight, someone who has spent numerous hours working with us to 
perfect the bill we have today.
  (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker referred to reform and 
the need for reform. I simply want to quickly point to the chart we 
have before us here showing that this truly is the reform Congress. 
Start with the very first day of this Congress and look at the many 
reforms we have instituted. I simply do not have time to go through all 
of them, but I ask you go down the list of all the reforms that we have 
made during this session of Congress, and note it is a truly remarkable 
record.

[[Page H8479]]

                              {time}  1415

  You see, at the very top of the chart, campaign finance reform. This 
is our attempt to fulfill another one of the promises we made to the 
American people when we were elected.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important to recognize that this is 
truly a reform bill. There have been a lot of negative comments made, 
but they missed the mark. I have served at the local government level, 
I have served at the State level, I have served at the national level. 
In my experience, the key point is to trust the American people to do 
the right thing but give them the information they need to make a good 
decision. That is precisely what this bill does.
  As a friend of mine said to me a few weeks ago when I was talking to 
him about the problems we are facing with campaign finance reform, and 
this is someone who is not involved in politics, but he said, ``I have 
looked at this issue for a long time. I believe the simple answer is no 
cash, and full disclosure.''
  This bill certainly meets his requirement, because it does provide, 
for the first time, full disclosure of all the money that candidates 
and parties get and all the money that interest groups spend on 
elections. I think that is a very important factor: No cash, full 
disclosure.
  But we go beyond that. We maintain many of the contribution limits, 
and I think that is extremely important. But it is also important to 
recognize that we are in this bill empowering individuals, and we are 
empowering political parties, to be important players in the political 
process.
  Mr. Chairman, it is very important for us to recognize that, in 
modern-day America, advertising is the name of the game. General Motors 
spends more than $250 in advertising for every automobile they sell. We 
as candidates have to present ourselves to the American public. We have 
to give them information about ourselves and about the issues. We 
cannot do it without spending money on advertising. Advertising is very 
expensive.
  In my case a full page ad in my hometown newspaper, and it is not a 
large city, is $2,500 for a full page ad and it costs approximately 
$1,500 to $3,000 for 30 seconds on TV, and they tell me that this is 
cheaper than many major TV markets. We have to get the message out. It 
costs money to get the message out.
  If we add together all the money spent on political campaigns in this 
Nation, State, local, and national, add it all together, it is millions 
of dollars; but let me tell the Members, it is less than one-third of 
the amount of money that this Nation spends on advertising antacids.
  I ask the Members, what is more important, to give the voters 
information about candidates and issues, or to give them information 
about antacids?
  I believe in this bill we have put together a good package which 
allows us to get the information out to the American public about 
candidates and about issues. It does it responsibly, it does it with 
full disclosure, and it does a much better job of governing campaign 
finance than the law we have right now.
  A few interest groups oppose it, but they are themselves misleading 
the public on some of these issues. I think it is to their shame that 
they are doing this. I urge support of this bill, and I urge passage of 
this bill.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I hate to quibble with my friend, the gentleman from 
Michigan, but this bill does not adequately report on what third 
parties are putting into the political process. That is something we 
can improve in the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson], a member of our committee and a long-time 
advocate of campaign finance reform.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] is 
recognized for 3\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, there are lots of things to debate about 
in campaign finance reform, but one of them is not the proposal put 
forth by the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] today. It is 
clearly somewhat better than his original proposal, but it is still a 
bad bill; it is universally viewed as a bad bill, a bill that goes in 
the wrong direction, that deals with the wrong issues.
  Many of those outside this political institution have described the 
Thomas bill as the wrong direction, a fraud, and a sham. Why? The 
answer is very simple: To believe that the Thomas bill is the solution 
to our problems in campaign financing, you would have to believe that 
wealthy people do not have enough influence, that poor people and 
working people have too much influence in this institution, and there 
just is not enough money in politics today.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not sure where members could get that idea, but 
let me tell the Members something, it is a concept that the American 
people and most observers recognize is ridiculous. We have too much 
money in politics, we spend too much time raising that money, and what 
we have before us is a proposition that would give wealthy and powerful 
individuals more access to the political process and exclude poor and 
working people more than ever before.

  We take categories of money where there used to be limits, and the 
Thomas bill says there are no limits for wealthy people to give. If 
that is not bad enough, they found a way to hide the source of the 
money. We are going to take politically incorrect corporations, they 
will give the money to the parties, and then the parties cangive the 
money to the candidates. So candidates can get up and posture for 
welfare reform, for economic reform, for the environment, for senior 
citizens, and take all the contributions they can get, washed through 
the political parties, with no identification as to where it came from.
  Yes, there will be a list of who gave to the Republican Party, but it 
will not reflect on the individuals. One of the only good things about 
today's system is at least you know where the money comes from. Under 
the Thomas proposal you do not know where the money comes from.
  Again, listen to the fundamental proposition, Speaker Gingrich 
apparently enunciated it: There is not enough money in politics today. 
For God's sakes, if there is one thing a third-grader would know is we 
all spend too much time raising money, we spend too much money, and it 
does not help the political debate. We need to find a way to control 
spending. Is the Farr bill perfect? No. The Gejdenson bill was not 
perfect, either. I am not sure we could come up with a perfect bill.
  But I can tell the Members something, this bill is dead wrong. It 
goes in the wrong direction, it gives rich people more power, it cuts 
off working people, it cuts off poor people. For God's sakes, think 
about this concept. We are going to call this legislation reform, and 
then we are going to make it easier for a handful of millionaires to 
control the political process.
  In three categories there are no limits to the contributions. How can 
we come here today, after all their talk about reform, and come up with 
a bill that does nothing about a spending limit, that does nothing 
about independent expenditures? I think those on the outside who called 
this bill a fraud were too kind. This bill is a blatant 
misrepresentation of what we need, and it is a clear attempt to deprive 
one group of people in this country from political participation and 
empower the wealthiest, most influential people in the country. It was 
clearer in the original Thomas bill. In the original Thomas bill an 
average family could give $2.4 million. Ridiculous. Vote down the 
Thomas bill, vote for the Farr bill.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not have the time to correct all of the dollar 
errors on the gentleman's chart, and I would also tell him that all of 
the volume in the world does not make his statement so. We have more 
disclosure, not less. We have tighter rules on independent 
expenditures, not less.
  This whole debate is about the role and use of government. Democrats, 
true to form, want to use government to control. They want to limit. 
They want to have a one-size-fits-all Washington-imposed dollar amount.
  The problem is, they have no limits at all, unless people voluntarily 
give up their constitutional rights as defined by the court. We say, 
let us use government to empower individuals. Let us

[[Page H8480]]

let the people back home who are subjected to all of this determine how 
much should be spent in a campaign.
  That is truly a frightening concept to the people across the aisle. 
They would have to go back home and justify what they are doing to the 
people in the district without their Washington power base, without 
their New York fundraisers, without their Hollywood extravaganzas. Let 
us empower the people back home. That is what we do. That is what is 
really revolutionary about the approach that we are taking. I would ask 
for an ``aye'' vote on the basic bill.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, when the final chapters of the history of 
this Congress are written, we will have achieved many significant 
accomplishements. First and foremost, we have finally turned the corner 
on our fiscal crisis by enacting record-breaking levels of deficit 
reduction. In addition, we have modernized our telecommunications laws, 
revolutionized agricultural subsidies, and implemented badly-needed 
reforms in our 40-year-old lobbying laws.
  And, if we all do our jobs between now and October, we will 
fundamentally change our out-of-control welfare system, gain control of 
our borders through tough immigration reform, allow working American 
families greater access to health insurance, and modernized our 
financial services laws.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address what should be a centerpiece of 
this reform Congress, but won't be--real reform of our campaign finance 
reform system.
  Clearly, it's a system that is out of control. Campaign costs are 
skyrocketing. Candidates, incumbents, and challengers alike, find 
themselves devoting more time and more energy to fundraising. The reach 
and influence of political action committees continue to grow. As a 
result, the financial chasm between incumbent and challenger continues 
to widen.
  Gone forever seem to be the days when a congressional challenger can 
run a campaign on a shoestring and defeat an entrenched incumbent, as I 
did through the 1978 and 1980 cycles.
  All of this creates an impression in the public's mind that Members 
of Congress are being bought and sold by special interests with little 
opportunity for the average taxpaying citizen to have a real say in the 
process.
  Let's consider the costs. Twenty years ago, the combined costs of all 
elections in the United States of America stood at just over $500 
million. In 1992, that total exceeded $3 billion. That's three times 
the increase in the cost of living during that same period. In 1994, 
the average cost of winning a House campaign, including the many 
uncontested races, was more than $500,000.
  The trend to these big money campaigns is terribly corrosive--and, I 
might add, self-perpetuating.
  In the first place, candidates, including sitting Members of 
Congress, find themselves devoting increasing amounts of time and 
energy to raising money. Of course, this is time taken away from 
legislative or other important duties.
  Which leads me directly to my second conclusion: that big money 
campaigns are self-perpetuating. It is a fact of political life that it 
is far easier for sitting Members to raise money than it is for their 
challengers.
  I know. I've been there.
  In 1978, I first ran against incumbent Representative Andrew Maguire. 
The money was very difficult to come by. In contrast, the Congressman 
was supported widely by major corporations, PAC's, and other powerful 
concerns.
  My case was by no means unique. Today's incumbents typically have a 
2-to-1 funding advantage over their challengers. A major factor in this 
ratio is that nearly three-quarters of PAC money goes to sitting 
Members--71 percent in 1994. Consider that an incumbent is typically 
well-known while the challenger has the difficulty of building name 
recognition--usually through expensive broadcast advertising--and the 
disparity is exaggerated. This makes a challenger's uphill battle 
nearly impossible.
  Ironically, PAC's were once seen as a good government reform--a way 
for individuals who lacked power and money to band together and make 
their voices heard. Today, however, many PAC's are nothing more than 
tools of special interests and organizations that always had power and 
money. PAC's simply make it easier for these companies and groups to 
wield their considerable influence.
  So the problem is well-known and, I submit, so is the solution.
  Mr. Chairman, today we should be debating the bipartisan Clean 
Congress Act, introduced by my colleagues Linda Smith, Chris Shays, and 
Marty Meehan in the House and John McCain and Russ Feingold in the 
Senate.
  The bipartisan Clean Congress Act seeks to level the playing field 
between sitting Members and congressional challengers in a number of 
important areas. The bill would offer reduced rates for radio and TV 
commercials who agree to campaign spending limits. The bill would also 
prohibit PAC contributions to congressional candidates and requires 
that at least 60 percent of a House candidate's contributions come from 
the candidate's home State. Limits on lobbyists' campaign contributions 
would be lowered and a number of tougher important restrictions would 
be imposed.
  Instead, we find ourselves debating two measures--neither of which is 
worthy of the title genuine reform.
  Fundamentally, the Thomas bill will inject more money into the 
political system, not less, and perpetuates and expands all the 
corrosive effects of soft money.
  The Democrat substitute also pales in comparison to our bipartisan 
bill. For example, it tinkers around the edges of PAC activity by 
trimming a mere $2,000 from the amount a PAC can contribute to a 
candidate.
  Mr. Chairman, both of these bill are fundamentally flawed. In fact, 
enactment of either of these bills would do more to lock in some of the 
worst aspects of our campaign finance system.
  Bad reform is worse than no reform. We should reject both the 
substitute and the base bill and start all over again. I recognize that 
this will not happen this year. I regret we will not be able to claim 
campaign finance reform on the list of accomplishments of this 
Congress.
  If we cannot accomplish genuine reform then let's make this an issue 
we take to the people this election year.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to both the 
Republican campaign finance reform plan and the Farr substitute. These 
two proposals do not represent real reform--instead they mask the very 
problems that I and many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
believe need to be addressed if we are to truly combat the influence of 
money in politics.
  The Republican bill opens a new avenue for political parties to spend 
unlimited amounts of soft money on communications with their members. 
It is believed by many that this provision would simply codify 
unlimited privately funded campaigning. Additionally, both the 
Republican bill and the Farr substitute increase, instead of reduce, 
the annual aggregated contribution limit. This has the effect of giving 
additional buying power to the very wealthiest Americans.
  Neither bill eliminates political action committee contributions, one 
of the biggest problems plaguing our national campaign system. Because 
I saw first-hand the influence of PAC money when first arrived in 
Washington, I have voluntarily refused PAC donations and rely instead 
on small, individual donors.
  Because I believe drastic reforms are necessary to fix the current 
inequities, I am a cosponsor of the Bipartisan Clean Congress Act, a 
bill which eliminates PAC contributions, bans franked--taxpayer 
financed--mass mailings in election years, and sets voluntary spending 
limits with benefits of TV, radio, and postage rate discounts for those 
who comply with the limits. Neither of the reform bills before us today 
begin to meet the goals of the Clean Congress Act. While I understand 
there are also some concerns by an array of groups about the scope of 
the act, it is by far the best foundation in which to begin debating 
real campaign finance reform. Unfortunately, the Clean Congress Act was 
not allowed to come to the floor today.
  We are not debating campaign finance reform today because of the 
House leadership's commitment to passing campaign finance reform that 
will dramatically change the influence on money in politics. Instead, 
we are here today giving Americans a false impression that a majority 
of Congress supports true reforms--unfortunately this is not the case. 
If the House was truly serious about campaign finance reform, we should 
be considering many of the reforms contained in the Clean Congress Act.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of passage of the 
substitute measure. The gentleman from California has proposed a bill 
that takes an important step in the direction of limiting the amount of 
money in Federal election campaigns. In so doing, this Democratic 
alternative goes in the opposite direction of H.R. 3820, which 
dramatically increases nearly every existing campaign contribution 
limit, and imposes no limit on spending.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a mystery to me why the subject of campaign 
finance reform is one that continues to divide this House along 
partisan lines. There is a fundamental congruence of

[[Page H8481]]

interest on this issue between our constituents, who want to reduce the 
influence of large amounts of money on elections, and the members of 
this body, who must raise these enormous sums. It is demanding 
difficult, and demeaning to spend so much time in the pursuit of money 
instead of discussing and debating the issues during a campaign.
  The substitute measure would, for the first time, place a spending 
limit on candidates for Congress, with rewards for those who honor the 
limits and penalties for those who do not. The limit is generous--I 
would favor a more restrictive limitation--but it is a start, and it 
includes within it further limitations on expenditures of PAC 
contributions and large-donor contributions, ensuring that every 
candidate must turn to individuals of modest means for support.
  I sincerely hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join 
in adopting these limits. I hope, too, that we will view the substitute 
bill as a good first step, and return to this subject again, soon.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I first introduced legislation to 
overhaul our system of campaign financing 6 years ago, in 1990. I 
introduced my bill, because I believed then, as I believe today, that 
our current system of financing campaigns is broke and needs fixing. I 
introduced my bill, H.R. 296, the House of Representatives Election 
Campaign Reform Act of 1995, after lengthy consultation with Members on 
both sides of the aisle, with eminent academic experts on campaign 
finance reform, and with my constituents.
  Although the campaign finance reform bills considered by the House in 
the 102d and 103d Congresses contained only some of the provisions of 
my bill, I voted for the bills which came before the House in both the 
102d and 103d Congresses because I believed they made significant steps 
in the right direction. Unfortunately, in the 102d Congress the bill 
was vetoed by President Bush, and in 103d Congress Senate Republicans 
blocked efforts to go to conference on this important legislation, and 
as a result neither bill became law.
  Last year, in Claremont, NH, President Clinton and Speaker GIngrich 
made a public commitment to embark on a bipartisan effort to pass 
campaign finance reform legislation. While President Clinton 
subsequently submitted campaign finance reform legislation to the 
Congress, Speaker Gingrich effectively reneged on his commitment and no 
bipartisan reform commission was ever established.
  Instead, what we have today, is two separate, partisan proposals, one 
developed by Speaker Gingrich and House Republicans, and the other by 
the House Democratic leadership. Unfortunately, because both bills were 
drawn up by partisans, they are both seriously flawed. Instead of 
trying to level the playing field for incumbents and challengers alike, 
for Democrats and Republicans, and for wealthy candidates and poor 
candidates, each bill seeks to achieve an advantage for one side or 
another. As a result, both bills are fatally flawed, and deserve to be 
rejected.
  The Republican bill, H.R. 3820, which was previously, H.R. 3760, is 
fatally flawed because it does nothing to control the overall cost of 
elections, because it substantially increases the amount that 
individuals can contribute to candidates and parties, because it 
creates an enormous loophole which allows rich individuals and 
corporate PAC's to funnel tens of thousands, if not hundreds of 
thousands, of dollars to candidates through State and national parties, 
and because it severely restricts the ability of average working people 
to contribute a dollar or two every pay period to candidates.
  The Democratic bill, H.R. 3505, is also fatally flawed because it 
restricts the rights of groups to communicate to their members how 
House and Senate Members voted on issues they are interested in. It 
also contains an inappropriate loophole in the provision which 
otherwise prohibits the bundling of campaign contributions, effectively 
allowing bundling by a few favored groups.
  I deeply regret that the Republican leadership has brought these 
campaign finance proposals to the floor under a rule which prohibits 
Members from offering amendments to improve either of them. This is 
nothing more than an attempt to appear to be for reform, knowing full 
well that neither bill will become law. Instead, the existing status 
quo, which is fatally flawed, will be maintained.

  We cannot restore the confidence of the American people in their 
government unless we enact campaign finance reform legislation, but we 
cannot achieve this goal in a partisan manner. In order to have a 
government in Abraham Lincoln's words, ``of the people, by the people, 
and for the people,'' we must eliminate the pernicious effect of 
enormous sums of money on our political system. That is the premise of 
my proposal, H.R. 296, which I believe is fair and balanced to both 
parties, to incumbents and challengers, and to rich and poor candidates 
alike.
  If neither the Democratic nor the Republican proposal before us is 
fair, what should we do to prevent the U.S. Congress from becoming the 
``Millionaires' March on Washington''?
  There are two overriding concerns which should guide our actions in 
this area: First, public officials must be more concerned with the 
policy implications of legislation, than on their ability to raise 
campaign funds, and second, no individual or group should be able to 
buy an election.
  Mr. Chairman, I come to this issue from a somewhat unique 
perspective. I am one of a relatively small number of members who grew 
up in one party, and later became a member of the other party. I was 
raised as a Republican and served in the 83d Congress as a Republican 
page, and I worked on several Presidential, gubernatorial, 
congressional, and State and local Republican campaigns in the 1950's 
and early 1960's. As the Republican Party moved to the extreme right in 
the mid 1960's and deserted those of us in the moderate Rockefeller-
Scranton wing of the party, I became a Democrat, and was elected to 
Congress as a Democrat in 1984.
  My election in 1984 was also an unusual event. I defeated an 
incumbent Congressman in a primary, a rare occurrence, and I was one of 
a mere handful of new Democrats elected to the House during the 1984 
Reagan landslide.
  Before I was even sworn-in for my first term in January 1985, my 1986 
opponent was campaigning and raising hundreds of thousands of dollars 
in campaign contributions. In the 1986 campaign I was outspent nearly 
two-to-one by an opponent who raised and spent well over a million 
dollars in a district where media is relatively inexpensive and where 
no one had ever spent more than a couple of hundred thousand dollars in 
a campaign. My race turned out to be one of the two or three most 
expensive races in the country in 1986. Despite being massively 
outspent, I still managed to win with more than 70 percent of the vote.
  In short, Mr. Chairman, I know what it is like to be an underdog. I 
know what it is like to be outspent. I know how hard it is for 
challengers to raise campaign funds, and I know how unfair it is when 
one candidate has economic resources which are not available to his 
opponent.
  My bill, H.R. 296, the House of Representatives Election Campaign 
Reform Act of 1995, is an effort to bridge the gap between the parties 
over campaign finance reform, by enacting meaningful, but fair and 
balanced, reforms. It encourages honest competition and will help to 
further the goal of a government, ``of the people, by the people, and 
for the people.''
  This comprehensive campaign finance reform bill addresses all of the 
most pressing issues in campaign finance reform: from the growth of 
political action committees [PAC's] and the declining influence of 
small contributions from individuals, to independent expenditures, the 
unfair advantages of candidates who are personally wealthy, and PAC's 
controlled by elected officials.
  H.R. 296 also contains stiff criminal penalties for individuals who 
violate federal election laws.
  Many of the provisions contained in this legislation are based on 
proposals originally recommended by Dr. Norman J. Ornstein, of the 
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Dr. Ornstein 
is a nationally known as well respected scholar of the American 
political and constitutional systems. He is held in high regard by 
members of both parties, which is why his ideas may help us move beyond 
our past partisan differences.
  The cornerstone of H.R. 296 is the significant reduction in the 
amount of money political action committees [PAC's] many contribute to 
candidates and the strong new incentives provided to encourage small 
contributions from instate contributors. The bill slashes the maximum 
contribution a PAC can make to a candidate from the current $5,000 to 
no more than $2,000 per election cycle. That is a 60 percent reduction.
  The bill provides both a tax credit and a Federal matching payment 
for individual contributions of $200 or less to qualify candidates who 
are running for Congress in the contributor's home State.
  In order to qualify for matching funds, a candidate must agree not to 
spend more than $100,000 of his own money on the campaign, and must 
raise at least $25,000 in contributions of $200 or less from instate 
residents. A voluntary income tax checkoff, similar to the one already 
used to finance Presidential elections, is created to provide the 
Federal matching funds.
  The bill also provides reduced broadcast rates for commercials which 
are at least 1 minute long, thus discouraging 30-second sound bite 
commercials. It provides disincentives to discourage so-called 
independent expenditures, and it penalizes candidates who spend large 
sums of their personal money on their campaigns.
  Mr. Chairman, I know there may be a tendency on the part of some to 
blame all the ills of our current system on political action 
committees. They are convenient scapegoats, but

[[Page H8482]]

they are nowhere near as responsible for our current problems as the 
disparity in resources between incumbents and challengers, and the 
amount of money which must be raised and spent in many races just to be 
competitive. The elections of 1994 demonstrate dramatically that all 
the PAC money in the world cannot save a candidate if the public does 
not agree with his message.
  We must also remember that PAC's were created in the early 1970's as 
part of a reform to cure what was then an even larger problem, the fact 
that special interest groups could give virtually unlimited sums of 
money without anyone knowing who was making the contribution. PAC's 
were created to increase disclosure and accountability, so that 
everyone would know where campaign funds were coming from. In this 
respect they have succeeded and have increased both disclosure and 
accountability. Sunshine and full disclosure are the most important 
tools we can provide voters so that they can make informed choices.
  Some people contend that if we simply do away with PAC's all of our 
campaign finance problems will disappear. That just is not true. It is 
a simplistic view of the world. It does not take into account the 
advantages that wealthy candidates have over candidates of modest 
means. It will not make an average citizen a competitive candidate. The 
sad truth, Mr. Chairman, is that even through PAC limits have not 
changed in 20 years, and have thus declined in real terms, campaign 
expenditures have continued to escalate, and expenditures which were 
extraordinary as recently as 1986, are nearly commonplace today.
  That is why I also believe we need a constitutional amendment to 
allow us to set absolute limits on campaign expenditures and 
contributions.
  Changes in Federal law relating to PAC's are necessary, but alone 
they are not sufficient to reform our campaign finance system. PAC 
reform without more comprehensive financing reform will not work. It 
would deal with the symptom, but not the underlying disease, which 
would eventually re-emerge and kill the patient.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to include in the Record, a 
full section-by-section analysis of my bill, H.R. 296, a comprehensive 
solution to our campaign finance problems which is much fairer to both 
parties and to challengers and incumbents alike, than any of the 
proposals we will consider today.

     Section-By-Section Analysis of Hon. Paul Kanjorski's House of 
     Representatives Election Campaign Reform Act of 1995 H.R. 296


                         SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

       The Act may be cited as the ``House of Representatives 
     Election Campaign Reform Act of 1995''.


   SECTION 2. LIMITATION ON CONTRIBUTING TO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
               CANDIDATES BY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES

       Reduces from $5,000 to $2,000 the maximum contribution a 
     political action committee may make to a candidate per 
     election.


     SECTION 3. CREDIT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGNS

       Provides a 100% tax credit for the first $200 (or $400 in 
     the case of a joint tax return) in personal contributions an 
     individual makes to a House candidate running from the same 
     state.


     SECTION 4. DESIGNATION OF INCOME TAX PAYMENTS TO THE HOUSE OF 
                  REPRESENTATIVES CAMPAIGN TRUST FUND

       Provides for a $2 tax credit check-off on individual 
     federal tax returns to be paid to the ``House of 
     Representatives Campaign Trust Fund.''


SECTION 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CAMPAIGN TRUST 
                                  FUND

       Creates a House of Representatives Campaign Trust Fund 
     under the Secretary of the Treasury to receive funds derived 
     from the $2 check-off on individual tax returns and 
     authorizes expenditures from the trust fund to certified 
     candidates who have raised not less than $25,000 in 
     contributions of $200 or less from individual contributors 
     from their states.


   SECTION 6. AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT OF 1971 
RELATING TO REPORTING OF INDIVIDUAL RESIDENT CONTRIBUTIONS IN ELECTIONS 
                    FOR THE OFFICE OF REPRESENTATIVE

       Requires House candidates to report to the FEC when they 
     have raised more than $25,000 in contributions of $200 or 
     less from individuals residing in their states and requires 
     the FEC to certify this to the Secretary of the Treasury.


   SECTION 7. AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT OF 1971 
    RELATING TO MATCHING PAYMENTS FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
                          CAMPAIGN TRUST FUND

       (a) Entitles House candidates to matching funds from the 
     trust fund for the first $200 in contributions from 
     individuals who reside in the state.
       (b) Limits maximum total aggregate matching payments to 
     $300,000.
       (c) In order to receive the matching payments, House 
     candidates are required to certify, under penalty of perjury, 
     that neither they, nor their family, shall furnish more than 
     $100,000 in personal funds or loans for the campaign.
       Establishes penalties of up to $25,000 in fines and/or 5 
     years in prison for violations of any certifications that a 
     candidate will not exceed $100,000 in personal funds.
       (d) Provides that if a candidate for the House refuses to 
     make a certification that he/she will not spend over $100,000 
     in personal funds, that candidate's opponents may receive 
     matching funds for up to $1,000 in contributions from 
     individuals regardless of their state of residence.
       (e) Allows opponents of a House candidate, who violates a 
     certification to limit personal spending to $100,000, to 
     receive from the trust fund payments equal to the amount of 
     personal funds contributed by the violating candidate in 
     excess of $100,000.
       (f) Permits certified House candidates who are the target 
     of independent expenditures which exceed $10,000 to receive 
     from the trust fund an amount equal to 300% of the amount of 
     the independent expenditure. Persons found to have willfully 
     or intentionally sought to subvert the intent of subsection 
     may be fined up to $25,000 and/or imprisoned for up to 5 
     years.
       (g) Requires the repayment to the trust fund of a portion 
     of any excess campaign funds after the election in an amount 
     equal to the pro rata share that trust fund payments 
     accounted for of the candidate's total aggregated receipts 
     from all sources for the election. Repayments to the trust 
     fund shall not exceed the total amount received from the 
     trust fund.
       (h) Requires the FEC to issue regulations to biennially 
     index the provisions of subsection (a).


 SECTION 8. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 304 OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 
          ACT OF 1971 WITH RESPECT TO INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES

       Requires the reporting to the FEC, within 24 hours, of any 
     independent expenditure in a House race which exceed $10,000, 
     and a statement as to which candidate the independent 
     expenditures are intended to help or hurt. Requires the FEC 
     to notify each candidate of the independent expenditures 
     within 24 hours.


 SECTION 9. AMENDMENT RELATING TO BROADCAST MEDIA RATES AND DISCLOSURES

       (a) Requires broadcast stations to offer their lowest 
     rates, to House qualifying candidates who have agreed to 
     limit personal spending to $100,000, for commercials which 
     are 1 to 5 minutes in length.
       (b) Requires the inclusion of the statement ``This 
     candidate has not agreed to abide by the spending limits for 
     this Congressional election campaign set forth in the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act'' in any broadcast or print 
     advertisements of House candidate who refuse to agree to 
     limit personal spending to $100,000.


                         SECTION 10. PENALTIES

       Makes it unlawful to furnish false information to, or to 
     withhold information from, the FEC, punishable by up to 
     $10,000 in fines and/or up to 5 years in prison.


   SECTION 11. RESTRICTIONS ON CONTROL OF CERTAIN TYPES OF POLITICAL 
                        COMMITTEES BY CANDIDATES

       Prohibits House candidates from establishing, maintaining, 
     or controlling a political committee other than an authorized 
     committee of the candidate.


              SECTION 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

       Authorizes such sums as are necessary to carry out the Act.


                       SECTION 13. EFFECTIVE DATE

       Provides for the provisions of the Act to take effect after 
     December 31, 1994.


                        SECTION 14. SEVERABILITY

       If any provision of the Act is held to be invalid, this 
     will not affect the other provisions of the Act.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for campaign 
finance reform and my disappointment that, once again, partisanship has 
colored this debate--to the disadvantage of the American people and our 
political system.
  It's a shame that campaign finance reform--reform supported by an 
overwhelming majority of the American people--is being portrayed today 
as a partisan fight.
  In fact, campaign finance reform is not partisan--and if the process 
by which we are considering amendments had been open, we could have 
proved it. Unfortunately, we are prevented from offering amendments, 
prevented from considering the Smith-Meehan-Shays bill, and prevented 
from making improvements to both of the alternatives brought before us.
  Mr. Chairman, in my view, limiting campaign expenditures is not 
partisan. Limiting the influence of special interests, limiting a 
candidate's ability to self-finance a campaign, and limiting soft money 
are not partisan positions. They are sensible improvements designed to 
restore credibility and integrity to our campaign financing system.
  Yet we are forced to choose between two competing bills in an 
environment highly charged by partisanship and acrimony. Once again, 
the leadership's efforts to drive wedges between the Members of this 
body will prevent

[[Page H8483]]

us from securing the best result for the American people and for the 
American political process.
  While I want to commend Bill Thomas for including in the House 
leadership bill several significant reforms, specifically the aggregate 
contribution limit on individuals, PAC's and parties, the Thomas bill 
is far too timid of the choices available. I choose the Farr 
substitute.
  Though not perfect, the Farr substitute contains far more of the 
kinds of reforms that I think are necessary.
  The Farr substitute establishes an overall voluntary spending limit 
of $600,000 on congressional campaigns. In exchange for adhering to 
voluntary limits, it provides candidates with discounted broadcast and 
mail rates.
  The substitute limits contributions from PAC's and eliminates 
leadership PAC's altogether. It also limits the amount large donors can 
contribute. And, most important, it limits the amount individuals can 
contribute or loan to their own campaigns. In contrast, the Thomas bill 
only takes off restrictions if an individual self-finances above a 
certain dollar threshold.
  Another important reform which the Farr substitute makes is a clear 
definition of what constitutes an independent expenditure.
  It is my hope that the Farr substitute will marshal majority support 
in this Chamber. If it does not, public cynicism about Congress and the 
electoral process are likely to increase.
  Mr. Chairman, we need reform. And if afforded the opportunity to 
consider in an open fashion the reform proposals made by some of our 
colleagues, including the proposal put forward by the gentlelady from 
Washington [Mrs. Smith] and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan], I think we could 
have found a bipartisan consensus for a strong congressional campaign 
finance reform measure.
  Under this rule, we'll never know for sure. And, as a result, 
campaign finance reform will continue to be used as a partisan 
sledgehammer instead of a tool to restore integrity and credibility to 
our current campaign finance system.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
revise and extend my remarks. I rise in support of campaign finance 
reform, I have always been, but this Gingrich Republican bill is not 
reform, it is revolting. So I oppose this bill, H.R. 3820.
  The 104th Congress, with a Republican leadership that was bought and 
paid for by special interest money, is a clear demonstration of what 
can and did happen when money talked and elephants walked into the 
leadership of this Congress. The GOP--guardians of the privileged--
honored their obligations to their wealthy supporters: obligations to 
try to pass legislation to slash health, education, social services, 
environmental, and other programs that provide for and lift up the 
vulnerable among us.
  In all my 23\1/2\ years in this Congress, I have never seen such 
flagrant special interest legislating. How can we control this buying 
and selling of the Congress? Easily, by cutting out the Republicans' 
special interest campaign finance preferential treatment bill. We must 
achieve meaningful reform of the Federal campaign financing system. 
That doesn't mean that we should raise the amounts of money wealthy 
supporters can contribute, that doesn't mean that we should raise the 
amounts of money that can be funneled into a candidate's campaign by 
hiding it in political party bank accounts, and it certainly doesn't 
mean that we should raise the limit on how much the very wealthy can 
spend to influence elections every year.
  Until and unless we fix this boondoggle, campaigns for the U.S. 
Congress and the Presidency will always be in danger of being sold to 
the highest bidding special interests. So, what are the Republicans 
proposing? Guess.
  What would enhance their ability to raise more money than the 
Democrats? Answer: Raising the amount an individual can give to a 
Federal candidate from $1,000 to $2,500.
  How can the Republicans help their wealthy supporters have even more 
influence on policy and lawmaking? Answer: By raising the limit on the 
total amount an individual can contribute from $25,000 in an election 
cycle to $72,500.
  How can the Republicans help their candidates get more support from 
the always better funded Republican party committees? Answer: By 
raising the amount of funds a party committee can contribute to their 
candidate, or doing away with a limit altogether.
  Only if we defeat this Republican inspired bill will we be able to 
ensure that the Congress achieved significant reforms in the way in 
which the campaign finance system is structured and operated.
  Comprehensive campaign finance reform is necessary to ensure the true 
revitalization of the American democratic process and I have been a 
strong supporter of legislative efforts designed to lessen the ever 
increasing costs of Congressional campaigns, as well as to provide for 
more competitive contests between incumbents and challengers. 
Understandably, the American public has become more and more 
disenchanted with big-money politics, and it is imperative that we 
renew the faith of our citizens in the ability of Congress to 
objectively represent the desires of our constituents.
  In the 103d Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate 
considered campaign finance reform legislation which included major 
provisions: First, a voluntary spending cap of $600,000 per House 
candidate in an election cycle, second, a limitation on contributions 
from Political Action Committees [PAC's] and large contributors of 
$200,000 per election cycle, third, the closing of several loopholes in 
current campaign law regarding independent expenditures and so-called 
soft money, fourth, restrictions on campaign contributions and 
fundraising by lobbyists, and fifth, the introduction of communications 
vouchers to provide greater access to television and radio time for all 
candidates.
  In H.R. 3820, the one-sided special interest financing bill that the 
Republicans have designed clearly demonstrates that they never saw a 
special interest with too much money. Although the Republican 
leadership has publicly said that there needs to be more money spent in 
campaigns--not less, with this bill, they are trying to make sure they 
get the money that can.
  I urge my colleagues to use some common sense and turn down this 
unlimited funding bill for the wealthy to elect more Republicans. 
Heaven forbid.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, today is a very important day in history. 
Today is the day when we can restore the American people's faith in 
Congress.
  Recent polls show that the American people distrust Congress, and I 
can understand why. They feel that Congress is beholden to the rich and 
the elite. Clearly, Congress must take strong steps to restore public 
confidence.
  However, H.R. 3820, the Campaign Finance Reform Act, is not the way. 
To paraphrase the New York Times, it is deformed campaign reform. It 
will open the floodgates for fat cats to give even more money to 
candidates and parties--from a maximum of $25,000 a year to more than 
$3 million a year. Only 1 percent of Americans contributed $200 or more 
during the last election. It is clear that H.R. 3820 will give this 1 
percent of Americans, the elite, even more influence in the political 
process.
  The GOP leadership has been crowing about campaign finance reform and 
the much touted ``Reform Week,'' but when it came time to put the 
product out, well, you see the result.
  Then again, proponents of this measure are the same people who say 
that we do not spend enough money on politics and that campaigns, 
relative to the cost of marketing liquid detergents, are severely 
underfunded. Think about this for a moment. These are the same people 
who are behind H.R. 3820. That is probably why even my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle are divided on it.
  In a last minute attempt to gather support for this bill after a 
storm of public criticism, the Republican leadership made some 
substantial changes to their campaign finance bill. The changes, while 
a marked improvement over the original measure, still falls far short 
of any reasonable reform campaign finance. For instance, it still fails 
to address the problem of soft money. Wealthy individuals will continue 
to funnel unlimited amounts of cash through that backdoor leaving your 
average working families disenfranchised.
  Ordinary citizens already feel that they are being pushed into the 
periphery of the political process by the rich and the elite. This bill 
only widens the chasm between ordinary citizens and the electoral 
process.
  Fortunately, we have a viable alternative before us, and that is the 
Farr-Gephardt bill. Unlike the Republican proposal, it is real reform 
in the right direction. It establishes new limits on campaign spending, 
individual contributions, candidates' personal spending, and 
independent expenditures. In short, it reduces the influence of the 
rich and powerful, and rightfully increases the role of average working 
families in the political process. No longer will the elite 1 percent 
of the Nation dominate the political process.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the 
Republican measure and support the real deal, the Farr-Gephardt bill. 
Let us not give the American people business as usual. Vote for 
meaningful reform during ``Reform Week''--not empty symbolism.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address one of the most important 
issues facing our Nation: reforming the electoral process. Mr. 
Chairman, the time has come for real campaign finance reform.
  At present, too many Americans believe that our Government is for 
sale. Watching millions spent on political campaigns, our Nation's 
citizens see a system that is reserved for the wealthy and dominated by 
special interests.
  These perceptions promote cynicism about government and undermine 
public faith in Congress. To win back the American people's trust, 
campaign spending must be brought

[[Page H8484]]

under control and the influence that money wields in our Nation's 
electoral process must be reduced.
  Controlling runaway campaign costs will allow candidates to spend 
less time raising funds and more time discussing issues with voters. It 
will also level the playing field for our Nation's ordinary citizens, 
who now often feel that unless they are wealthy, they cannot 
realistically compete for public office.
  Unfortunately, these goals are nowhere to be found in this Republican 
bill, which is opposed by nearly every group committed to government 
reform. United We Stand America has denounced this bill. The League of 
Women Voters calls it a fraud. Common Cause calls it a total phony and 
states, ``Any Member who votes for this bill can only be called a 
Protector of Corruption.''
  Why has the Republican bill attracted uniform opposition? Because it 
ignores the American people's desire for meaningful campaign finance 
reform that controls the cost of campaigns.
  The Republican bill does nothing to limit campaign spending in 
congressional elections. It does nothing to limit the role of wealthy 
individuals or increase that of our Nation's working families in 
elections. It does nothing to limit the excessive spending by political 
parties that the Supreme Court promoted in its Colorado Republican 
Party versus FEC decision. It does nothing to close the soft money 
loophole, which lets special interests pour millions of dollars into 
campaigns with no accountability.
  The American people deserve better than this sham. Today the House 
should have an open debate on campaign finance reform to find the best 
answer to this critical issue. However, the Republican majority opposes 
such full consideration and refuses to allow the Smith-Shays-Meehan 
bill to reach the House floor.
  Since coming to Congress, I have worked for real campaign finance 
reform. I have supported legislation to place voluntary spending limits 
on congressional campaigns, cap contributions from special interests 
and wealthy individuals, and close the soft money loophole. This year, 
I proudly sign the discharge petition to allow consideration of the 
Smith-Shays-Meehan bill, and I cosponsored House Joint Resolution 114, 
which would specifically allow Congress to place reasonable limits on 
campaign spending.
  We need real campaign finance reform. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
the Republican bill and answer the American people's call to reduce the 
role of money in our Nation's elections.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, today, this Congress can pass 
much needed campaign finance reform. While this legislation doesn't go 
as far as I think it should, it's a positive step in the right 
direction.
  I have supported campaign finance reform for a long time. I've 
introduced legislation in both this session and the last session of 
Congress that would have banned PAC contributions to congressional 
candidates. My proposals would also have required at least 50 percent 
of a candidate's total contributions come from within the congressional 
district. I'm pleased this important part of my proposal was adopted by 
the committee and is part of this legislation.
  Representatives shouldn't be beholden to any interest other than the 
peoples' interest. And for the past 15 years, since I first ran for the 
Michigan Senate, I haven't accepted any special interest PAC 
contributions.
  As a member of the Campaign Finance Reform task force, I am very 
concerned about the excessive amount of influence special interest 
political action committees [PAC's] have in Washington. During the last 
19 months, as we've worked to rein in big Government lobbyists have 
become more aggressive in protecting their special interests. We must 
not let special interest PAC's with their huge political contributions 
decide legislation.
  We've made progress in this bill, but I believe true campaign finance 
reform will only be achieved when we remove the undue influence of 
special interest PAC lobbyists and their millions of dollars in 
campaign contributions from the political process.
  Some Members feel this bill goes to far, some think it does not go 
far enough. However, because of perception and because of the real 
undue influence of special interest lobbyists we must move ahead with 
campaign finance reform.
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, the electorate and those who 
participate in the political process are owed, at a very minimum, 
several fundamental protections to ensure fair and competitive 
elections. The House of Representatives has on its calendar the 
Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1996, H.R. 3820, legislation that 
addresses many of the injustices and shortcomings of the current 
campaign finance system. I want in my statement to underscore several 
points: the importance of guaranteeing integrity in the campaign 
process, the importance of requiring that candidates be accountable to 
the voters they seek to represent, and the importance of guarding the 
competitive nature of campaigns. I also intend to point out areas where 
I believe the efforts of the legislation before us fall slightly short.
  The Campaign Finance Reform Act takes a first step toward ensuring 
that the interests most special to Members of Congress are the 
interests of the citizens of their district, and not, for example, the 
representatives of multicandidate political committees or lobbying 
firms. One of my highest legislative priorities this Congress has been 
the formulation of a meaningful, bipartisan campaign finance proposal--
the FAIR Elections Act of 1996, H.R. 3543--the essence of which is a 
requirement that candidates for Federal office be more accountable to 
the citizens they represent.
  Whereas my legislation creates fairness in the treatment of 
contributions from multicandidate political committees and individuals 
by equalizing the maximum permissible limits, the amended version of 
the Campaign Finance Reform Act retains the current disequilibrium. 
Under present law, individual limits are set at $1,000 and PAC limits 
at $5,000 per election. This legislation proposes to retain individual 
limits at $1,000, and lower PAC limits by half to $2,500 per election, 
indexing both prospectively for inflation. While this amendment to the 
original provision--which proposed to equalize the limits, but then 
retroactively adjusted them for inflation, in essence more than 
doubling the contribution limits of individuals--is an improvement over 
the original bill language, it is still a departure from what I believe 
to be the correct approach.
  I believe this difference is critical to effective and meaningful 
reform. The proposed contribution levels create the perception that if 
you ban together with a group of like-minded citizens in a 
constitutionally protected effort to exercise your free speech rights, 
your voice is still a little bit more valuable, more weighted so to 
speak, than if you are simply an individual acting on that right. I 
assert that everyone's rights should be equal.
  I would point out that last week, I asked the Rules Committee to make 
in order an amendment to the Campaign Finance Reform Act to change the 
original retroactive indexing to prospective indexing, thereby keeping 
the $1,000 equalization in place, but allowing for inflation 
adjustments to occur only from 1996 forward. While that request was 
denied, I credit Chairman Thomas for being willing to take a second 
look at this provision to clean up the indexing portion of the 
proposal.
  There have been in recent years instances of extremely wealthy 
candidates saturating their own campaigns with personal funds, creating 
an immense advantage over their opponents or keeping worthy challengers 
out of a race because of their inability to complete with personal 
funds. While some people are concerned about the amount of money being 
spent in campaigns, right now in our country more money is spent on the 
advertising of yogurt in a single election year than on all Federal 
races combined. I believe it is critically important to present the 
issues necessary to the discussion of who governs our Nation. And such 
a presentation requires money to buy brochures and printing and 
television or radio time. In my view, however, the leveling of the 
playing field is the critical issue.
  The Campaign Finance Reform Act as originally reported provides 
special rules for candidates in an election when one of those 
candidates injects large amounts of personal wealth into the campaign. 
In the primary election for example, if $150,000 in personal wealth is 
spent, the bill raises individual contribution limits and lifts in-
district fundraising rules for all candidates up to the amount spent. 
In the general election, if between $2,500 and $150,000 in personal 
wealth is spent, the bill allows political parties to contribute to the 
opponent a matching amount. And if over $150,000 in personal wealth is 
spent, the bill allows political parties to contribute matching dollars 
and also raises the individual contribution limits and in-district 
fundraising requirements.

  An amendment I proposed would have lowered the triggering threshold 
to $50,000 in both the primary and general elections; $150,000 in 
personal wealth could be enough to secure a primary victory. That is 
why I believe the triggering limit is too generous, and why I sought to 
lower it.
  One aspect of my own proposal would have offered incentives for 
individuals to become personally involved in the political process. By 
restoring the $100 per person tax deduction--$200 for joint returns--we 
would encourage citizens to contribute local dollars to candidates for 
State or Federal office, and thereby broaden the contribution base of a 
candidate.
  After witnessing the political process from the perspective of a 
private citizen, a State party chairman, a candidate for public office, 
and a Federal representative, I have no doubt that reform of the 
current system of financing campaigns is appropriate and necessary. My 
certainty in this regard hovers around several tenets of reform.

[[Page H8485]]

  The first is fairness. We should create fairness by equalizing the 
amount groups of like-minded individuals may contribute with what 
individuals may give to a candidate. We should ensure strictly 
voluntary participation in the political process, so that American 
workers are not unfairly forced to finance a political agenda with 
which they may adamantly disagree.
  The second principle is accountability. We must encourage Members of 
Congress to be more accountable to their constituents, not political 
committees, by requiring candidates, to raise the majority of their 
funds in-State and in-district.
  Integrity is the third aspect, enhanced through the promotion of fair 
competition between incumbents and challengers by, for example, 
restricting the use of official mail--franking--allowances, and 
disallowing the bipartisan habit of fundraising while Congress is 
conducting legislative business. Finally, other reform is long overdue, 
such as the restoration of a $100 income tax deduction to taxpayers who 
participate in the political process.
  Mr. Chairman, as we endeavor to restore the public's faith in the 
campaign finance system, the campaign process in this country simply 
must retain the ability to encourage good candidates to pursue public 
service. Elections for office must be competitive and characterized at 
all times by integrity. The Campaign Finance Reform Act has been a 
product of several hearings and a lively, yearlong discussion of the 
issue and is a first step toward that end. While a far from perfect 
bill, it makes a bold step in the right direction and provides an 
excellent starting point for serious and meaningful negotiations with 
our colleagues in the other body. This will be a process I will 
continue to pursue during the remainder of the 104th Congress and 
through Congresses to come. The American people deserve no less.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to H.R. 
3820, the Republican leadership's campaign finance bill, and in support 
of the substitute to be offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Farr].
  Although neither of the two proposals do enough to reduce the amount 
of special-interest money in congressional campaigns, the Farr 
substitute, with its aggregate limit on PAC contributions and on large 
donations from individuals, represents an enormous improvement over the 
existing system in that regard. The Republican proposal, in contrast, 
would actually increase the influence of wealthy individuals and 
special-interest groups in our electoral process.
  But regardless of which proposal--if either--is passed by the House 
today, it won't matter because the Senate is not going to revisit the 
issue this year, and therefore a reform bill will not be signed into 
law.
  Campaign finance reform is, without a doubt, the most important 
reform we could possibly make here in Congress. A campaign finance 
system that would lessen the role of special interests in our political 
and legislative process would make a bigger difference in the way 
Congress operates--and would do more to restore public trust in 
Congress--than any other change we could possibly make to this 
institution.
  However, the dismal record on campaign finance reform from the years 
when Democrats controlled Congress, and the all-but-certain failure of 
the Republicans' effort this year, demonstrate that much more 
groundwork must be done to pass a reform bill and get it signed into 
law.
  The experience of recent years has convinced many of us that we will 
not succeed with this issue unless we develop a campaign finance system 
that has bipartisan support. It is not impossible, in my view. But it 
is going to require the majority leadership to reach out to and work 
with the minority leadership in good faith.
  I am also convinced that, unpopular as it may seem, part of the 
solution has to be the inclusion of a significant amount of public 
financing. That could take the form of direct Federal payments to 
candidates, vouchers for media and mail, requirements for free air time 
for candidates as part of broadcast licensing, or other means. There is 
simply no way congressional candidates will ever have adequate 
resources to run a viable campaign, and also be less influenced by 
campaign contributors, unless we have a system that includes public 
financing.
  Providing some kind of public financing is our best hope for reducing 
the influence of special interests in our legislative process, 
promoting more competitive campaigns, and ensuring that people who do 
not have a large amount of personal wealth will have the opportunity to 
run for Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, it is too late to enact campaign finance reform 
legislation this year. But I strongly urge the leadership of both 
parties to come together and begin working, now, on a bipartisan plan 
for reforming our campaign finance system that could be considered 
early in the next Congress. This issue is too important for the 
integrity of the legislative process, and for the trust people need to 
have in their elected officials for democracy to work, for either party 
to continue to pursue partisan campaign finance proposals that are only 
destined for failure.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  Purusant to House Resolution 481, the bill is considered read for 
amendment under the 5-minute rule and amendment No. 1 printed in the 
appropriate place in the Congressional Record by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas] is adopted.
  The text of H.R. 3820, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3820

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Campaign 
     Finance Reform Act of 1996''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.

         TITLE I--RESTORING CONTROL OF ELECTIONS TO INDIVIDUALS

Sec. 101. Requiring majority of House of Representatives candidate 
              funds to come from individuals residing in district.
Sec. 102. Reduction in allowable contribution amounts for political 
              action committees; revision of limitations on amounts of 
              other contributions.
Sec. 103. Modification of limitations on contributions when candidates 
              spend or contribute large amounts of personal funds.
Sec. 104. Indexing limits on contributions.
Sec. 105. Prohibition of leadership committees.
Sec. 106. Prohibiting bundling of contributions to candidates by 
              political action committees and lobbyists.
Sec. 107. Definition of independent expenditures.
Sec. 108. Requirements for use of payroll deductions for contributions.

               TITLE II--STRENGTHENING POLITICAL PARTIES

Sec. 201. Limitation amount for contributions to State political 
              parties.
Sec. 202. Allowing political parties to offset funds carried over from 
              previous elections.
Sec. 203. Prohibiting use of non-Federal funds in Federal elections.
Sec. 204. Permitting parties to have unlimited communication with 
              members.
Sec. 205. Promoting State and local party volunteer and grassroots 
              activity.

                 TITLE III--DISCLOSURE AND ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 301. Timely reporting and increased disclosure.
Sec. 302. Streamlining procedures and rules of Federal Election 
              Commission.

                     TITLE IV--WORKER RIGHT TO KNOW

Sec. 401. Findings.
Sec. 402. Purpose.
Sec. 403. Worker choice.
Sec. 404. Worker consent.
Sec. 405. Worker notice.
Sec. 406. Disclosure to workers.
Sec. 407. Construction.
Sec. 408. Effective date.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Effective date.
Sec. 502. Severability.
Sec. 503. Expedited court review.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Our republican form of government is strengthened when 
     voters choose their representatives in elections that are 
     free of corruption or the appearance of corruption.
       (2) Corruption or the appearance of corruption in elections 
     may evidence itself in many ways:
       (A) Voters who democratically elect representatives must 
     believe they are fairly represented by those they elect. The 
     current election laws have led many to believe that the 
     interests of those who actually vote for their 
     representatives are less important than those who cannot 
     vote, but who can influence an election by their 
     contributions to the candidates.
       (B) Failure to disclose, or timely disclose, those who 
     contribute and how much they contribute unnecessarily 
     withholds information voters need to cast ballots with 
     complete confidence, thereby increasing the belief of, or the 
     appearance of, corruption.
       (C) The diminishing role of political parties, despite 
     parties' long-standing role in advancing broad national 
     agendas, in assisting the election of party candidates, and 
     in organizing members, has relatively enhanced groups that 
     pursue narrower interests. This relative shift of influence 
     has been interpreted by some as corrupting the election 
     process.
       (D) Complicated and obsolete election laws and rules 
     discourage citizens from becoming candidates, allow for 
     coerced involuntary payments for political purposes, fail to 
     keep contribution amounts current with inflation, and fail to 
     provide reasonable compensating

[[Page H8486]]

     contribution limits for candidates who run against candidates 
     who wish to exercise their constitutional right of spending 
     their own resources. The current state of laws and rules is 
     such that if they do not corrupt, at the very least they 
     unduly hinder fair, honest, and competitive elections.
         TITLE I--RESTORING CONTROL OF ELECTIONS TO INDIVIDUALS

     SEC. 101. REQUIRING MAJORITY OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
                   CANDIDATE FUNDS TO COME FROM INDIVIDUALS 
                   RESIDING IN DISTRICT.

       (a) In General.--Section 315 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i)(1) A candidate for the office of Representative in, 
     or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress may not 
     accept contributions with respect to an election cycle from 
     persons other than local individual residents totaling in 
     excess of the total of contributions accepted from local 
     individual residents (as determined on the basis of the most 
     recent information included in reports pursuant to section 
     304(d).
       ``(2) In determining the amount of contributions accepted 
     by a candidate for purposes of this subsection, contributions 
     of the candidate's personal funds shall be subject to the 
     following rules:
       ``(A) To the extent that the amount of the contribution 
     does not exceed the limitation on contributions made by an 
     individual under subsection (a)(1)(A), such contribution 
     shall be treated as any other contribution.
       ``(B) The portion (if any) of the contribution which 
     exceeds the limitation on contributions which may be made by 
     an individual under subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be allocated 
     in accordance with paragraph (8).
       ``(3) In determining the amount of contributions accepted 
     by a candidate for purposes of this subsection, contributions 
     from a political party or a political party committee shall 
     be allocated in accordance with paragraph (8).
       ``(4) In determining the amount of contributions accepted 
     by a candidate for purposes of this subsection, any funds 
     remaining in the candidate's campaign account after the 
     filing of the post-general election report under section 
     304(a)(2)(A)(ii) for the most recent general election shall 
     be allocated in accordance with paragraph (8).
       ``(5) In determining the amount of contributions accepted 
     by a candidate for purposes of this subsection, any 
     contributions accepted pursuant to subsection (j) which are 
     from persons other than local individual residents shall be 
     allocated in accordance with paragraph (8).
       ``(6)(A) Any candidate who accepts contributions that 
     exceed the limitation under this subsection, as determined on 
     the basis of information included in reports pursuant to 
     section 304(d), shall pay to the Commission at the time of 
     the filing of the report which contains the information, for 
     deposit in the Treasury, an amount equal to 3 times the 
     amount of the excess contributions (or, in the case of a 
     candidate described in subparagraph (C), an amount equal to 5 
     times the amount of the excess contributions plus a civil 
     penalty in an amount determined by the Commission).
       ``(B) Any amounts paid by a candidate under this paragraph 
     shall be paid from contributions subject to the limitations 
     and prohibitions of this title, including the limitation 
     under this subsection.
       ``(C) A candidate described in this subparagraph is a 
     candidate who accepts contributions that exceed the 
     limitation under this subsection as of the last day of the 
     period ending on the 20th day before an election or any 
     period ending after such 20th day and before or on the 20th 
     day after such election.
       ``(7) As used in this subsection, the term `local 
     individual resident' means an individual who resides in the 
     congressional district involved.
       ``(8) For purposes of this subsection, any amounts 
     allocated in accordance with this paragraph shall be 
     allocated as follows:
       ``(A) 50 percent of such amounts shall be deemed to be 
     contributions from local individual residents.
       ``(B) 50 percent of such amounts shall be deemed to be 
     contributions from persons other than local individual 
     residents.''.
       (b) Reporting Requirements.--Section 304 of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 434) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Each principal campaign committee of a candidate for 
     the House of Representatives shall include the following 
     information in reports filed under subsection (a)(2) and 
     subsection (a)(6)(A):
       ``(1) With respect to each report filed under such 
     subsection--
       ``(A) the total contributions received by the committee 
     with respect to the election cycle involved from local 
     individual residents (as defined in section 315(i)(7)), as of 
     the last day of the period covered by the report;
       ``(B) the total contributions received by the committee 
     with respect to the election cycle involved which are not 
     from local individual residents, as of the last day of the 
     period covered by the report; and
       ``(C) a certification as to whether the contributions 
     reported comply with the limitation under section 315(i), as 
     of the last day of the period covered by the report.
       ``(2) In the case of the first report filed under such 
     subsection which covers the period which begins 19 days 
     before an election and ends 20 days after the election--
       ``(A) the total contributions received by the committee 
     with respect to the election cycle involved from local 
     individual residents (as defined in section 315(i)(7)), as of 
     the last day of such period;
       ``(B) the total contributions received by the committee 
     with respect to the election cycle involved which are not 
     from local individual residents, as of the last day of such 
     period; and
       ``(C) a certification as to whether the contributions 
     reported comply with the limitation under section 315(i), as 
     of the last day of such period.''.

     SEC. 102. REDUCTION IN ALLOWABLE CONTRIBUTION AMOUNTS FOR 
                   POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES; REVISION OF 
                   LIMITATIONS ON AMOUNTS OF OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS.

       (a) Revision of Current Limitations.--
       (1) Contributions by multicandidate political committees.--
     Section 315(a)(2) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(2)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in subparagraphs (A) and (C), by striking ``$5,000'' 
     and inserting ``$2,500''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$15,000'' and 
     inserting ``$40,000''.
       (2) Contributions by individuals.--Section 315(a)(1) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)) 
     is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``$5,000'' and 
     inserting ``$2,500''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$20,000'' and 
     inserting ``$40,000''.
       (3) Aggregate annual contribution by individuals.--Section 
     315(a)(3) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)) is amended by 
     striking ``$25,000'' and inserting ``$50,000''.
       (b) Limitations on Contributions by Political Party 
     Committees.--
       (1) In general.--Section 315(a) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     441a(a)) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (8) as 
     paragraphs (4) through (9); and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) No political party committee may make contributions--
       ``(A) to any candidate or the candidate's authorized 
     political committees with respect to any election for Federal 
     office which, in the aggregate, exceed $10,000; or
       ``(B) to any other political committees other than a 
     political party committee in any calendar year which, in the 
     aggregate, exceed $10,000.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 315(a) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 441a(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (5) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)(A)), 
     by striking ``paragraphs (1) and (2)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)'';
       (B) in paragraph (6) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)(A)), 
     by striking ``paragraph (1) and paragraph (2)'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)''; and
       (C) in paragraph (7) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)(A)), 
     by striking ``paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)''.
       (c) Political Party Committee Defined.--Section 315(a)(5) 
     of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(4)) (as redesignated by 
     subsection (b)(1)(A)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following sentence: ``For purposes of this section, the term 
     `political party committee' means a political committee which 
     is a national, State, district, or local political party 
     committee (including any subordinate committee thereof).''.
       (d) Other Conforming Amendments.--Section 311(a)(6) of such 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 438(a)(6)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by inserting after ``multi-
     candidate committees'' the first place it appears the 
     following: ``and political committees which are not 
     authorized committees of candidates or political party 
     committees'';
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``multicandidate 
     committees'' the second place it appears and inserting ``such 
     committees''; and
       (3) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``multicandidate 
     committees'' and inserting ``committees described in 
     subparagraph (B)''.

     SEC. 103. MODIFICATION OF LIMITATIONS ON CONTRIBUTIONS WHEN 
                   CANDIDATES SPEND OR CONTRIBUTE LARGE AMOUNTS OF 
                   PERSONAL FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 315 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a), as amended by section 
     101(a), is further amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(j)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a), if in a general 
     election a House candidate makes expenditures of personal 
     funds (including contributions by the candidate to the 
     candidate's authorized campaign committee) in an amount in 
     excess of the amount of the limitation established under 
     subsection (a)(1)(A) and less than or equal to $150,000 (as 
     reported under section 304(a)(2)(A)), a political party 
     committee may make contributions to an opponent of the House 
     candidate without regard to any limitation otherwise 
     applicable to such contributions under subsection (a), except 
     that the opponent may not accept aggregate contributions 
     under this paragraph in an amount greater than the greatest 
     amount of personal funds expended (including contributions to 
     the candidate's authorized campaign committee) by any House 
     candidate (other than such opponent) with respect to the 
     election (as reported in a notification submitted under 
     section 304(a)(6)(B)).
       ``(2) If a House candidate makes expenditures of personal 
     funds (including contributions by the candidate to the 
     candidate's authorized campaign committee) with respect

[[Page H8487]]

     to an election in an amount greater than $150,000 (as 
     reported under section 304(a)(2)(A)), the following rules 
     shall apply:
       ``(A) In the case of a general election, the limitations 
     under subsections (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) (insofar as such 
     limitations apply to political party committees and to 
     individuals, and to other political committees to the extent 
     that the amount contributed does not exceed 10 times the 
     amount of the limitation otherwise applicable under such 
     subsection) shall not apply to contributions to the candidate 
     or to any opponent of the candidate, except that neither the 
     candidate or any opponent may accept aggregate contributions 
     under this subparagraph and paragraph (1) in an amount 
     greater than the greatest amount of personal funds (including 
     contributions to the candidate's authorized campaign 
     committee) expended by any House candidate with respect to 
     the election (as reported in a notification submitted under 
     section 304(a)(6)(B)).
       ``(B) In the case of an election other than a general 
     election, the limitations under subsection (a)(1) and (a)(2) 
     (insofar as such limitations apply to individuals and to 
     political committees other than political party committees to 
     the extent that the amount contributed does not exceed 10 
     times the amount of the limitation otherwise applicable under 
     such subsection) shall not apply to contributions to the 
     candidate or to any opponent of the candidate, except that 
     neither the candidate or any opponent may accept aggregate 
     contributions under this subparagraph in an amount greater 
     than the greatest amount of personal funds (including 
     contributions to the candidate's authorized campaign 
     committee) expended by any House candidate with respect to 
     the election (as reported in a notification submitted under 
     section 304(a)(6)(B)).
       ``(3) In this subsection, the term `House candidate' means 
     a candidate in an election for the office of Representative 
     in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.''.
       (b) Notification of Expenditures of Personal Funds.--
     Section 304(a)(6) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(6)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(B)(i) The principal campaign committee of a House 
     candidate (as defined in section 315(j)(3)) shall submit the 
     following notifications relating to expenditures of personal 
     funds by such candidate (including contributions by the 
     candidate to such committee):
       ``(I) A notification of the first such expenditure (or 
     contribution) by which the aggregate amount of personal funds 
     expended (or contributed) with respect to an election exceeds 
     the amount of the limitation established under section 
     315(a)(1)(A) for elections in the year involved.
       ``(II) A notification of each such expenditure (or 
     contribution) which, taken together with all such 
     expenditures (and contributions) in any amount not included 
     in the most recent report under this subparagraph, totals 
     $5,000 or more.
       ``(III) A notification of the first such expenditure (or 
     contribution) by which the aggregate amount of personal funds 
     expended with respect to the election exceeds the level 
     applicable under section 315(j)(2) for elections in the year 
     involved.
       ``(ii) Each of the notifications submitted under clause 
     (i)--
       ``(I) shall be submitted not later than 24 hours after the 
     expenditure or contribution which is the subject of the 
     notification is made;
       ``(II) shall include the name of the candidate, the office 
     sought by the candidate, and the date of the expenditure or 
     contribution and amount of the expenditure or contribution 
     involved; and
       ``(III) shall include the total amount of all such 
     expenditures and contributions made with respect to the same 
     election as of the date of expenditure or contribution which 
     is the subject of the notification.''.

     SEC. 104. INDEXING LIMITS ON CONTRIBUTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 315(c) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(c)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3)(A) The amount of each limitation established under 
     subsection (a) shall be adjusted as follows:
       ``(i) For calendar year 1999, each such amount shall be 
     equal to the amount described in such subsection, increased 
     (in a compounded manner) by the percentage increase in the 
     price index (as defined in subsection (c)(2)) for 1997 and 
     1998.
       ``(ii) For calendar year 2001 and each second subsequent 
     year, each such amount shall be equal to the amount for the 
     second previous year (as adjusted under this subparagraph), 
     increased (in a compounded manner) by the percentage increase 
     in the price index for the previous year and the second 
     previous year.
       ``(B) In the case of any amount adjusted under this 
     subparagraph which is not a multiple of $500, the amount 
     shall be rounded to the nearest highest multiple of $500.''.
       (b) Application of Indexing to Support of Candidate's 
     Committees.--Section 302(e)(3)(B) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     432(e)(3)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new sentence: ``The amount described in the previous sentence 
     shall be adjusted (for years beginning with 1997) in the same 
     manner as the amounts of limitations on contributions under 
     section 315(a) are adjusted under section 315(c)(3).''.
       (c) Application of Indexing to Provisions Relating to 
     Personal Funds.--
       (1) In general.--Section 315(j) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     441a(j)), as added by section 103(a), is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) Each of the amounts provided under paragraph (1) or 
     (2) shall be adjusted for each biennial period beginning 
     after the 1998 general election in the same manner as the 
     amounts of limitations on contributions established under 
     subsection (a) are adjusted under subsection (c)(3).''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 304(a)(6)(B)(i) of such 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(6)(B)(i)), as added by section 103(b), 
     is amended by striking ``section 315(j)(3)'' and inserting 
     ``section 315(j)(4)''.

     SEC. 105. PROHIBITION OF LEADERSHIP COMMITTEES.

       (a) Leadership Committee Prohibition.--Section 302 of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 432) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(j) A candidate for Federal office or an individual 
     holding Federal office may not establish, maintain, finance, 
     or control a political committee, other than a principal 
     campaign committee of the candidate or the individual.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment Relating to Joint Fundraising.--
     Section 302(e)(3)(A) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 432(e)(3)) is 
     amended by striking ``except 
     that--'' and all that follows and inserting the following: 
     ``except that the candidate for the office of President 
     nominated by a political party may designate the national 
     committee of such political party as a principal campaign 
     committee, but only if that national committee maintains 
     separate books of account with respect to its function as a 
     principal campaign committee.''.
       (c) Effective Date; Transition Rule.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply with respect to elections occurring in years beginning 
     with 1997.
       (2) Transition rule.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 302(j) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (as added by subsection 
     (a)), if a political committee established, maintained, 
     financed, or controlled by a candidate for Federal office or 
     an individual holding Federal office (other than a principal 
     campaign committee of the candidate or individual) with 
     respect to an election occurring during 1996 has funds 
     remaining unexpended after the 1996 general election, the 
     committee may make contributions or expenditures of such 
     funds with respect to elections occurring during 1997 or 
     1998.
       (B) Disbanding committees; treatment of remaining funds.--
     Any political committee described in subparagraph (A) shall 
     be disbanded after filing any post-election reports required 
     under section 304 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 with respect to the 1998 general election. Any funds of 
     such a committee which remain unexpended after the 1998 
     general election and before the date on which the committee 
     disbands shall be returned to contributors or available for 
     any lawful purpose other than use by the candidate or 
     individual involved with respect to an election for Federal 
     office.

     SEC. 106. PROHIBITING BUNDLING OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO CANDIDATES 
                   BY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES AND LOBBYISTS.

       Section 316 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441b) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(c)(1) No political action committee or person required 
     to register under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 
     U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) may act as an intermediary or conduit 
     with respect to a contribution to a candidate for Federal 
     office.
       ``(2) In this subsection, the term `political action 
     committee' means any political committee which is not--
       ``(A) the principal campaign committee of a candidate; or
       ``(B) a political party committee.''.

     SEC. 107. DEFINITION OF INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES.

       Section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431) is amended by striking paragraph (17) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(17)(A) The term `independent expenditure' means an 
     expenditure by a person for a communication expressly 
     advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified 
     candidate which is not made with the cooperation or with the 
     prior consent of, or in consultation with, or at the request 
     or suggestion of, a candidate or any agent or authorized 
     committee of such candidate.
       ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph--
       ``(i) `expressly advocating the election or defeat' means 
     the use in the communication of explicit words such as `vote 
     for', `reelect', `support', `cast your ballot for', `vote 
     against', `defeat', or `reject', accompanied by a reference 
     in the communication to one or more clearly identified 
     candidates, or words such as `vote' for or against a position 
     on an issue, accompanied by a listing in the communication of 
     one or more clearly identified candidates described as for or 
     against a position on that issue;

[[Page H8488]]

       ``(ii) `which is not made with the cooperation or with the 
     prior consent of, or in consultation with, or at the request 
     or suggestion of, a candidate or any agent or authorized 
     committee of such candidate' refers to the expenditure in 
     question for the communication made by the person; and
       ``(iii) the term `agent' means any person who has actual 
     oral or written authority, either express or implied, to make 
     or authorize the making of expenditures on behalf of a 
     candidate.
       ``(C) An expenditure by a person for a communication which 
     does not contain explicit words expressly advocating the 
     election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate shall 
     not be considered an independent expenditure.''.

     SEC. 108. REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS FOR 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:


             ``use of payroll deductions for contributions

       ``Sec. 323. (a) Requirements for Authorization of 
     Deduction.--
       ``(1) In general.--No amounts withheld from an individual's 
     wages or salary during a year may be used for any 
     contribution under this title unless there is in effect an 
     authorization in writing by the individual permitting the 
     withholding of such amounts for the contribution.
       ``(2) Period of authorization.--An authorization described 
     in this subsection may be in effect with respect to an 
     individual for such period as the individual may specify 
     (subject to cancellation under paragraph (3)), except that 
     the period may not be longer than 12 months.
       ``(3) Right of cancellation.--An individual with an 
     authorization in effect under this subsection may cancel or 
     revise the authorization at any time.
       ``(b) Information Provided by Withholding Entity.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each entity withholding wages or salary 
     from an individual with an authorization in effect under 
     subsection (a) shall provide the individual with a statement 
     that the individual may at any time cancel or revise the 
     authorization in accordance with subsection (a)(3).
       ``(2) Timing of notice.--The entity shall provide the 
     information described in paragraph (1) to an individual at 
     the beginning of each calendar year occurring during the 
     period in which the individual's authorization is in 
     effect.''.
               TITLE II--STRENGTHENING POLITICAL PARTIES

     SEC. 201. LIMITATION AMOUNT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO STATE 
                   POLITICAL PARTIES.

       Paragraphs (1)(B) and (2)(B) of section 315(a) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)) are 
     each amended by inserting after ``national'' the following: 
     ``or State''.
       Page 47, line 6, strike ``Section 315(a)(3)'' and all that 
     follows through ``is amended'' and insert the following: 
     ``Section 315(a)(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(4)) (as redesignated by section 
     102(b)(1)(A)) is amended''.

     SEC. 202. ALLOWING POLITICAL PARTIES TO OFFSET FUNDS CARRIED 
                   OVER FROM PREVIOUS ELECTIONS.

       Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441a), as amended by sections 101 and 103(a), is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(k)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), if, in a general 
     election for Federal office, a candidate who is the incumbent 
     uses campaign funds carried forward from an earlier election 
     cycle, any political party committee may make contributions 
     to the nominee of that political party to match the funds so 
     carried forward by such incumbent. For purposes of this 
     paragraph, funds shall be considered to have been carried 
     forward if the funds represent cash on hand as reported in 
     the applicable post-general election report filed under 
     section 304(a) for the general election involved, plus any 
     amount expended on or before the filing of the report for a 
     later election, less legitimate outstanding debts relating to 
     the previous election up to the amount reported.
       ``(2) The political party contributions under paragraph (1) 
     may be made without regard to any limitation amount otherwise 
     applicable to such contributions made under subsections (a) 
     or (i), but a candidate may not accept contributions under 
     this subsection in excess of the total of funds carried 
     forward by the incumbent candidate.''.

     SEC. 203. PROHIBITING USE OF NON-FEDERAL FUNDS IN FEDERAL 
                   ELECTIONS.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.), as amended by section 108, is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:


               ``restrictions on use of non-federal funds

       ``Sec. 324. (a) Prohibiting Use of Funds in Federal 
     Elections.--No funds may be expended by a political party 
     committee for the purpose of influencing an election for 
     Federal office unless the funds are subject to the 
     limitations and prohibitions of this Act, except as may be 
     provided in this section.
       ``(b) Restrictions on Use of Funds for Mixed Activities.--
       ``(1) Prohibiting use by national party committees.--A 
     national committee of a political party (including any 
     subordinate committee thereof) may not use any funds which 
     are not subject to the limitations and prohibitions of this 
     Act for any mixed activity.
       ``(2) Mixed activity defined.--In this subsection, the term 
     `mixed activity' means any activity which is both for the 
     purpose of influencing an election for Federal office and for 
     any purpose unrelated to influencing an election for Federal 
     office, including voter registration, absentee ballot 
     programs, and get-out-the-vote programs, but does not include 
     the payment of any administrative or overhead costs, 
     including salaries (other than payments made to individuals 
     for get-out-the-vote activities conducted on the day of an 
     election), rent, fundraising, or communications to members of 
     a political party.
       ``(c) Restrictions on Use of Funds for Mixed Candidate-
     Specific Activities.--
       ``(1) Requiring allocation among candidates.--A political 
     party committee may use funds which are not subject to the 
     limitations and prohibitions of this Act for mixed candidate-
     specific activities if the funds are allocated among the 
     candidates involved on the basis of the time and space 
     allocated to the candidates.
       ``(2) Mixed candidate-specific activity defined.--In this 
     subsection, the term `mixed candidate-specific activity' 
     means any activity which is both for the purpose of promoting 
     a specific candidate or candidates in an election for Federal 
     office and for the purpose of promoting a specific candidate 
     or candidates in any other election.''.

     SEC. 204. PERMITTING PARTIES TO HAVE UNLIMITED COMMUNICATION 
                   WITH MEMBERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 315(d) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(d)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4)(A) For purposes of applying the limitations 
     established under paragraphs (2) and (3), in determining the 
     amount of expenditures made by a national committee of a 
     political party or a State committee of a political party 
     (including any subordinate committee of a State committee), 
     there shall be excluded any amounts expended by the committee 
     for communications to the extent the communications are made 
     to members of the party.
       ``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), an individual shall 
     be considered to be a `member' of a political party if any of 
     the following apply:
       ``(i) The individual is registered to vote as a member of 
     the party.
       ``(ii) There is a public record that the individual voted 
     in the primary of the party during the most recent primary 
     election.
       ``(iii) The individual has made a contribution to the party 
     and the contribution has been reported to the Commission (in 
     accordance with this Act) or to a State reporting agency.
       ``(iv) The individual has indicated in writing that the 
     individual is a member of the party.''.
       (b) Funds Available for Party Communications.--Section 324 
     of such Act, as added by section 203, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Funds for Party Communications With Members.--
     Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to funds expended 
     by a political party for communications to the extent the 
     communications are made to members of the party (as 
     determined in accordance with section 315(d)(4)), except that 
     any communications which are both for the purpose of 
     expressly advocating the election or defeat of a specific 
     candidate for election to Federal office and for any other 
     purpose shall be subject to allocation in the same manner as 
     funds expended for mixed candidate-specific activities under 
     subsection (c).''.

     SEC. 205. PROMOTING STATE AND LOCAL PARTY VOLUNTEER AND 
                   GRASSROOTS ACTIVITY.

       (a) Encouraging State and Local Party Activities.--
       (1) Contributions.--Section 301(8)(B) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)(B)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (xiii);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of clause (xiv) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(xv) the payment by a State or local committee of a 
     political party for any of the following activities:
       ``(I) The listing of the slate of the party's candidates, 
     including the communication of the slate to the public.
       ``(II) The mailing of materials for or on behalf of 
     specific candidates by volunteers (including labeling 
     envelopes or affixing postage or other indicia to particular 
     pieces of mail), other than the mailing of materials to a 
     commercial list.
       ``(III) Conducting a telephone bank for or on behalf of 
     specific candidates staffed by volunteers.
       ``(IV) The distribution of collateral materials (such as 
     pins, bumper stickers, handbills, brochures, posters, party 
     tabloids, and yard signs) for or on behalf of specific 
     candidates (whether by volunteers or otherwise).''.
       (2) Expenditures.--Section 301(9)(B) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     431(9)(B)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ix);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of clause (x) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new clause:

[[Page H8489]]

       ``(xi) the payment by a State or local committee of a 
     political party for any of the following activities:
       ``(I) The listing of the slate of the party's candidates, 
     including the communication of the slate to the public.
       ``(II) The mailing of materials for or on behalf of 
     specific candidates by volunteers (including labeling 
     envelopes or affixing postage or other indicia to particular 
     pieces of mail), other than the mailing of materials to a 
     commercial list.
       ``(III) Conducting a telephone bank for or on behalf of 
     specific candidates staffed by volunteers.
       ``(IV) The distribution of collateral materials (such as 
     pins, bumper stickers, handbills, brochures, posters, party 
     tabloids, and yard signs) for or on behalf of specific 
     candidates (whether by volunteers or otherwise).''.
       (3) Conforming amendments.--(A) Section 301(8)(B)(x) of 
     such Act (2 U.S.C. 431(8)(B)(x)) is amended by striking ``in 
     connection with volunteer activities on behalf of nominees of 
     such party'' and inserting ``in connection with State or 
     local activities, other than any payment described in clause 
     (xv)''.
       (B) Section 301(9)(B)(viii) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     431(9)(B)(viii)) is amended by striking ``in connection with 
     volunteer activities on behalf of nominees of such party'' 
     and inserting ``in connection with State or local activities, 
     other than any payment described in clause (xi)''.
       (b) Funds Available for Activities.--
       (1) Permitting use of non-federal funds for mixed 
     activities.--Section 324(b) of such Act, as added by section 
     203, is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) Use by state or local party committees.--A State, 
     local, or district committee of a political party (including 
     any subordinate committee thereof) may use funds which are 
     not subject to the limitations and prohibitions of this Act 
     for mixed activity if the funds are allocated in accordance 
     with the process described in subsection (g).''.
       (2) Funds available for state and local parties.--Section 
     324 of such Act, as added by section 203 and as amended by 
     section 204(b), is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(e) Funds Available for State and Local Party Volunteer 
     and Grassroots Activities.--Subsection (a) shall not apply 
     with respect to payments described in section 301(8)(B)(xv) 
     or section 301(9)(B)(xi), except that any payments which are 
     both for the purpose of expressly advocating the election or 
     defeat of a specific candidate for election to Federal office 
     and for any other purpose shall be subject to allocation in 
     the same manner as funds expended for mixed candidate-
     specific activities under subsection (c).''.
       (3) Treatment of intra-party transfers.--Section 324 of 
     such Act, as added by section 203 and as amended by section 
     204(b) and paragraph (2), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(f) Rule of Construction Regarding Intra-Party 
     Transfers.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
     prohibit the transfer between and among national, State, or 
     local party committees (including any subordinate committees 
     thereof) of funds which are not subject to the limitations 
     and prohibitions of this Act.''.
       (4) Allocation procedures described.--Section 324 of such 
     Act, as added by section 203 and as amended by section 204(b) 
     and paragraphs (2) and (3), is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(g) State and Local Party Committees; Method for 
     Allocating Expenditures for Mixed Activities.--
       ``(1) General rule.--All State and local party committees 
     except those covered by paragraph (2) shall allocate their 
     expenses for mixed activities, as described in subsection 
     (b)(2), according to the ballot composition method described 
     as follows:
       ``(A) Under this method, expenses shall be allocated based 
     on the ratio of Federal offices expected on the ballot to 
     total Federal and non-Federal offices expected on the ballot 
     in the next general election to be held in the committee's 
     State or geographic area. This ratio shall be determined by 
     the number of categories of Federal offices on the ballot and 
     the number of categories of non-Federal offices on the 
     ballot, as described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) In calculating a ballot composition ratio, a State or 
     local party committee shall count the Federal offices of 
     President, United States Senator, and United States 
     Representative, if expected on the ballot in the next general 
     election, as one Federal office each. The committee shall 
     count the non-Federal offices of Governor, State Senator, and 
     State Representative, if expected on the ballot in the next 
     general election, as one non-Federal office each. The 
     committee shall count the total of all other partisan 
     statewide executive candidates, if expected on the ballot in 
     the next general election, as a maximum of two non-Federal 
     offices. State party committees shall also include in the 
     ratio one additional non-Federal office if any partisan local 
     candidates are expected on the ballot in any regularly 
     scheduled election during the 2 year congressional election 
     cycle. Local party committees shall also include in the ratio 
     a maximum of 2 additional non-Federal offices if any partisan 
     local candidates are expected on the ballot in any regularly 
     scheduled election during the 2 year congressional election 
     cycle. State and local party committees shall also include in 
     the ratio 1 additional non-Federal office.
       ``(2) Exception for states that do not hold federal and 
     non-federal elections in the same year.--State and local 
     party committees in states that do not hold Federal and non-
     Federal elections in the same year shall allocate the costs 
     of mixed activities according to the ballot composition 
     method described in paragraph (1), based on a ratio 
     calculated for that calendar year.''.
                 TITLE III--DISCLOSURE AND ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 301. TIMELY REPORTING AND INCREASED DISCLOSURE.

       (a) Deadline for Filing.--
       (1) Requiring reports for all contributions made within 20 
     days of election; requiring reports to be made within 24 
     hours.--Section 304(a)(6)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(6)(A)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``after the 20th day, but more than 48 
     hours before any election'' and inserting ``during the period 
     which begins on the 20th day before an election and ends at 
     the time the polls close for such election''; and
       (B) by striking ``48 hours'' the second place it appears 
     and inserting the following: ``24 hours (or, if earlier, by 
     midnight of the day on which the contribution is 
     deposited)''.
       (2) Requiring actual delivery by deadline.--
       (A) In general.--Section 304(a)(6) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     434(a)(6)), as amended by section 103(b), is further amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Notwithstanding paragraph (5), the time at which a 
     notification or report under this paragraph is received by 
     the Secretary, the Commission, or any other recipient to whom 
     the notification is required to be sent shall be considered 
     the time of filing of the notification or report with the 
     recipient.''.
       (B) Conforming amendment.--Section 304(a)(5) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 434(a)(5)) is amended by striking ``paragraph 
     (2)(A)(i) or (4)(A)(ii)'' and inserting ``paragraphs 
     (2)(A)(i), (4)(A)(ii), or (6))''.
       (b) Increasing Electronic Disclosure.--Section 304(a)(6) of 
     such Act (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(6)), as amended by section 103(b) 
     and subsection (a)(2)(A), is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E)(i) The Commission shall make the information 
     contained in the reports submitted under this paragraph 
     available on the Internet and publicly available at the 
     offices of the Commission as soon as practicable (but in no 
     case later than 24 hours) after the information is received 
     by the Commission.
       ``(ii) In this subparagraph, the term `Internet' means the 
     international computer network of both Federal and non-
     Federal interoperable packet-switched data networks.''.
       (c) Change in Certain Reporting From a Calendar Year Basis 
     to an Election Cycle Basis.--Section 304(b) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 434(b)) is amended by inserting ``(or election cycle, 
     in the case of an authorized committee of a candidate for 
     Federal office)'' after ``calendar year'' each place it 
     appears in paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (6), and (7).
       (d) Clarification of Permissible Use of Facsimile Machines 
     To File Reports.--Section 304(a)(11)(A) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     434(a)(11)) is amended by striking ``method,'' and inserting 
     ``method (including by facsimile device in the case of any 
     report required to be filed within 24 hours after the 
     transaction reported has occurred),''.
       (e) Requiring Receipt of Independent Expenditure Reports 
     Within 24 Hours.--
       (1) In general.--Section 304(c)(2) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     434(c)(2)) is amended in the matter following subparagraph 
     (C)--
       (A) by striking ``shall be reported'' and inserting ``shall 
     be filed''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Notwithstanding subsection (a)(5), the time at which the 
     statement under this subsection is received by the Secretary, 
     the Commission, or any other recipient to whom the 
     notification is required to be sent shall be considered the 
     time of filing of the statement with the recipient.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 304(a)(5) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 434(a)(5)), as amended by subsection (a)(2)(B), is 
     further amended by striking ``or (6)'' and inserting ``or 
     (6), or subsection (c)(2)''.
       (f) Requiring Record Keeping and Report of Secondary 
     Payments by Campaign Committees.--
       (1) Reporting.--Section 304(b)(5)(A) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     434(b)(5)(A)) is amended by striking the semicolon at the end 
     and inserting the following: ``, and, if such person in turn 
     makes expenditures which aggregate $500 or more in an 
     election cycle to other persons (not including employees) who 
     provide goods or services to the candidate or the candidate's 
     authorized committees, the name and address of such other 
     persons, together with the date, amount, and purpose of such 
     expenditures;''.
       (2) Record keeping.--Section 302 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     432), as amended by section 105(a), is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(k) A person described in section 304(b)(5)(A) who makes 
     expenditures which aggregate $500 or more in an election 
     cycle to other persons (not including employees) who provide 
     goods or services to a candidate or a candidate's authorized 
     committees shall

[[Page H8490]]

     provide to a political committee the information necessary to 
     enable the committee to report the information described in 
     such section.''.
       (3) No effect on other reports.--Nothing in the amendments 
     made by this subsection may be construed to affect the terms 
     of any other recordkeeping or reporting requirements 
     applicable to candidates or political committees under title 
     III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
       (g) Including Report on Cumulative Contributions and 
     Expenditures in Post Election Reports.--Section 304(a)(7) of 
     such Act (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(7)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(7)'' and inserting ``(7)(A)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) In the case of any report required to be filed by 
     this subsection which is the first report required to be 
     filed after the date of an election, the report shall include 
     a statement of the total contributions received and 
     expenditures made as of the date of the election.''.
       (h) Including Information on Aggregate Contributions in 
     Report on Itemized Contributions.--Section 304(b)(3) of such 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 434(b)(3)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting after ``such 
     contribution'' the following: ``and the total amount of all 
     such contributions made by such person with respect to the 
     election involved''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting after ``such 
     contribution'' the following: ``and the total amount of all 
     such contributions made by such committee with respect to the 
     election involved''.

     SEC. 302. STREAMLINING PROCEDURES AND RULES OF FEDERAL 
                   ELECTION COMMISSION.

       (a) Standards for Commission Regulation and Judicial 
     Interpretation.--Section 307 of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437d) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(f)(1) When developing prescribed forms and making, 
     amending, or repealing rules pursuant to the authority 
     granted to the Commission by subsection (a)(8), the 
     Commission shall act in a manner that will have the least 
     restrictive effect on the rights of free speech and 
     association so protected by the First Article of Amendment to 
     the Constitution of the United States.
       ``(2) When the Commission's actions under paragraph (1) are 
     challenged, a reviewing court shall hold unlawful and set 
     aside any actions of the Commission that do not conform with 
     the principles set forth in paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Written Responses to Questions.--
       (1) In general.--Title III of such Act (2 U.S.C. 431 et 
     seq.) is amended by inserting after section 308 the following 
     new section:


                 ``other written responses to questions

       ``Sec. 308A. (a) Permitting Responses.--In addition to 
     issuing advisory opinions under section 308, the Commission 
     shall issue written responses pursuant to this section with 
     respect to a written request concerning the application of 
     this Act, chapter 95 or chapter 96 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, a rule or regulation prescribed by the 
     Commission, or an advisory opinion issued by the Commission 
     under section 308, with respect to a specific transaction or 
     activity by the person, if the Commission finds the 
     application of the Act, chapter, rule, regulation, or 
     advisory opinion to the transaction or activity to be clear 
     and unambiguous.
       ``(b) Procedure for Response.--
       ``(1) Analysis by staff.--The staff of the Commission shall 
     analyze each request submitted under this section. If the 
     staff believes that the standard described in subsection (a) 
     is met with respect to the request, the staff shall circulate 
     a statement to that effect together with a draft response to 
     the request to the members of the Commission.
       ``(2) Issuance of response.--Upon the expiration of the 3-
     day period beginning on the date the statement and draft 
     response is circulated (excluding weekends or holidays), the 
     Commission shall issue the response, unless during such 
     period any member of the Commission objects to issuing the 
     response.
       ``(c) Effect of Response.--
       ``(1) Safe harbor.--Notwithstanding any other provisions of 
     law, any person who relies upon any provision or finding of a 
     written response issued under this section and who acts in 
     good faith in accordance with the provisions and findings of 
     such response shall not, as a result of any such act, be 
     subject to any sanction provided by this Act or by chapter 95 
     or chapter 96 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(2) No reliance by other parties.--Any written response 
     issued by the Commission under this section may only be 
     relied upon by the person involved in the specific 
     transaction or activity with respect to which such response 
     is issued, and may not be applied by the Commission with 
     respect to any other person or used by the Commission for 
     enforcement or regulatory purposes.
       ``(d) Publication of Requests and Responses.--The 
     Commission shall make public any request for a written 
     response made, and the responses issued, under this section. 
     In carrying out this subsection, the Commission may not make 
     public the identity of any person submitting a request for a 
     written response unless the person specifically authorizes to 
     Commission to do so.
       ``(e) Compilation of Index.--The Commission shall compile, 
     publish, and regularly update a complete and detailed index 
     of the responses issued under this section through which 
     responses may be found on the basis of the subjects included 
     in the responses.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 307(a)(7) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 437d(a)(7)) is amended by striking ``of this Act'' and 
     inserting ``and other written responses under section 308A''.
       (c) Opportunity for Oral Arguments Before Commission.--
     Section 309(a)(3) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(3)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``(3)'' and inserting ``(3)(A)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) If a respondent submits a brief under subparagraph 
     (A), the respondent may submit (at the time of submitting the 
     brief) a request to present an oral argument in support of 
     the respondent's brief before the Commission. If at least 2 
     members of the Commission approve of the request, the 
     respondent shall be permitted to appear before the Commission 
     in open session and make an oral presentation in support of 
     the brief and respond to questions of members of the 
     Commission. Such appearance shall take place at a time 
     specified by the Commission during the 30-day period which 
     begins on the date the request is approved, and the 
     Commission may limit the length of the respondent's 
     appearance to such period of time as the Commission considers 
     appropriate. Any information provided by the respondent 
     during the appearance shall be considered by the Commission 
     before proceeding under paragraph (4).''.
       (d) Index of Advisory Opinions.--
       (1) In general.--Section 308 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437f) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) The Commission shall compile, publish, and regularly 
     update a complete and detailed index of the advisory opinions 
     issued under this section through which opinions may be found 
     on the basis of the subjects included in the opinions.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The Federal Election Commission shall 
     first publish the index of advisory opinions described in 
     section 308(e) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (as added by paragraph (1)) not later than 60 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (e) Standard for Initiation of Actions.--Section 309(a)(2) 
     of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     437g(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``it has reason to 
     believe'' and all that follows through ``of 1954,'' and 
     inserting the following: ``it has a reason to investigate a 
     possible violation of this Act or of chapter 95 or chapter 96 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that has occurred or is 
     about to occur (based on the same criteria applicable under 
     this paragraph prior to the enactment of the Campaign Finance 
     Reform Act of 1996),''.
       (f) Application of Aggregate Contribution Limit on Calendar 
     Year Basis During Non-Election Years.--Section 315(a)(4) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     441a(a)(4) as redesignated by section 102(b)(1)(A)) is 
     amended.
       (g) Repeal Report by Secretary of Commerce on District-
     Specific Voting Age Population.--Section 315(e) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(e)) is 
     amended by striking ``States, of each State, and of each 
     congressional district'' and inserting ``States and of each 
     State''.
       (h) Commercially Reasonable Loans Not to be Treated as 
     Contributions by Lender.--Section 301(8)(B)(vii) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     431(8)(B)(vii)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or a depository'' and inserting ``a 
     depository''; and
       (2) by inserting after ``Administration,'' the following: 
     ``or any other commercial lender,''.
       (i) Abolition of Ex Officio Membership of Clerk of House of 
     Representatives on Commission.--Section 306(a) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437c(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and the Clerk'' and all 
     that follows through ``designees'' and inserting ``or the 
     designee of the Secretary''; and
       (2) in paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), by striking ``and the 
     Clerk of the House of Representatives'' each place it 
     appears.
       (j) Granting Commission Authority To Waive Reporting 
     Requirements.--Section 304 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 434), as 
     amended by section 101(b), is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) The Commission may by unanimous vote relieve any 
     person or category of persons of the obligation to file any 
     of the reports required by this section, or may change the 
     due dates of any of the reports required by this section, if 
     it determines that such action is consistent with the 
     purposes of this title. The Commission may waive requirements 
     to file reports or change due dates in accordance with this 
     subsection through a rule of general applicability or, in a 
     specific case, by notifying all the political committees 
     involved.''.
       (k) Permitting Corporations To Communicate With All 
     Employees.--
       (1) In general.--Section 316(b) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)) is amended by 
     striking ``executive or administrative personnel'' each place 
     it appears in paragraphs (2)(A), (2)(B), (4)(A)(i), (4)(D), 
     and (5) and inserting ``officers or employees''.

[[Page H8491]]

       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 316(b) of such Act is 
     amended by striking paragraph (7).
       (l) Permitting Unlimited Solicitations by Corporations or 
     Labor Organizations; Protecting Confidentiality of 
     Contributions Not Greater Than $100.--Section 316(b) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(3)), 
     as amended by subsection (k)(2), is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``(B), (C),'' and 
     inserting ``(C)'';
       (2) in paragraph (4)(A)(ii), by striking the period at the 
     end and inserting the following: ``, its officers or 
     employees and their families, employees who are not members 
     and their families, and officers, employees, or stockholders 
     of a corporation (and their families) in which the labor 
     organization represents members working for the 
     corporation.'';
       (3) in paragraph (4), by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(7)(A) Any corporation or labor organization (or separate 
     segregated fund established by such a corporation or such a 
     labor organization) making solicitations of contributions 
     shall make such solicitations in a manner that ensures that 
     the corporation, organization, or fund cannot determine who 
     makes a contribution of $100 or less as a result of such 
     solicitation and who does not make such a contribution.
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with respect to any 
     solicitation of contributions of a corporation from its 
     stockholders.''.
       (m) Greater Protection Against Force and Reprisals.--
     Section 316(b)(3) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(3)), is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (C) as 
     subparagraphs (B) through (D); and
       (2) by inserting before subparagraph (B) (as so 
     redesignated) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(A) for such a fund to cause another person to make a 
     contribution or expenditure by physical force, job 
     discrimination, financial reprisals, or the threat of force, 
     job discrimination, or financial reprisal;''.
       (n) Requiring Complainant To Provide Notice to 
     Respondents.--Section 309(a)(1) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(1)) is amended by 
     striking the third sentence and inserting the following: 
     ``The complaint shall include the names and addresses of 
     persons alleged to have committed such a violation. Within 5 
     days after receipt of the complaint, the Commission shall 
     provide written notice of the complaint together with a copy 
     of the complaint to each person described in the previous 
     sentence, except that if the Commission determines that it is 
     not necessary for a person described in the previous sentence 
     to receive a copy of the complaint, the Commission shall 
     provide the person with written notice that the complaint has 
     been filed, together with written instructions on how to 
     obtain a copy of the complaint without charge from the 
     Commission.''.
       (o) Standard Form for Complaints; Stronger Disclaimer 
     Language.--
       (1) Standard form.--Section 309(a)(1) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(1)) is 
     amended by inserting after ``shall be notarized,'' the 
     following: ``shall be in a standard form prescribed by the 
     Commission, shall not include (but may refer to) extraneous 
     materials,''.
       (2) Disclaimer language.--Section 309(a)(1) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 437g(a)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(a)(1)'' and inserting ``(a)(1)(A)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) The written notice of a complaint provided by the 
     Commission under subparagraph (A) to a person alleged to have 
     committed a violation referred to in the complaint shall 
     include a cover letter (in a form prescribed by the 
     Commission) and the following statement: `The enclosed 
     complaint has been filed against you with the Federal 
     Election Commission. The Commission has not verified or given 
     official sanction to the complaint. The Commission will make 
     no decision to pursue the complaint for a period of at least 
     15 days from your receipt of this complaint. You may, if you 
     wish, submit a written statement to the Commission explaining 
     why the Commission should take no action against you based on 
     this complaint. If the Commission should decide to 
     investigate, you will be notified and be given further 
     opportunity to respond.'''.
       (p) Banning Acceptance of Cash Contributions Greater Than 
     $100.--Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a), as amended by sections 101, 103(a)(1), 
     and 202, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(l) No candidate or political committee may accept any 
     contributions of currency of the United States or currency of 
     any foreign country from any person which, in the aggregate, 
     exceed $100.''.
       (q) Appointment and Service of Staff Director and General 
     Counsel of Commission.--
       (1) Appointment; length of term of service.--
       (A) In general.--The first sentence of section 306(f)(1) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     437c(f)(1)) is amended by striking ``by the Commission'' and 
     inserting the following: ``by an affirmative vote of not less 
     than 4 members of the Commission and may not serve for a term 
     of more than 4 consecutive years without reappointment in 
     accordance with this paragraph''.
       (B) Effective date.--The amendment made by subparagraph (A) 
     shall apply with respect to any individual serving as the 
     staff director or general counsel of the Federal Election 
     Commission on or after January 1, 1997, without regard to 
     whether or not the individual served as staff director or 
     general counsel prior to such date.
       (2) Treatment of individuals filling vacancies; termination 
     of authority upon expiration of term.--Section 306(f)(1) of 
     such Act (2 U.S.C. 437c(f)(1)) is amended by inserting after 
     the first sentence the following new sentences: ``An 
     individual appointed as a staff director or general counsel 
     to fill a vacancy occurring other than by the expiration of a 
     term of office shall be appointed only for the unexpired term 
     of the individual he or she succeeds. An individual serving 
     as staff director or general counsel may not serve in any 
     capacity on behalf of the Commission after the expiration of 
     the individual's term unless reappointed in accordance with 
     this paragraph.''.
       (3) Appointment of additional staff.--
       (A) In general.--The last sentence of section 306(f)(1) of 
     such Act (2 U.S.C. 437c(f)(1)) is amended by inserting ``not 
     less than 4 members of'' after ``approval of''.
       (B) Effective date.--The amendment made by subparagraph (A) 
     shall apply with respect to personnel appointed on or after 
     January 1, 1997.
       (r) Encouraging Citizen Grassroots Activity on Behalf of 
     Federal Candidates.--
       (1) Exemption of individual contributions under $100.--
     Section 301(8)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)(B)), as amended by section 205(a), is 
     further amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (xiv);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of clause (xv) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(xvi) any payment of funds on behalf of a candidate 
     (whether in cash or in kind, but not including a direct 
     payment of cash to a candidate or a political committee of 
     the candidate) by an individual from the individual's 
     personal funds which in the aggregate does not exceed $100, 
     if the funds are used for activities carried out by the 
     individual or a member of the individual's family.''.
       (2) Exemption of individual expenditures under $100.--
     Section 301(9)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(9)(B)), as amended by section 205(b), is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (x);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of clause (xi) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(xii) any payment of funds on behalf of a candidate 
     (whether in cash or in kind, but not including a direct 
     payment of cash to a candidate or a political committee of 
     the candidate) by an individual from the individual's 
     personal funds which in the aggregate does not exceed $100, 
     if the funds are used for activities carried out by the 
     individual or a member of the individual's family.''.
       (s) Permitting Partnerships To Solicit Contributions and 
     Pay Administrative Costs of Political Committees in Same 
     Manner as Corporations and Labor Unions.--
       (1) Treatment of contributions.--Section 301(8)(B) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act (2 U.S.C. 431(8)(B)), as 
     amended by section 205(a) and subsection (r)(1), is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (xv);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of clause (xvi) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(xvii) any payment made or obligation incurred by a 
     partnership in the establishment and maintenance of a 
     political committee, the administration of such a political 
     committee, or the solicitation of contributions to such 
     committee.''.
       (2) Treatment of expenditures.--Section 301(9)(B) of such 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 431(9)(B)), as amended by section 205(b) and 
     subsection (r)(2), is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (xi);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of clause (xii) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(xiii) any payment made or obligation incurred by a 
     partnership in the establishment and maintenance of a 
     political committee, the administration of such a political 
     committee, or the solicitation of contributions to such 
     committee.''.
                     TITLE IV--WORKER RIGHT TO KNOW

     SEC. 401. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The United States Supreme Court announced in the 
     landmark decision, Communications Workers of America v. Beck 
     (487 U.S. 735), that employees who work under a union 
     security agreement, and are required to pay union dues as a 
     condition of employment, may not be forced to contribute 
     through such dues to union-supported political, legislative, 
     social, or charitable causes with which they disagree, and 
     may only be required to pay dues related to collective 
     bargaining, contract administration, and

[[Page H8492]]

     grievance adjustment necessary to performing the duties of 
     exclusive representation.
       (2) Little action has been taken by the National Labor 
     Relations Board to facilitate the ability of employees to 
     exercise their right to object to the use of their union dues 
     for political, legislative, social, or charitable purposes, 
     or other activities not necessary to performing the duties of 
     the exclusive representative of employees in dealing with 
     the employer on labor-management issues, and the Board 
     only recently issued its first ruling implementing the 
     Beck decision nearly 8 years after the Supreme Court 
     issued the opinion.
       (3) The evolution of the right enunciated in the Beck 
     decision has diminished its meaningfulness because employees 
     are forced to forego critical workplace rights bearing on 
     their economic well-being in order to object to the use of 
     their dues for purposes unrelated to collective bargaining, 
     to rely on the very organization they are challenging to make 
     the determination regarding the amount of dues necessary to 
     the union's representational function, and do not have access 
     to clear and concise financial records that provide an 
     accurate accounting of how union dues are spent.

     SEC. 402. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this title is to ensure that workers who are 
     required to pay union dues as a condition of employment have 
     adequate information about how the money they pay in dues to 
     a union is spent and to remove obstacles to the ability of 
     working people to exercise their right to object to the use 
     of their dues for political, legislative, social, or 
     charitable causes with which they disagree, or for other 
     activities not necessary to performing the duties of the 
     exclusive representative of the employees in dealing with the 
     employer on labor-management issues.

     SEC. 403. WORKER CHOICE.

       (a) Rights of Employees.--Section 7 of the National Labor 
     Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157) is amended by striking 
     ``membership'' and all that follows and inserting the 
     following: ``the payment to a labor organization of dues or 
     fees related to collective bargaining, contract 
     administration, or grievance adjustment necessary to 
     performing the duties of exclusive representation as a 
     condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3).''.
       (b) Unfair Labor Practices.--Section 8(a)(3) of such Act 
     (29 U.S.C. 158(a)(3)) is amended by striking ``membership 
     therein'' and inserting ``the payment to such labor 
     organization of dues or fees related to collective 
     bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment 
     necessary to performing the duties of exclusive 
     representation''.

     SEC. 404. WORKER CONSENT.

       (a) Written Agreement.--Section 8 of the National Labor 
     Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(h) An employee subject to an agreement between an 
     employer and a labor organization requiring the payment of 
     dues or fees to such organization as authorized in section 
     8(a)(3) may not be required to pay to such organization, nor 
     may such organization accept payment of, any dues or fees not 
     related to collective bargaining, contract administration, or 
     grievance adjustment necessary to performing the duties of 
     exclusive representation unless the employee has agreed to 
     pay such dues or fees in a signed written agreement that must 
     be renewed between the first day of September and the first 
     day of October of each year. Such signed written agreement 
     shall include a ratio of the dues or fees related to 
     collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance 
     adjustment necessary to performing the duties of exclusive 
     representation and the dues or fees related to other 
     purposes.''.
       (b) Written Assignment.--Section 302(c)(4) of the Labor 
     Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 186(c)(4)) is 
     amended by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``: 
     Provided further, That no amount may be deducted for dues 
     unrelated to collective bargaining, contract administration, 
     or grievance adjustment necessary to performing the duties of 
     exclusive representation unless a written assignment 
     authorizes such a deduction''.

     SEC. 405. WORKER NOTICE.

       Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 
     158), as amended by section 404(a), is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) An employer shall be required to post a notice, of 
     such size and in such form as the Board shall prescribe, in 
     conspicuous places in and about its plants and offices, 
     including all places where notices to employees are 
     customarily posted, informing employees of their rights under 
     section 7 of this Act and clarifying to employees that an 
     agreement requiring the payment of dues or fees to a labor 
     organization as a condition of employment as authorized in 
     subsection (a)(3) may only require that employees pay to such 
     organization any dues or fees related to collective 
     bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment 
     necessary to performing the duties of exclusive 
     representation.''.

     SEC. 406. DISCLOSURE TO WORKERS.

       (a) Expenses Reporting.--Section 201(b) of the Labor-
     Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (29 U.S.C. 
     431(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     sentence: ``Every labor organization shall be required to 
     attribute and report expenses by function classification in 
     such detail as necessary to allow its members to determine 
     whether such expenses were related to collective bargaining, 
     contract administration, or grievance adjustment necessary to 
     performing the duties of exclusive representation or were 
     related to other purposes.''.
       (b) Disclosure.--Section 201(c) of the Labor-Management 
     Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (29 U.S.C. 431(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``and employees required to pay any dues 
     or fees to such organization'' after ``members''; and
       (2) inserting ``or employee required to pay any dues or 
     fees to such organization'' after ``member'' each place it 
     appears.
       (c) Regulations.--The Secretary of Labor shall prescribe 
     such regulations as are necessary to carry out the amendments 
     made by this section not later than 120 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 407. CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this title shall be construed to affect section 
     14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act or the concurrent 
     jurisdiction of Federal district courts over claims that a 
     labor organization has breached its duty of fair 
     representation with regard to the collection or expenditure 
     of dues or fees.

     SEC. 408. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title shall take effect on the date of enactment, 
     except that the requirements contained in the amendments made 
     by sections 404 and 405 shall take effect 60 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 501. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as otherwise specifically provided, this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act shall take effect January 1, 
     1997.

     SEC. 502. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act or any amendment made by this 
     Act, or the application thereof to any person or 
     circumstance, is held invalid, the validity of the remainder 
     of the Act and the application of such provision to other 
     persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

     SEC. 503. EXPEDITED COURT REVIEW.

       (a) Right To Bring Action.--The Federal Election 
     Commission, a political committee under title III of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, or any individual 
     eligible to vote in any election for the office of President 
     of the United States may institute an action in an 
     appropriate district court of the United States (including an 
     action for declaratory judgment) as may be appropriate to 
     construe the constitutionality of any provision of this Act 
     or any amendment made by this Act.
       (b) Hearing by Three-Judge Court.--Upon the institution of 
     an action described in subsection (a), a district court of 
     three judges shall immediately be convened to decide the 
     action pursuant to section 2284 of title 28, United States 
     Code. Such action shall be advanced on the docket and 
     expedited to the greatest extent possible.
       (c) Appeal of Initial Decision to Supreme Court.--An appeal 
     may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United 
     States from any interlocutory order or final judgment, 
     decree, or order issued by the court of 3 judges convened 
     pursuant to subsection (b) in an action described in 
     subsection (a). Such appeal shall be brought not later than 
     20 days after the issuance by the court of the judgment, 
     decree, or order.
       (d) Expedited Review by Supreme Court.--The Supreme Court 
     shall accept jurisdiction over, advance on the docket, and 
     expedite to the greatest extent possible an appeal taken 
     pursuant to subsection (c).

  The CHAIRMAN. No other amendment shall be in order except an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 
3505, modified by the amendment printed in House Report 104-685. That 
amendment may be offered only by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Gephardt] or his designee, shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.


amendment in the nature of a substitute as modified by the rule offered 
                       by mr. fazio of california

  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute as the designee of the minority leader.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified 
by the rule, is as follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified by the 
     rule, offered by Mr. Fazio of California.

                               H.R. 3505

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``American 
     Political Reform Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

      TITLE I--CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN SPENDING LIMITS AND BENEFITS

       Subtitle A--Election Campaign Spending Limits and Benefits

Sec. 101. Spending limits and benefits.

[[Page H8493]]

 Subtitle B--Limitations on Contributions to House of Representatives 
                               Candidates

Sec. 121. Limitations on political committees.
Sec. 122. Limitations on political committee and large donor 
              contributions that may be accepted by House of 
              Representatives candidates.

                     Subtitle C--Related Provisions

Sec. 131. Reporting requirements.
Sec. 132. Registration as eligible House of Representatives candidate.
Sec. 133. Definitions.

      Subtitle D--Tax on Excess Political Expenditures of Certain 
                      Congressional Campaign Funds

Sec. 141. Tax treatment of certain campaign funds.

                   TITLE II--INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES

Sec. 201. Clarification of definitions relating to independent 
              expenditures.
Sec. 202. Reporting requirements for certain independent expenditures.

TITLE III--CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES BY POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEES

Sec. 301. Definitions.
Sec. 302. Contributions to political party committees.
Sec. 303. Increase in the amount that multicandidate political 
              committees may contribute to national political party 
              committees.
Sec. 304. Merchandising and affinity cards.
Sec. 305. Provisions relating to national, State, and local party 
              committees.
Sec. 306. Restrictions on fundraising by candidates and officeholders.
Sec. 307. Reporting requirements.

                        TITLE IV--CONTRIBUTIONS

Sec. 401. Restrictions on bundling.
Sec. 402. Contributions by dependents not of voting age.
Sec. 403. Prohibition of acceptance by a candidate of cash 
              contributions from any one person aggregating more than 
              $100.
Sec. 404. Contributions to candidates from State and local committees 
              of political parties to be aggregated.
Sec. 405. Prohibition of false representation to solicit contributions.
Sec. 406. Limited exclusion of advances by campaign workers from the 
              definition of the term ``contribution''.
Sec. 407. Amendment to section 316 of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
              of 1971.
Sec. 408. Prohibition of certain election-related activities of foreign 
              nationals.

                    TITLE V--REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Sec. 501. Change in certain reporting from a calendar year basis to an 
              election cycle basis.
Sec. 502. Disclosure of personal and consulting services.
Sec. 503. Political committees other than candidate committees.
Sec. 504. Use of candidates' names.
Sec. 505. Reporting requirements.
Sec. 506. Simultaneous registration of candidate and candidate's 
              principal campaign committee.
Sec. 507. Reporting on general campaign activities of persons other 
              than political parties.

           TITLE VI--BROADCAST RATES AND CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING

Sec. 601. Broadcast rates and campaign advertising.
Sec. 602. Campaign advertising amendments.
Sec. 603. Eligibility for nonprofit third class bulk rates of postage.

                        TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 701. Prohibition of leadership committees.
Sec. 702. Appearance by Federal Election Commission as amici curiae.
Sec. 703. Prohibiting solicitation of contributions by members in hall 
              of the House of Representatives.

              TITLE VIII--EFFECTIVE DATES; AUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 801. Effective date.
Sec. 802. Severability.
Sec. 803. Expedited review of constitutional issues.
Sec. 804. Regulations.

      TITLE I--CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN SPENDING LIMITS AND BENEFITS
       Subtitle A--Election Campaign Spending Limits and Benefits

     SEC. 101. SPENDING LIMITS AND BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new title:
            ``TITLE V--ELECTION SPENDING LIMITS AND BENEFITS

            ``TITLE V--ELECTION SPENDING LIMITS AND BENEFITS

   ``Subtitle A--Election Campaigns for the House of Representatives

``Sec. 501. Expenditure limitations.
``Sec. 502. Personal contribution limitations.
``Sec. 503. Definition.

                ``Subtitle B--Administrative Provisions

``Sec. 511. Certifications by Commission.
``Sec. 512. Examination and audits; repayments and civil penalties.
``Sec. 513. Judicial review.
``Sec. 514. Reports to Congress; certifications; regulations.
``Sec. 515. Closed captioning requirement for television commercials of 
              eligible candidates.

           ``Subtitle C--Congressional Election Campaign Fund

``Sec. 521. Establishment and operation of the Fund.
``Sec. 522. Designation of receipts to the Fund.
   ``Subtitle A--Election Campaigns for the House of Representatives

     ``SEC. 501. EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--An eligible House of Representatives 
     candidate may not, in an election cycle, make expenditures 
     aggregating more than $600,000.
       ``(b) Runoff Election and Special Election Amounts.--
       ``(1) Runoff election amount.--If an eligible House of 
     Representatives candidate is a candidate in a runoff 
     election, the candidate may make additional expenditures 
     aggregating not more than $200,000 in the election cycle.
       ``(2) Special election amount.--An eligible House of 
     Representatives candidate who is a candidate in a special 
     election may make expenditures aggregating not more than 
     $600,000 with respect to the special election.
       ``(c) Closely Contested Primary.--If, as determined by the 
     Commission, an eligible House of Representatives candidate in 
     a contested primary election wins that primary election by a 
     margin of 20 percentage points or less, the candidate may 
     make additional expenditures aggregating not more than 
     $200,000 in the election cycle.
       ``(d) Exceptions to Limitations.--
       ``(1) Nonparticipating opponent.--The limitations imposed 
     by subsections (a) and (b) do not apply in the case of an 
     eligible House of Representatives candidate if any other 
     general election candidate seeking nomination or election to 
     that office--
       ``(A) is not an eligible House of Representatives 
     candidate; and
       ``(B) makes expenditures in excess of 30 percent of the 
     limitation under subsection (a).
       ``(2) Independent expenditures against eligible 
     candidate.--The limitations imposed by subsections (a) and 
     (b) do not apply in the case of an eligible House of 
     Representatives candidate if the total amount of independent 
     expenditures made during the election cycle on behalf of 
     candidates opposing such eligible candidate exceeds $15,000.
       ``(3) Continued eligibility for benefits.--An eligible 
     House of Representatives candidate referred to in paragraph 
     (1) or paragraph (2) shall continue to be eligible for all 
     benefits under this title.
       ``(e) Exemption for Legal Costs and Taxes.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any costs incurred by an eligible House 
     of Representatives candidate or his or her authorized 
     committee, or a Federal officeholder, for qualified legal 
     services, for Federal, State, or local income taxes on 
     earnings of a candidate's authorized committees, or to comply 
     with section 512 shall not be considered in the computation 
     of amounts subject to limitation under this section.
       ``(2) Qualified legal services.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `qualified legal services' means--
       ``(A) any legal service performed on behalf of an 
     authorized committee; or
       ``(B) any legal service performed on behalf of a candidate 
     or Federal officeholder in connection with his or her duties 
     or activities as a candidate or Federal officeholder.
       ``(f) Exemption for Fundraising or Accounting Costs.--Any 
     costs incurred by an eligible House of Representatives 
     candidate or his or her authorized committee in connection 
     with the solicitation of contributions on behalf of such 
     candidate, or for accounting services to ensure compliance 
     with this Act, shall not be considered in the computation of 
     amounts subject to expenditure limitation under subsection 
     (a) to the extent that the aggregate of such costs does not 
     exceed 10 percent of the expenditure limitation under 
     subsection (a).
       ``(g) Indexing.--The dollar amounts specified in 
     subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall be adjusted at the 
     beginning of each calendar year based on the increase in the 
     price index determined under section 315(c), except that, for 
     the purposes of such adjustment, the base period shall be 
     calendar year 1996.
       ``(h) Recall Actions.--The limitations of this section do 
     not apply in the case of any recall action held pursuant to 
     State law.

     ``SEC. 502. PERSONAL CONTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS.

       ``(a) Personal Contributions.--An eligible House of 
     Representatives candidate may not, with respect to an 
     election cycle, make contributions or loans to the 
     candidate's own campaign totaling more than $50,000 from the 
     personal funds of the candidate. Contributions from the 
     personal funds of a candidate may not qualify for 
     certification for voter benefits under this title.
       ``(b) Limitation Exception.--The limitation imposed by 
     subsection (a) does not apply--
       ``(1) in the case of an eligible House of Representatives 
     candidate if any other general election candidate for that 
     office makes contributions or loans to the candidate's own 
     campaign totaling more than $50,000 from the personal funds 
     of the candidate; or

[[Page H8494]]

       ``(2) with respect to any contribution or loan used for 
     costs described in section 501 (e) or (f).
       ``(c) Aggregation.--For purposes of subsection (a), any 
     contribution or loan to a candidate's campaign by a member of 
     a candidate's immediate family shall be treated as made by 
     the candidate.

     ``SEC. 503. DEFINITION.

       ``As used in this title, the term `benefits' means, with 
     respect to an eligible House of Representatives candidate, 
     reduced charges for use of a broadcasting station under 
     section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 315) 
     and eligibility for nonprofit third-class bulk rates of 
     postage under section 3626(e) of title 39, United States 
     Code.
                ``Subtitle B--Administrative Provisions

     ``SEC. 511. CERTIFICATIONS BY COMMISSION.

       ``(a) General Eligibility.--The Commission shall certify 
     whether a candidate is eligible to receive benefits under 
     subtitle A. The initial determination shall be based on the 
     candidate's filings under this title. Any subsequent 
     determination shall be based on relevant additional 
     information submitted in such form and manner as the 
     Commission may require.
       ``(b) Certification of Benefits.--
       ``(1) Deadline for response to requests.--The Commission 
     shall respond to a candidate's request for certification for 
     eligibility to receive benefits under this section not later 
     than 5 business days after the candidate submits the request.
       ``(2) Requests.--Any request for certification submitted by 
     a candidate shall contain--
       ``(A) such information and be made in accordance with such 
     procedures as the Commission may provide by regulation; and
       ``(B) a verification signed by the candidate and the 
     treasurer of the principal campaign committee of such 
     candidate stating that the information furnished in support 
     of the request, to the best of their knowledge, is correct 
     and fully satisfies the requirement of this title.
       ``(3) Partial certification.--If the Commission determines 
     that any portion of a request does not meet the requirement 
     for certification, the Commission shall withhold the 
     certification for that portion only and inform the candidate 
     as to how the request may be corrected.
       ``(4) Certification withheld.--The Commission may withhold 
     certification if it determines that a candidate who is 
     otherwise eligible has engaged in a pattern of activity 
     indicating that the candidate's filings under this title 
     cannot be relied upon.
       ``(c) Withdrawal of Certification.--If the Commission 
     determines that a candidate who is certified as an eligible 
     House of Representatives candidate pursuant to this section 
     has made expenditures in excess of any limit under subtitle A 
     or otherwise no longer meets the requirements for 
     certification under this title, the Commission shall revoke 
     the candidate's certification.

     ``SEC. 512. EXAMINATION AND AUDITS; REPAYMENTS AND CIVIL 
                   PENALTIES.

       ``(a) Examinations and Audits.--
       ``(1) General elections.--After each general election, the 
     Commission shall conduct an examination and audit of the 
     campaign accounts of 5 percent of the eligible House of 
     Representatives candidates, as designated by the Commission 
     through the use of an appropriate statistical method of 
     random selection, to determine whether such candidates have 
     complied with the conditions of eligibility and other 
     requirements of this title. The Commission shall conduct an 
     examination and audit of the accounts of all candidates for 
     election to an office where any eligible candidate for the 
     office is selected for examination and audit.
       ``(2) Special election.--After each special election 
     involving an eligible candidate, the Commission shall conduct 
     an examination and audit of the campaign accounts of all 
     candidates in the election to determine whether the 
     candidates have complied with the conditions of eligibility 
     and other requirements of this Act.
       ``(3) Affirmative vote.--The Commission may conduct an 
     examination and audit of the campaign accounts of any 
     eligible House of Representatives candidate in a general 
     election if the Commission determines that there exists 
     reason to believe whether such candidate may have violated 
     any provision of this title.
       ``(b) Notification of Excess Expenditures.--If the 
     Commission determines that any eligible candidate who has 
     received benefits under this title has made expenditures in 
     excess of any limit under subtitle A, the Commission shall 
     notify the candidate.
       ``(c) Civil Penalties.--
       ``(1) Excess expenditures.--
       ``(A) Low amount of excess expenditures.--Any eligible 
     House of Representatives candidate who makes expenditures 
     that exceed a limitation under subtitle A by 2.5 percent or 
     less shall pay to the Commission an amount equal to the 
     amount of the excess expenditures.
       ``(B) Medium amount of excess expenditures.--Any eligible 
     House of Representatives candidate who makes expenditures 
     that exceed a limitation under subtitle A by more than 2.5 
     percent and less than 5 percent shall pay to the Commission 
     an amount equal to three times the amount of the excess 
     expenditures.
       ``(C) Large amount of excess expenditures.--Any eligible 
     House of Representatives candidate who makes expenditures 
     that exceed a limitation under subtitle A by 5 percent or 
     more shall pay to the Commission an amount equal to three 
     times the amount of the excess expenditures plus, if the 
     Commission determines such excess expenditures were knowing 
     and willful, a civil penalty in an amount determined by the 
     Commission.
       ``(2) Misused benefits of candidates.--If the Commission 
     determines that an eligible House of Representatives 
     candidate used any benefit received under this title in a 
     manner not provided for in this title, the Commission may 
     assess a civil penalty against such candidate in an amount 
     not greater than 200 percent of the amount involved.
       ``(d) Limit on Period for Notification.--No notification 
     shall be made by the Commission under this section with 
     respect to an election more than 3 years after the date of 
     such election.

     ``SEC. 513. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       ``(a) Judicial Review.--Any agency action by the Commission 
     made under the provisions of this title shall be subject to 
     review by the United States Court of Appeals for the District 
     of Columbia Circuit upon petition filed in such court within 
     30 days after the agency action by the Commission for which 
     review is sought. It shall be the duty of the Court of 
     Appeals, ahead of all matters not filed under this title, to 
     advance on the docket and expeditiously take action on all 
     petitions filed pursuant to this title.
       ``(b) Application of Title 5.--The provisions of chapter 7 
     of title 5, United States Code, shall apply to judicial 
     review of any agency action by the Commission.
       ``(c) Agency Action.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term `agency action' has the meaning given such term by 
     section 551(13) of title 5, United States Code.

     ``SEC. 514. REPORTS TO CONGRESS; CERTIFICATIONS; REGULATIONS.

       ``(a) Reports.--The Commission shall, as soon as 
     practicable after each election, submit a full report to the 
     House of Representatives setting forth--
       ``(1) the expenditures (shown in such detail as the 
     Commission determines appropriate) made by each eligible 
     candidate and the authorized committees of such candidate;
       ``(2) the benefits certified by the Commission as available 
     to each eligible candidate under this title; and
       ``(3) the names of any candidates against whom penalties 
     were imposed under section 512, together with the amount of 
     each such penalty and the reasons for its imposition.
       ``(b) Determinations by Commission.--Subject to sections 
     512 and 513, all determinations (including certifications 
     under section 511) made by the Commission under this title 
     shall be final and conclusive.
       ``(c) Rules and Regulations.--The Commission is authorized 
     to prescribe such rules and regulations, in accordance with 
     the provisions of subsection (d), to conduct such audits, 
     examinations and investigations, and to require the keeping 
     and submission of such books, records, and information, as it 
     deems necessary to carry out the functions and duties imposed 
     on it by this title.
       ``(d) Report of Proposed Regulations.--The Commission shall 
     submit to the House of Representatives a report containing a 
     detailed explanation and justification of each rule and 
     regulation of the Commission under this title. No such rule, 
     regulation, or form may take effect until a period of 60 
     legislative days has elapsed after the report is received. As 
     used in this subsection, the terms `rule' and `regulation' 
     mean a provision or series of interrelated provisions stating 
     a single, separable rule of law.

     ``SEC. 515. CLOSED CAPTIONING REQUIREMENT FOR TELEVISION 
                   COMMERCIALS OF ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES.

       ``No eligible House of Representatives candidate may 
     receive benefits under subtitle A unless such candidate has 
     certified that any television commercial prepared or 
     distributed by the candidate will be prepared in a manner 
     that contains, is accompanied by, or otherwise readily 
     permits closed captioning of the oral content of the 
     commercial to be broadcast by way of line 21 of the vertical 
     blanking interval, or by way of comparable successor 
     technologies.''.
 Subtitle B--Limitations on Contributions to House of Representatives 
                               Candidates

     SEC. 121. LIMITATIONS ON POLITICAL COMMITTEES.

       (a) Multicandidate Political Committees.--Section 
     315(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441a(a)(2)(A)) is amended by striking out ``with 
     respect'' and all that follows through ``$5,000,'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof: ``which, in the aggregate, exceed 
     $5,000 with respect to an election for Federal office or 
     $8,000 with respect to an election cycle (not including a 
     runoff election);''.
       (b) Candidate's Committees.--(1) Section 315(a) of such Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(9) For the purposes of the limitations provided by 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), any political committee which is 
     established or financed or maintained or controlled by any 
     candidate or Federal officeholder shall be deemed to be an 
     authorized committee of such candidate or officeholder. 
     Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to permit the 
     establishment, financing, maintenance, or control of any 
     committee which is prohibited by paragraph (3) or (6) of 
     section 302(e).''
       (2) Section 302(e)(3) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 432(e)(3)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) No political committee that supports or has supported 
     more than one candidate may be designated as an authorized 
     committee, except that--

[[Page H8495]]

       ``(A) a candidate for the office of President nominated by 
     a political party may designate the national committee of 
     such political party as the candidate's principal campaign 
     committee, but only if that national committee maintains 
     separate books of account with respect to its functions as a 
     principal campaign committee; and
       ``(B) a candidate may designate a political committee 
     established solely for the purpose of joint fundraising by 
     such candidates as an authorized committee.''
       (c) Effective Dates.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph 
     (2), the amendments made by this section shall apply to 
     elections (and the election cycles relating thereto) 
     occurring after December 31, 1996.
       (2) In applying the amendments made by this section, there 
     shall not be taken into account--
       (A) contributions made or received before January 1, 1997; 
     or
       (B) contributions made to, or received by, a candidate on 
     or after January 1, 1997, to the extent such contributions 
     are not greater than the excess (if any) of--
       (i) such contributions received by any opponent of the 
     candidate before January 1, 1997, over
       (ii) such contributions received by the candidate before 
     January 1, 1997.

     SEC. 122. LIMITATIONS ON POLITICAL COMMITTEE AND LARGE DONOR 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS THAT MAY BE ACCEPTED BY HOUSE OF 
                   REPRESENTATIVES CANDIDATES.

       Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(i) Limitations on Contributions Accepted by House of 
     Representatives Candidate.--
       ``(1) Political committees.--A candidate for the office of 
     Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, 
     the Congress may not, with respect to an election cycle, 
     accept contributions from political committees aggregating in 
     excess of $200,000.
       ``(2) Persons other than political committees.--A candidate 
     for the office of Representative in, or Delegate or Resident 
     Commissioner to, the Congress may not, with respect to an 
     election cycle, accept contributions aggregating in excess of 
     $200,000 from persons other than political committees whose 
     contributions total more than $200.
       ``(3) Contested primaries.--In addition to the 
     contributions under paragraphs (1) and (2), if a House of 
     Representatives candidate in a contested primary election 
     wins that primary election by a margin of 20 percentage 
     points or less, the candidate may accept contributions of--
       ``(A) not more than $66,600 from political committees; and
       ``(B) not more than $66,600 from persons referred to in 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(4) Runoff elections.--In addition to the contributions 
     under paragraphs (1) and (2), a House of Representatives 
     candidate who is a candidate in a runoff election may accept 
     contributions of (A) not more than $100,000 from political 
     committees; and (B) not more than $100,000 from persons 
     referred to in paragraph (2).
       ``(5) Exemption for certain costs.--Any amount--
       ``(A) accepted by a House of Representatives candidate; and
       ``(B) used for costs incurred under section 501 (e) and 
     (f),

     shall not be considered in the computation of amounts subject 
     to limitation under this subsection.
       ``(6) Transfer provision.--The limitations imposed by this 
     subsection shall apply without regard to amounts transferred 
     from previous election cycles or other authorized committees 
     of the same candidate. Candidates shall not be required to 
     seek the redesignation of contributions in order to transfer 
     such contributions to a later election cycle.
       ``(7) Indexation of amounts.--The dollar amounts specified 
     in this subsection shall be adjusted at the beginning of each 
     calendar year based on the increase in the price index 
     determined under subsection (c), except that, for the 
     purposes of such adjustment, the base period shall be 
     calendar year 1996.''
                     Subtitle C--Related Provisions

     SEC. 131. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is 
     amended by adding after section 304 the following new 
     section:


             ``reporting requirements for house candidates

       ``Sec. 304A. A candidate for the office of Representative 
     in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress 
     who--
       ``(1) makes contributions in excess of $50,000 of personal 
     funds of the candidate to the authorized committee of the 
     candidate; or
       ``(2) makes expenditures in excess of 50 percent and 100 
     percent of the limitation under section 501(a);

     shall report that the threshold has been reached to the 
     Commission not later than 48 hours after reaching the 
     threshold. The Commission shall transmit a copy to each other 
     candidate for election to the same office within 48 hours of 
     receipt.''

     SEC. 132. REGISTRATION AS ELIGIBLE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
                   CANDIDATE.

       Section 302(e) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 432(e)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraphs:
       ``(6)(A) In the case of a candidate for the office of 
     Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, 
     the Congress, who desires to be an eligible House of 
     Representatives candidate, a declaration of participation of 
     the candidate to abide by the limits specified in sections 
     315(i), 501, and 502 and provide the information required 
     under section 503(b)(4) shall be included in the designation 
     required to be filed under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) A declaration of participation that is included in a 
     statement of candidacy may not thereafter be revoked.''

     SEC. 133. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 301 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431) is amended by striking 
     paragraph (19) and inserting the following new paragraphs:
       ``(19) The term `election cycle' means--
       ``(A) in the case of a candidate or the authorized 
     committees of a candidate, the term beginning on the day 
     after the date of the most recent general election for the 
     specific office or seat which such candidate seeks and ending 
     on the date of the next general election for such office or 
     seat; or
       ``(B) for all other persons, the term beginning on the 
     first day following the date of the last general election and 
     ending on the date of the next general election.
       ``(20) The term `general election' means any election which 
     will directly result in the election of a person to a Federal 
     office.
       ``(21) The term `general election period' means, with 
     respect to any candidate, the period beginning on the day 
     after the date of the primary or runoff election for the 
     specific office the candidate is seeking, whichever is later, 
     and ending on the earlier of--
       ``(A) the date of such general election; or
       ``(B) the date on which the candidate withdraws from the 
     campaign or otherwise ceases actively to seek election.
       ``(22) The term `immediate family' means--
       ``(A) a candidate's spouse;
       ``(B) a child, stepchild, parent, grandparent, brother, 
     half-brother, sister or half-sister of the candidate or the 
     candidate's spouse; and
       ``(C) the spouse of any person described in subparagraph 
     (B).
       ``(23) The term `primary election' means an election which 
     may result in the selection of a candidate for the ballot in 
     a general election for a Federal office.
       ``(24) The term `primary election period' means, with 
     respect to any candidate, the period beginning on the day 
     following the date of the last election for the specific 
     office the candidate is seeking and ending on the earlier 
     of--
       ``(A) the date of the first primary election for that 
     office following the last general election for that office; 
     or
       ``(B) the date on which the candidate withdraws from the 
     election or otherwise ceases actively to seek election.
       ``(25) The term `runoff election' means an election held 
     after a primary election which is prescribed by applicable 
     State law as the means for deciding which candidate will be 
     on the ballot in the general election for a Federal office.
       ``(26) The term `runoff election period' means, with 
     respect to any candidate, the period beginning on the day 
     following the date of the last primary election for the 
     specific office such candidate is seeking and ending on the 
     date of the runoff election for such office.
       ``(27) The term `special election' means any election 
     (whether primary, runoff, or general) for Federal office held 
     by reason of a vacancy in the office arising before the end 
     of the term of the office.
       ``(28) The term `special election period' means, with 
     respect to any candidate for any Federal office, the period 
     beginning on the date the vacancy described in paragraph (28) 
     occurs and ending on the earlier of--
       ``(A) the date the election resulting in the election of a 
     person to the office occurs; or
       ``(B) the date on which the candidate withdraws from the 
     campaign or otherwise ceases actively to seek election.
       ``(29) The term `eligible House of Representatives 
     candidate' means a candidate for election to the office of 
     Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, 
     the Congress, who, as determined by the Commission under 
     section 511, is eligible to receive benefits under subtitle A 
     of title V by reason of filing a declaration of participation 
     under section 302(e) and complying with the continuing 
     eligibility requirements under section 511.''
       (b) Identification.--Section 301(13)(A) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 431(13)(A)) is amended by striking ``mailing address'' 
     and inserting ``permanent residence address''.
      Subtitle D--Tax on Excess Political Expenditures of Certain 
                      Congressional Campaign Funds

     SEC. 141. TAX TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CAMPAIGN FUNDS.

       (a) General Rule.--Chapter 41 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following 
     new subchapter:

``Subchapter B--Excess Political Expenditures of Certain Congressional 
                             Campaign Funds

``Sec. 4915. Tax on excess political expenditures of certain campaign 
              funds.

     ``SEC. 4915. TAX ON EXCESS POLITICAL EXPENDITURES OF CERTAIN 
                   CAMPAIGN FUNDS.

       ``(a) Imposition of Tax.--If any applicable campaign fund 
     has excess political expenditures for any election cycle, 
     there is hereby

[[Page H8496]]

     imposed on such excess political expenditures a tax equal to 
     the amount of such excess political expenditures multiplied 
     by the highest rate of tax specified in section 11(b). Such 
     tax shall be imposed for the taxable year of such fund in 
     which such election cycle ends.
       ``(b) Applicable Campaign Fund.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `applicable campaign fund' means any 
     political organization if--
       ``(1) such organization is designated by a candidate for 
     election or nomination to the House of Representatives as 
     such candidate's principal campaign committee for purposes of 
     section 302(e) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 432(e)), and
       ``(2) such candidate has made contributions to such 
     political organization during the election cycle in excess of 
     the contribution limitation which would have been applicable 
     under section 501(a) or 512(a) of such Act, whichever is 
     applicable, if an election under such section had been made.
       ``(c) Excess Political Expenditures.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `excess political expenditures' means, with respect to any 
     election cycle, the excess (if any) of the political 
     expenditures incurred by the applicable campaign fund during 
     such cycle, over, in the case of a House of Representatives 
     candidate, the expenditure ceiling which would have been 
     applicable under subtitle B of title V of such Act if an 
     election under such subtitle had been made.
       ``(2) Special rule for determining amount of 
     expenditures.--For purposes of paragraph (1), in determining 
     the amount of political expenditures incurred by an 
     applicable campaign fund, there shall be excluded any such 
     expenditure which would not have been subject to the 
     expenditure limitations of title V of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 had such limitations been applicable, 
     other than any such expenditure which would have been exempt 
     from such limitations under section 501(e) or 501(f) of such 
     Act.
       ``(d) Other Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(1) Election cycle.--The term `election cycle' has the 
     meaning given such term by section 301 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971.
       ``(2) Political organization.--The term `political 
     organization' has the meaning given to such term by section 
     527(e)(1).
       ``(3) Certain rules made applicable.--Rules similar to the 
     rules of section 4911(e)(4) shall apply.''
       (b) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) Chapter 41 of such Code is amended by striking the 
     chapter heading and inserting the following:

     ``CHAPTER 41--LOBBYING AND POLITICAL EXPENDITURES OF CERTAIN 
                             ORGANIZATIONS

``Subchapter A. Public charities.
``Subchapter B. Excess political expenditures of certain campaign 
              funds.

                  ``Subchapter A--Public Charities''.

       (2) The table of sections for subtitle D of such Code is 
     amended by striking the item relating to chapter 41 and 
     inserting the following:
``Chapter 41. Lobbying and political expenditures of certain 
              organizations.''

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1996.
                   TITLE II--INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES

     SEC. 201. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITIONS RELATING TO 
                   INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES.

       (a) Independent Expenditure Definition Amendment.--Section 
     301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     431) is amended by striking paragraphs (17) and (18) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(17)(A) The term `independent expenditure' means an 
     expenditure that--
       ``(i) contains express advocacy; and
       ``(ii) is made without the participation or cooperation of 
     and without consultation with a candidate or a candidate's 
     representative.
       ``(B) The following shall not be considered an independent 
     expenditure:
       ``(i) An expenditure made by an authorized committee of a 
     candidate for Federal office
       ``(ii) An expenditure if there is any arrangement, 
     coordination, or direction with respect to the expenditure 
     between the candidate or the candidate's agent and the person 
     making the expenditure.
       ``(iii) An expenditure if, in the same election cycle, the 
     person making the expenditure is or has been--
       ``(I) authorized to raise or expend funds on behalf of the 
     candidate or the candidate's authorized committees; or
       ``(II) serving as a member, employee, or agent of the 
     candidate's authorized committees in an executive or 
     policymaking position.
       ``(iv) An expenditure if the person making the expenditure 
     retains the professional services of any individual or other 
     person also providing services in the same election cycle to 
     the candidate in connection with the candidate's pursuit of 
     nomination for election, or election, to Federal office, 
     including any services relating to the candidate's decision 
     to seek Federal office. For purposes of this clause, the term 
     `professional services' shall include any services (other 
     than legal and accounting services solely for purposes of 
     ensuring compliance with any Federal law) in support of any 
     candidate's or candidates' pursuit of nomination for 
     election, or election, to Federal office.

     For purposes of this subparagraph, the person making the 
     expenditure shall include any officer, director, employee, or 
     agent of such person.
       ``(18)(A) The term `express advocacy' means, when a 
     communication is taken as a whole and with limited reference 
     to external events, an expression of support for or 
     opposition to a specific candidate, to a specific group of 
     candidates, or to candidates of a particular political party.
       ``(B) The term `expression of support for or opposition to' 
     includes a suggestion to take action with respect to an 
     election, such as to vote for or against, make contributions 
     to, or participate in campaign activity, or to refrain from 
     taking action.''.
       (b) Contribution Definition Amendment.--Section 301(8)(A) 
     of such Act (2 U.S.C. 431(8)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' after the semicolon 
     at the end;
       (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iii) any payment or other transaction referred to in 
     paragraph (17)(A)(i) that is not an independent expenditure 
     under paragraph (17).''.

     SEC. 202. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN INDEPENDENT 
                   EXPENDITURES.

       Section 304(c) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 434(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking the undesignated matter 
     after subparagraph (C);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (9); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (2), as amended by 
     paragraph (1), the following new paragraphs:
       ``(3)(A) Any person (including a political committee) 
     making independent expenditures (including those described in 
     subsection (b)(6)(B)(iii)) with respect to a candidate in an 
     election aggregating $1,000 or more made after the 20th day, 
     but more than 24 hours, before the election shall file a 
     report within 24 hours after such independent expenditures 
     are made. An additional report shall be filed each time 
     independent expenditures aggregating $1,000 are made with 
     respect to the same candidate after the latest report filed 
     under this subparagraph.
       ``(B) Any person (including a political committee) making 
     independent expenditures with respect to a candidate in an 
     election aggregating $2,500 or more made at any time up to 
     and including the 20th day before the election shall file a 
     report within 48 hours after such independent expenditures 
     are made. An additional report shall be filed each time 
     independent expenditures aggregating $2,500 are made with 
     respect to the same candidate after the latest report filed 
     under this paragraph.
       ``(C) A report under subparagraph (A) or (B) shall be filed 
     with the Commission and the Secretary of State of the State 
     involved, and shall identify each candidate whom the 
     expenditure is actually intended to support or to oppose. Not 
     later than 48 hours after the Commission receives a report, 
     the Commission shall transmit a copy of the report to each 
     candidate seeking nomination or election to that office.
       ``(D) For purposes of this section, an independent 
     expenditure shall be considered to have been made upon the 
     making of any payment or the taking of any action to incur an 
     obligation for payment.
       ``(4)(A) If any person (including a political committee) 
     intends to make independent expenditures with respect to a 
     candidate in an election totaling $2,500 or more during the 
     20 days before an election, such person shall file a report 
     no later than the 20th day before the election.
       ``(B) A report under subparagraph (A) shall be filed with 
     the Commission and the Secretary of State of the State 
     involved, and shall identify each candidate whom the 
     expenditure is actually intended to support or to oppose. Not 
     later than 48 hours after the Commission receives a report 
     under this paragraph, the Commission shall transmit a copy of 
     the statement to each candidate identified.
       ``(5) The Commission may, upon a request of a candidate or 
     on its own initiative, make its own determination that a 
     person has made, or has incurred obligations to make, 
     independent expenditures with respect to any candidate in any 
     election which in the aggregate exceed the applicable amounts 
     under paragraph (3) or (4). The Commission shall notify each 
     candidate in such election of such determination within 48 
     hours after making it. Any determination made at the request 
     of a candidate shall be made within 48 hours of the request.
       ``(6) At the time at which an eligible House of 
     Representatives candidate is notified under paragraph (3), 
     (4), or (5) with respect to expenditures during a general 
     election period, the Commission shall certify eligibility to 
     receive benefits under section 504(a)(3)(B) or section 
     513(f).
       ``(7)(A) A person that makes a reservation of broadcast 
     time to which section 315(a) of the Communications Act of 
     1947 (47 U.S.C. 315(a)) applies, the payment for which would 
     constitute an independent expenditure, shall at the time of 
     reservation--
       ``(i) inform the broadcast licensee that payment for the 
     broadcast time will constitute an independent expenditure;
       ``(ii) inform the broadcast licensee of the names of all 
     candidates for the office to

[[Page H8497]]

     which the proposed broadcast relates and state whether the 
     message to be broadcast is intended to be made in support of 
     or in opposition to each such candidate;
       ``(iii) transmit to all candidates for the office to which 
     the proposed broadcast relates a script or tape recording of 
     the communication, or an accurate summary of the 
     communication if a script or tape recording is not 
     available.''.
TITLE III--CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES BY POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEES

     SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Contribution and Expenditure Exceptions.--(1) Section 
     301(8)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431(8)(B)) is amended--
       (A) in clause (x)--
       (i) by striking ``and'' at the end of subclause (2),
       (ii) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subclause (3), and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following new subclause:
       ``(4) such activities are conducted solely by, and any 
     materials are prepared for distribution and mailing and are 
     distributed (if other than by mailing) solely by, 
     volunteers;'';
       (B) in clause (xi), by striking ``That'' and all that 
     follows through ``Act;'' and inserting ``That--
       ``(1) such payments are made from contributions subject to 
     the limitations and prohibitions of this Act; and
       ``(2) such activities are conducted solely by, and any 
     materials are prepared for distribution and mailing and are 
     distributed (if other than by mailing) solely by, 
     volunteers;'' and
       (C) in clause (xii)--
       (i) by inserting ``in connection with volunteer 
     activities'' after ``such committee'',
       (ii) by striking ``for President and Vice President'',
       (iii) by striking ``and'' at the end of subclause (2),
       (iv) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subclause (3), and
       (v) by adding at the end the following new subclause:
       ``(4) such activities are conducted solely by, and any 
     materials are prepared for distribution and mailing and are 
     distributed (if other than by mailing) solely by, 
     volunteers;''.
       (2) Section 301(9)(B) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 431(9)(B)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in clause (viii)--
       (i) by striking ``and'' at the end of subclause (2),
       (ii) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subclause (3), and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following new subclause:
       ``(4) such activities are conducted solely by, and any 
     materials are prepared for distribution and mailing and are 
     distributed (if other than by mailing) solely by, 
     volunteers;''; and
       (B) in clause (ix)--
       (i) by inserting ``in connection with volunteer 
     activities'' after ``such committee'',
       (ii) by striking ``for President or Vice President'', and
       (iii) by striking ``and'' at the end of subclause (2), by 
     inserting ``and'' at the end of subclause (3), and by adding 
     at the end the following new subclause:
       ``(4) such activities are conducted solely by, and any 
     materials are prepared for distribution and are distributed 
     (if other than by mailing) solely by, volunteers;''.
       (b) Generic Activities; State Party Grassroots Fund.--
     Section 301 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 431), as amended by section 
     133, is further amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraphs:
       ``(30) The term `generic campaign activity' means a 
     campaign activity that promotes a political party rather than 
     any particular Federal or non-Federal candidate.
       ``(31) The term `State Party Grassroots Fund' means a 
     separate segregated fund established and maintained by a 
     State committee of a political party solely for purposes of 
     making expenditures and other disbursements described in 
     section 324(d).''.

     SEC. 302. CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEES.

       (a) Individual Contributions to State Party.--Section 
     315(a)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) to--
       ``(i) a State Party Grassroots Fund established and 
     maintained by a State committee of a political party in any 
     calendar year which, in the aggregate, exceed $20,000; or
       ``(ii) any other political committee established and 
     maintained by a State committee of a political party in any 
     calendar year which, in the aggregate, exceed $5,000,

     except that the aggregate contributions described in this 
     subparagraph which may be made by a person to the State Party 
     Grassroots Fund and all committees of a State committee of a 
     political party in any State in any calendar year shall not 
     exceed $20,000; or''.
       (b) Multicandidate Committee Contributions to State 
     Party.--Section 315(a)(2) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(2)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) to--
       ``(i) a State Party Grassroots Fund established and 
     maintained by a State committee of a political party in any 
     calendar year which, in the aggregate, exceed $15,000; or
       ``(ii) to any other political committee established and 
     maintained by a State committee of a political party which, 
     in the aggregate, exceed $5,000,

     except that the aggregate contributions described in this 
     subparagraph which may be made by a multicandidate political 
     committee to the State Party Grassroots Fund and all 
     committees of a State committee of a political party in any 
     State in any calendar year shall not exceed $15,000; or''.
       (c) Overall Limit.--Section 315(a)(3) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     441a(a)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3)(A) No individual shall make contributions during any 
     election cycle which, in the aggregate, exceed $100,000.
       ``(B) No individual shall make contributions during any 
     calendar year--
       ``(i) to all candidates and their authorized political 
     committees which, in the aggregate, exceed $25,000; or
       ``(ii) to all political committees established and 
     maintained by State committees of a political party which, in 
     the aggregate, exceed $20,000.
       ``(C) For purposes of subparagraph (B)(i), any contribution 
     made to a candidate or the candidate's authorized political 
     committees in a year other than the calendar year in which 
     the election is held with respect to which such contribution 
     is made shall be treated as made during the calendar year in 
     which the election is held.''.
       (d) Presidential Candidate Committee Transfers.--(1) 
     Section 315(b)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441a(b)(1)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) in the case of a campaign for election to such 
     office, an amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(i) $20,000,000, plus
       ``(ii) the amounts transferred by the candidate and the 
     authorized committees of the candidate to the national 
     committee of the candidate's political party for distribution 
     to State Party Grassroots Funds.
     In no event shall the amount under subparagraph (B)(ii) 
     exceed 2 cents multiplied by the voting age population of the 
     United States (as certified under subsection (e)). The 
     Commission may require reporting of the transfers described 
     in subparagraph (B)(ii), may conduct an examination and audit 
     of any such transfer, and may require the return of the 
     transferred amounts to the Presidential Election Campaign 
     Fund if not used for the appropriate purpose.''
       (2) Subparagraph (A) of section 9002(11) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (ii); and
       (B) in clause (iii), by striking ``offices,'' and inserting 
     the following: ``offices, or (iv) consisting of a transfer to 
     the national committee of the political party of a candidate 
     for the office of President or Vice President for 
     distribution to State Party Grassroots Funds (as defined in 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971) to the extent such 
     transfers do not exceed the amount determined under section 
     315(b)(1)(B)(ii) of such Act,''.

     SEC. 303. INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT THAT MULTICANDIDATE 
                   POLITICAL COMMITTEES MAY CONTRIBUTE TO NATIONAL 
                   POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEES.

       Section 315(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(2)(B)) is amended by striking 
     ``$15,000'' and inserting ``$25,000''.

     SEC. 304. MERCHANDISING AND AFFINITY CARDS.

       Section 316 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441b) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section or any 
     other provision of this Act to the contrary, an amount 
     received from a corporation (including a State-chartered or 
     national bank) by any political committee (other than a 
     separate segregated fund established under section 
     316(b)(2)(C)) shall be deemed to meet the limitations and 
     prohibitions of this Act if such amount represents a 
     commission or royalty on the sale of goods or services, or on 
     the issuance of credit cards, by such corporation and if--
       ``(1) such goods, services, or credit cards are promoted by 
     or in the name of the political committee as a means of 
     contributing to or supporting the political committee and are 
     offered to consumers using the name of the political 
     committee or using a message, design, or device created and 
     owned by the political committee, or both;
       ``(2) the corporation is in the business of merchandising 
     such goods or services, or of issuing such credit cards;
       ``(3) the royalty or commission has been offered by the 
     corporation to the political committee in the ordinary course 
     of the corporation's business and on the same terms and 
     conditions as those on which such corporation offers 
     royalties or commissions to nonpolitical entities;
       ``(4) all revenue on which the commission or royalty is 
     based represents, or results from, sales to or fees paid by 
     individual consumers in the ordinary course of retail 
     transactions;

[[Page H8498]]

       ``(5) the costs of any unsold inventory of goods are 
     ultimately borne by the political committee in accordance 
     with rules to be prescribed by the Commission; and
       ``(6) except for any royalty or commission permitted to be 
     paid by this subsection, no goods, services, or anything else 
     of value is provided by such corporation to the political 
     committee, except that such corporation may advance or 
     finance costs or extend credit in connection with the 
     manufacture and distribution of goods, provision of services, 
     or issuance of credit cards pursuant to this subsection if 
     and to the extent such advance, financing, or extension is 
     undertaken in the ordinary course of the corporation's 
     business and is undertaken on similar terms by such 
     corporation in its transactions with nonpolitical entities in 
     like circumstances.''

     SEC. 305. PROVISIONS RELATING TO NATIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL 
                   PARTY COMMITTEES.

       (a) Soft Money of Committees of Political Parties.--Title 
     III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is amended 
     by inserting after section 323 the following new section:


                      ``political party committees

       ``Sec. 324. (a) Limitations on National Committee.--(1) A 
     national committee of a political party and the congressional 
     campaign committees of a political party may not solicit or 
     accept contributions or transfers not subject to the 
     limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this 
     Act.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to contributions--
       ``(A) that--
       ``(i) are to be transferred to a State committee of a 
     political party and are used solely for activities described 
     in clauses (xi) through (xvii) of paragraph (9)(B) of section 
     301; or
       ``(ii) are described in section 301(8)(B)(viii); and
       ``(B) with respect to which contributors have been notified 
     that the funds will be used solely for the purposes described 
     in subparagraph (A).
       ``(b) Activities Subject to This Act.--Any amount 
     solicited, received, expended, or disbursed directly or 
     indirectly by a national, State, district, or local committee 
     of a political party with respect to any of the following 
     activities shall be subject to the limitations, prohibitions, 
     and reporting requirements of this Act:
       ``(1)(A) Any get-out-the-vote activity conducted during a 
     calendar year in which an election for the office of 
     President is held.
       ``(B) Any other get-out-the-vote activity unless subsection 
     (c)(2) applies to the activity.
       ``(2) Any generic campaign activity.
       ``(3) Any activity that identifies or promotes a Federal 
     candidate, regardless of whether--
       ``(A) a State or local candidate is also identified or 
     promoted; or
       ``(B) any portion of the funds disbursed constitutes a 
     contribution or expenditure under this Act.
       ``(4) Voter registration.
       ``(5) Development and maintenance of voter files during an 
     even-numbered calendar year.
       ``(6) Any other activity that--
       ``(A) significantly affects a Federal election, or
       ``(B) is not otherwise described in section 
     301(9)(B)(xvii).
     Any amount spent to raise funds that are used, in whole or in 
     part, in connection with activities described in the 
     preceding paragraphs shall be subject to the limitations, 
     prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.
       ``(c) Get-Out-The-Vote Activities By State, District, and 
     Local Committees of Political Parties.--(1) Except as 
     provided in paragraph (2), any get-out-the-vote activity for 
     a State or local candidate, or for a ballot measure, which is 
     conducted by a State, district, or local committee of a 
     political party shall be subject to the limitations, 
     prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any activity which 
     the State committee of a political party certifies to the 
     Commission is an activity which--
       ``(A) is conducted during a calendar year other than a 
     calendar year in which an election for the office of 
     President is held,
       ``(B) is exclusively on behalf of (and specifically 
     identifies only) one or more State or local candidates or 
     ballot measures, and
       ``(C) does not include any effort or means used to identify 
     or turn out those identified to be supporters of any Federal 
     candidate (including any activity that is undertaken in 
     coordination with, or on behalf of, a candidate for Federal 
     office).
       ``(d) State Party Grassroots Funds.--(1) A State committee 
     of a political party may make disbursements and expenditures 
     from its State Party Grassroots Fund only for--
       ``(A) any generic campaign activity;
       ``(B) payments described in clauses (v), (x), and (xii) of 
     paragraph (8)(B) and clauses (iv), (viii), and (ix) of 
     paragraph (9)(B) of section 301;
       ``(C) subject to the limitations of section 315(d), 
     payments described in clause (xii) of paragraph (8)(B), and 
     clause (ix) of paragraph (9)(B), of section 301 on behalf of 
     candidates other than for President and Vice President;
       ``(D) voter registration; and
       ``(E) development and maintenance of voter files during an 
     even-numbered calendar year.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding section 315(a)(4), no funds may be 
     transferred by a State committee of a political party from 
     its State Party Grassroots Fund to any other State Party 
     Grassroots Fund or to any other political committee, except a 
     transfer may be made to a district or local committee of the 
     same political party in the same State if such district or 
     local committee--
       ``(A) has established a separate segregated fund for the 
     purposes described in paragraph (1); and
       ``(B) uses the transferred funds solely for those purposes.
       ``(e) Amounts Received by Grassroots Fund From State and 
     Local Candidate Committees.--(1) Any amount received by a 
     State Party Grassroots Fund from a State or local candidate 
     committee for expenditures described in subsection (b) that 
     are for the benefit of that candidate shall be treated as 
     meeting the requirements of subsection (b) and section 304(e) 
     if--
       ``(A) such amount is derived from funds which meet the 
     requirements of this Act with respect to any limitation or 
     prohibition as to source or dollar amount specified in 
     section 315(a) (1)(A) and (2)(A); and
       ``(B) the State or local candidate committee--
       ``(i) maintains, in the account from which payment is made, 
     records of the sources and amounts of funds for purposes of 
     determining whether such requirements are met; and
       ``(ii) certifies that such requirements were met.
       ``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), in determining 
     whether the funds transferred meet the requirements of this 
     Act described in such paragraph--
       ``(A) a State or local candidate committee's cash on hand 
     shall be treated as consisting of the funds most recently 
     received by the committee, and
       ``(B) the committee must be able to demonstrate that its 
     cash on hand contains sufficient funds meeting such 
     requirements as are necessary to cover the transferred funds.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any State Party 
     Grassroots Fund receiving any transfer described in paragraph 
     (1) from a State or local candidate committee shall be 
     required to meet the reporting requirements of this Act, and 
     shall submit to the Commission all certifications received, 
     with respect to receipt of the transfer from such candidate 
     committee.
       ``(4) For purposes of this subsection, a State or local 
     candidate committee is a committee established, financed, 
     maintained, or controlled by a candidate for other than 
     Federal office.
       ``(f) Related Entities.--The provisions of this Act shall 
     apply to any entity that is established, financed, or 
     maintained by a national committee or State committee of a 
     political party in the same manner as they apply to the 
     national or State committee.''
       (b) Contributions and Expenditures.--
       (1) Contributions.--Section 301(8)(B) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     431(8)(B)) is amended--
       (A) in clause (viii), by inserting after ``Federal office'' 
     the following: ``, or any amounts received by the committees 
     of any national political party to support the operation of a 
     television and radio broadcast facility'';
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (xiii);
       (C) by striking clause (xiv); and
       (D) by adding at the end the following new clauses:
       ``(xiv) any amount contributed to a candidate for other 
     than Federal office;
       ``(xv) any amount received or expended to pay the costs of 
     a State or local political convention;
       ``(xvi) any payment for campaign activities that are 
     exclusively on behalf of (and specifically identify only) 
     State or local candidates and do not identify any Federal 
     candidate, and that are not activities described in section 
     324(b) (without regard to paragraph (6)(B)) or section 
     324(c)(1);
       ``(xvii) any payment for administrative expenses of a State 
     or local committee of a political party, including expenses 
     for--

       ``(I) overhead, including party meetings;
       ``(II) staff (other than individuals devoting a significant 
     amount of their time to elections for Federal office and 
     individuals engaged in conducting get-out-the-vote activities 
     for a Federal election); and
       ``(III) conducting party elections or caucuses;

       ``(xviii) any payment for research pertaining solely to 
     State and local candidates and issues;
       ``(xix) any payment for development and maintenance of 
     voter files other than during the 1-year period ending on the 
     date during an even-numbered calendar year on which regularly 
     scheduled general elections for Federal office occur; and
       ``(xx) any payment for any other activity which is solely 
     for the purpose of influencing, and which solely affects, an 
     election for non-Federal office and which is not an activity 
     described in section 324(b) (without regard to paragraph 
     (6)(B)) or section 324(c)(1).''.
       (2) Expenditures.--Section 301(9)(B) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     431(9)(B)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ix);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of clause (x) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new clauses:
       ``(xi) any amount contributed to a candidate for other than 
     Federal office;

[[Page H8499]]

       ``(xii) any amount received or expended to pay the costs of 
     a State or local political convention;
       ``(xiii) any payment for campaign activities that are 
     exclusively on behalf of (and specifically identify only) 
     State or local candidates and do not identify any Federal 
     candidate, and that are not activities described in section 
     324(b) (without regard to paragraph (6)(B)) or section 
     324(c)(1);
       ``(xiv) any payment for administrative expenses of a State 
     or local committee of a political party, including expenses 
     for--

       ``(I) overhead, including party meetings;
       ``(II) staff (other than individuals devoting a significant 
     amount of their time to elections for Federal office and 
     individuals engaged in conducting get-out-the-vote activities 
     for a Federal election); and
       ``(III) conducting party elections or caucuses;

       ``(xv) any payment for research pertaining solely to State 
     and local candidates and issues;
       ``(xvi) any payment for development and maintenance of 
     voter files other than during the 1-year period ending on the 
     date during an even-numbered calendar year on which regularly 
     scheduled general elections for Federal office occur; and
       ``(xvii) any payment for any other activity which is solely 
     for the purpose of influencing, and which solely affects, an 
     election for non-Federal office and which is not an activity 
     described in section 324(b) (without regard to paragraph 
     (6)(B)) or section 324(c)(1).''.
       (c) Limitation Applied at National Level; Permitting 
     Committees To Match Independent Expenditures Made on 
     Opponent's Behalf.--Section 315(d) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     441a(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``The national 
     committee'' and inserting ``Subject to paragraph (4), the 
     national committee''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4)(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), the applicable 
     congressional campaign committee of a political party shall 
     make the expenditures described in such paragraph which are 
     authorized to be made by a national or State committee with 
     respect to a candidate in any State unless it allocates all 
     or a portion of such expenditures to either or both of such 
     committees.
       ``(B) For purposes of paragraph (3), in determining the 
     amount of expenditures of a national or State committee of a 
     political party in connection with the general election 
     campaign of a candidate for election to the office of 
     Representative, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, there 
     shall be excluded an amount equal to the total amount of 
     independent expenditures made during the campaign on behalf 
     of candidates opposing the candidate.''.
       (d) Limitations Apply for Entire Election Cycle.--Section 
     315(d)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441a(d)(1)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Each 
     limitation under the following paragraphs shall apply to the 
     entire election cycle for an office.''.

     SEC. 306. RESTRICTIONS ON FUNDRAISING BY CANDIDATES AND 
                   OFFICEHOLDERS.

       (a) State Fundraising Activities.--Section 315 of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a), as 
     amended by section 122, is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(j) Limitations on Fundraising Activities of Federal 
     Candidates and Officeholders and Certain Political 
     Committees.--(1) For purposes of this Act, a candidate for 
     Federal office, an individual holding Federal office, or any 
     agent of the candidate or individual may not solicit funds 
     to, or receive funds on behalf of, any Federal or non-Federal 
     candidate or political committee--
       ``(A) which are to be expended in connection with any 
     election for Federal office unless such funds are subject to 
     the limitations, prohibitions, and requirements of this Act; 
     or
       ``(B) which are to be expended in connection with any 
     election for other than Federal office unless such funds are 
     not in excess of amounts permitted with respect to Federal 
     candidates and political committees under subsections (a) (1) 
     and (2), and are not from sources prohibited by such 
     subsections with respect to elections to Federal office.
       ``(2)(A) The aggregate amount which a person described in 
     subparagraph (B) may solicit from a multicandidate political 
     committee for State committees described in subsection 
     (a)(1)(C) (including subordinate committees) for any calendar 
     year shall not exceed the dollar amount in effect under 
     subsection (a)(2)(B) for the calendar year.
       ``(B) A person is described in this subparagraph if such 
     person is a candidate for Federal office, an individual 
     holding Federal office, an agent of such a candidate or 
     individual, or any national, State, district, or local 
     committee of a political party (including a subordinate 
     committee) and any agent of such a committee.
       ``(3) The appearance or participation by a candidate for 
     Federal office or individual holding Federal office in any 
     fundraising event conducted by a committee of a political 
     party or a candidate for other than Federal office shall not 
     be treated as a solicitation for purposes of paragraph (1) if 
     such candidate or individual does not solicit or receive, or 
     make disbursements from, any funds resulting from such 
     activity.
       ``(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the solicitation or 
     receipt of funds, or disbursements, by an individual who is a 
     candidate for other than Federal office if such activity is 
     permitted under State law.
       ``(5) For purposes of this subsection, an individual shall 
     be treated as holding Federal office if such individual--
       ``(A) holds a Federal office; or
       ``(B) holds a position described in level I of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5312 of title 5, United 
     States Code.''.
       (b) Tax-Exempt Organizations.--Section 315 of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 441a), as amended by section 122 and subsection (a), 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(k) Tax-Exempt Organizations.--(1) If an individual is a 
     candidate for, or holds, Federal office during any period, 
     such individual may not during such period solicit 
     contributions to, or on behalf of, any organization which is 
     described in section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 if--
       ``(A) the organization is established, maintained, or 
     controlled by such individual; and
       ``(B) a significant portion of the activities of such 
     organization include voter registration or get-out-the-vote 
     campaigns.
       ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, an individual shall 
     be treated as holding Federal office if such individual--
       ``(A) holds a Federal office; or
       ``(B) holds a position described in level I of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5312 of title 5, United 
     States Code.''.

     SEC. 307. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Reporting Requirements.--Section 304 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Political Committees.--(1) The national committee of 
     a political party and any congressional campaign committee of 
     a political party, and any subordinate committee of either, 
     shall report all receipts and disbursements during the 
     reporting period, whether or not in connection with an 
     election for Federal office.
       ``(2) A State, district, or local committee of a political 
     party to which section 324 applies shall report all receipts 
     and disbursements for the reporting period, including 
     separate schedules for receipts and disbursements for State 
     Grassroots Funds.
       ``(3) Any political committee shall include in its report 
     under paragraph (1) or (2) the amount of any transfer 
     described in section 324(d)(2) and shall itemize such amounts 
     to the extent required by section 304(b)(3)(A).
       ``(4) The Commission may prescribe regulations to require 
     any political committee to which paragraph (1) or (2) does 
     not apply to report any receipts or disbursements used in 
     connection with a Federal election, including those which are 
     also used, directly or indirectly, to affect a State or local 
     election.
       ``(5) If a political committee has receipts or 
     disbursements to which this subsection applies from any 
     person aggregating in excess of $200 for any calendar year, 
     the political committee shall separately itemize its 
     reporting for such person in the same manner as subsection 
     (b) (3)(A), (5), or (6).
       ``(6) Reports required to be filed by this subsection shall 
     be filed for the same time periods required for political 
     committees under subsection (a).''.
       (b) Report of Exempt Contributions.--Section 301(8) of such 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 431(8)) is amended by inserting at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) The exclusion provided in clause (viii) of 
     subparagraph (B) shall not apply for purposes of any 
     requirement to report contributions under this Act, and all 
     such contributions aggregating in excess of $200 (and 
     disbursements therefrom) shall be reported.''.
       (c) Reports by State Committees.--Section 304 of such Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 434), as amended by subsection (a), is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Filing of State Reports.--In lieu of any report 
     required to be filed by this Act, the Commission may allow a 
     State committee of a political party to file with the 
     Commission a report required to be filed under State law if 
     the Commission determines such reports contain substantially 
     the same information.''.
       (d) Other Reporting Requirements.--
       (1) Authorized committees.--Section 304(b)(4) of such Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 434(b)(4)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (H);
       (B) by adding ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (I); and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(J) in the case of an authorized committee, disbursements 
     for the primary election, the general election, and any other 
     election in which the candidate participates;''.
       (2) Names and addresses.--Section 304(b)(5)(A) of such Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 434(b)(5)(A)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``within the calendar year'', and
       (B) by inserting ``, and the election to which the 
     operating expenditure relates'' after ``operating 
     expenditure''.
                        TITLE IV--CONTRIBUTIONS

     SEC. 401. RESTRICTIONS ON BUNDLING.

       Section 315(a)(8) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(8)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(8)(A) No person, either directly or indirectly, may act 
     as a conduit or intermediary for any contribution to a 
     candidate.
       ``(B)(i) Nothing in this section shall prohibit--

[[Page H8500]]

       ``(I) joint fundraising conducted in accordance with rules 
     prescribed by the Commission by 2 or more candidates; or
       ``(II) fundraising for the benefit of a candidate that is 
     conducted by another candidate.
       ``(ii) No other person may conduct or otherwise participate 
     in joint fundraising activities with or on behalf of any 
     candidate.
       ``(C) The term `conduit or intermediary' means a person who 
     transmits a contribution to a candidate or candidate's 
     committee or representative from another person, except 
     that--
       ``(i) a House of Representatives candidate or 
     representative of a House of Representatives candidate is not 
     a conduit or intermediary for the purpose of transmitting 
     contributions to the candidate's principal campaign committee 
     or authorized committee;
       ``(ii) a professional fundraiser is not a conduit or 
     intermediary, if the fundraiser is compensated for 
     fundraising services at the usual and customary rate;
       ``(iii) a volunteer hosting a fundraising event at the 
     volunteer's home, in accordance with section 301(8)(b), is 
     not a conduit or intermediary for the purposes of that event; 
     and
       ``(iv) an individual is not a conduit or intermediary for 
     the purpose of transmitting a contribution from the 
     individual's spouse.

     For purposes of this section a conduit or intermediary 
     transmits a contribution when receiving or otherwise taking 
     possession of the contribution and forwarding it directly to 
     the candidate or the candidate's committee or representative.
       ``(D) For purposes of this section, the term 
     `representative'--
       ``(i) shall mean a person who is expressly authorized by 
     the candidate to engage in fundraising, and who, in the case 
     of an individual, is not acting as an officer, employee, or 
     agent of any other person;
       ``(ii) shall not include--
       ``(I) a political committee with a connected organization;
       ``(II) a political party;
       ``(III) a partnership or sole proprietorship;
       ``(IV) an organization prohibited from making contributions 
     under section 316; or
       ``(V) a person required to register under the Lobbying 
     Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).
       ``(E) For purposes of this section, the term `acting as an 
     officer, employee, or agent of any other person' includes the 
     following activities by a salaried officer, employee, or paid 
     agent of a person described in subparagraph (D)(ii)(IV):
       ``(i) Soliciting contributions to a particular candidate in 
     the name of, or by using the name of, such a person.
       ``(ii) Soliciting contributions to a particular candidate 
     using other than the incidental resources of such a person.
       ``(iii) Soliciting contributions to a particular candidate 
     under the direction or control of other salaried officers, 
     employees, or paid agents of such a person.

     For purposes of this subparagraph, the term `agent' shall 
     include any person (other than individual members of an 
     organization described in subparagraph (b)(4)(C) of section 
     316) acting on authority or under the direction of such 
     organization.''.

     SEC. 402. CONTRIBUTIONS BY DEPENDENTS NOT OF VOTING AGE.

       Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441a), as amended by sections 122 and 306, is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(l) For purposes of this section, any contribution by an 
     individual who--
       ``(1) is a dependent of another individual; and
       ``(2) has not, as of the time of such contribution, 
     attained the legal age for voting for elections to Federal 
     office in the State in which such individual resides,

     shall be treated as having been made by such other 
     individual. If such individual is the dependent of another 
     individual and such other individual's spouse, the 
     contribution shall be allocated among such individuals in the 
     manner determined by them.''.

     SEC. 403. PROHIBITION OF ACCEPTANCE BY A CANDIDATE OF CASH 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ANY ONE PERSON AGGREGATING 
                   MORE THAN $100.

       Section 321 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441g) is amended by inserting ``, and no candidate or 
     authorized committee of a candidate shall accept from any one 
     person,'' after ``make''.

     SEC. 404. CONTRIBUTIONS TO CANDIDATES FROM STATE AND LOCAL 
                   COMMITTEES OF POLITICAL PARTIES TO BE 
                   AGGREGATED.

       Section 315(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)), as amended by section 121, is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(10) Notwithstanding paragraph (5)(B), a candidate for 
     Federal office may not accept, with respect to an election, 
     any contribution from a State or local committee of a 
     political party (including any subordinate committee of such 
     committee) if such contribution, when added to the total of 
     contributions previously accepted from all such committees of 
     that political party, exceeds a limitation on contributions 
     to a candidate under this section.''.

     SEC. 405. PROHIBITION OF FALSE REPRESENTATION TO SOLICIT 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 322 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441h) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``Sec. 322.'' the following: 
     ``(a)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) No person shall solicit contributions by falsely 
     representing himself or herself as a candidate or as a 
     representative of a candidate, a political committee, or a 
     political party.''.

     SEC. 406. LIMITED EXCLUSION OF ADVANCES BY CAMPAIGN WORKERS 
                   FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM 
                   ``CONTRIBUTION''.

       Section 301(8)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)(B)), as amended by section 305, is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (xix), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (2) in clause (xx), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting: ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(xxi) any advance voluntarily made on behalf of an 
     authorized committee of a candidate by an individual in the 
     normal course of such individual's responsibilities as a 
     volunteer for, or employee of, the committee, if the advance 
     is reimbursed by the committee within 10 days after the date 
     on which the advance is made, and the value of advances on 
     behalf of a committee does not exceed $500 with respect to an 
     election.''.

     SEC. 407. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 316 OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION 
                   CAMPAIGN ACT OF 1971.

       Section 316(b)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(2) For'' and inserting ``(2)(A) Except 
     as provided in subparagraph (B), for'';
       (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as 
     clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Payments by a corporation or labor organization for 
     candidate debates, voter guides, or voting records directed 
     to the general public shall be considered contributions 
     unless--
       ``(i) in the case of a candidate debate, the organization 
     staging the debate is either an organization described in 
     section 301 (9)(B)(i) whose broadcasts, cablecasts, or 
     publications are supported by commercial advertising, 
     subscriptions, or sales to the public, including a 
     noncommercial educational broadcaster, or a nonprofit 
     organization exempt from Federal taxation under section 
     501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     that does not endorse, support, or oppose candidates or 
     political parties, and any such debate features at least 2 
     candidates competing for election to that office;
       ``(ii) in the case of a voter guide, the guide is prepared 
     and distributed by a corporation or labor organization and 
     consists of questions posed to at least two candidates for 
     election to that office; and
       ``(iii) in the case of a voting record, the record is 
     prepared and distributed by a corporation or labor 
     organization at the end of a session of Congress and consists 
     solely of votes by all Members of Congress in that session on 
     one or more issues;

     except that such payments shall be treated as contributions 
     if any communication made by a corporation or labor 
     organization in connection with the candidate debate, voter 
     guide, or voting record contains express advocacy, or any 
     structure or format of the candidate debate, voter guide, or 
     voting record, or any preparation or distribution of any such 
     guide or record, reflects a purpose of influencing the 
     election of a particular candidate.''.

     SEC. 408. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN ELECTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES 
                   OF FOREIGN NATIONALS.

       Section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441e) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(c) A foreign national shall not directly or indirectly 
     direct, control, influence, or participate in any person's 
     election-related activities, such as the making of 
     contributions or expenditures in connection with elections 
     for any local, State, or Federal office or the administration 
     of a political committee.''.
                    TITLE V--REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

     SEC. 501. CHANGE IN CERTAIN REPORTING FROM A CALENDAR YEAR 
                   BASIS TO AN ELECTION CYCLE BASIS.

       Paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (6), and (7) of section 304(b) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(b) 
     (2)-(7)) are each amended by inserting ``(election cycle, in 
     the case of an authorized committee of a candidate for 
     Federal office)'' after ``calendar year'' each place it 
     appears.

     SEC. 502. DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL AND CONSULTING SERVICES.

       (a) Reporting by Political Committees.--Section 
     304(b)(5)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 434(b)(5)(A)) is amended by adding before the 
     semicolon at the end the following: ``, except that if a 
     person to whom an expenditure is made by a candidate or the 
     candidate's authorized committees is merely providing 
     personal or consulting services and is in turn making 
     expenditures to other persons (not including its owners or 
     employees) who provide goods or services to the candidate or 
     the candidate's authorized committees, the name and address 
     of such other person, together with the date, amount and 
     purpose of such expenditure shall also be disclosed''.
       (b) Recordkeeping and Reporting by Persons to Whom 
     Expenditures Are Passed

[[Page H8501]]

     Through.--Section 302 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 432) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(j) The person described in section 304(b)(5)(A) who is 
     providing personal or consulting services and who is in turn 
     making expenditures to other persons (not including 
     employees) for goods or services provided to a candidate 
     shall maintain records of and shall provide to a political 
     committee the information necessary to enable the political 
     committee to report the information described in section 
     304(b)(5)(A).''.

     SEC. 503. POLITICAL COMMITTEES OTHER THAN CANDIDATE 
                   COMMITTEES.

       Section 303(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 433(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, and if the 
     organization or committee is incorporated, the State of 
     incorporation'' after ``committee''; and
       (2) by striking the ``name and address of the treasurer'' 
     in paragraph (4) and inserting ``the names and addresses of 
     any officers (including the treasurer)''.

     SEC. 504. USE OF CANDIDATES' NAMES.

       Section 302(e)(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 432(e)(4)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(4)(A) The name of each authorized committee shall 
     include the name of the candidate who authorized the 
     committee under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) A political committee that is not an authorized 
     committee shall not--
       ``(i) include the name of any candidate in its name, or
       ``(ii) except in the case of a national, State, or local 
     party committee, use the name of any candidate in any 
     activity on behalf of such committee in such a context as to 
     suggest that the committee is an authorized committee of the 
     candidate or that the use of the candidate's name has been 
     authorized by the candidate.''.

     SEC. 505. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Filing on the 20th Day of a Month.--Section 304(a) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(A)(iii), by striking ``15th'' and 
     inserting ``20th'';
       (2) in paragraph (3)(B)(ii), by striking ``15th'' and 
     inserting ``20th'';
       (3) in paragraph (4)(A)(i), by striking ``15th'' and 
     inserting ``20th''; and
       (4) in paragraph (8), by striking ``15th'' and inserting 
     ``20th''.
       (b) Option To File Monthly Reports.--Section 304(a)(2) of 
     such Act (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting the following new subparagraph at the end:
       ``(C) in lieu of the reports required by subparagraphs (A) 
     and (B), the treasurer may file monthly reports in all 
     calendar years, which shall be filed no later than the 20th 
     day after the last day of the month and shall be complete as 
     of the last day of the month, except that, in lieu of filing 
     the reports otherwise due in November and December of any 
     year in which a regularly scheduled general election is held, 
     a pre-primary election report and a pre-general election 
     report shall be filed in accordance with subparagraph (A)(i), 
     a post-general election report shall be filed in accordance 
     with subparagraph (A)(ii), and a year end report shall be 
     filed no later than January 31 of the following calendar 
     year.''.
       (c) Political Committees.--Section 304(a)(4) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 434(a)(4)) is amended in subparagraph (A)(i) by 
     inserting ``, and except that if at any time during the 
     election year a committee receives contributions in excess of 
     $100,000 ($10,000 in the case of a multicandidate political 
     committee), or makes disbursements in excess of $100,000 
     ($10,000 in the case of a multicandidate political 
     committee), monthly reports on the 20th day of each month 
     after the month in which that amount of contributions is 
     first received or that amount of disbursements is first 
     anticipated to be made during that year'' before the 
     semicolon.
       (d) Incomplete or False Contributor Information.--Section 
     302(i) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 432(i)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(i)'';
       (2) by striking ``submit'' and inserting ``report''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) A treasurer shall be considered to have used best 
     efforts under this section only if--
       ``(A) all written solicitations include a clear and 
     conspicuous request for the contributor's identification and 
     inform the contributor of the committee's obligation to 
     report the identification in a statement prescribed by the 
     Commission;
       ``(B) the treasurer makes at least 1 additional request for 
     the contributor's identification for each contribution 
     received that aggregates in excess of $200 per calendar year 
     and which does not contain all of the information required by 
     this Act; and
       ``(C) the treasurer reports all information in the 
     committee's possession regarding contributor 
     identifications.''.
       (e) Waiver.--Section 304 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 434), as 
     amended by section 307, is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Waiver.--The Commission may relieve any category of 
     political committees of the obligation to file 1 or more 
     reports required by this section, or may change the due dates 
     of such reports, if it determines that such action is 
     consistent with the purposes of this Act. The Commission may 
     waive requirements to file reports in accordance with this 
     subsection through a rule of general applicability or, in a 
     specific case, may waive or extend the due date of a report 
     by notifying all political committees affected.''.

     SEC. 506. SIMULTANEOUS REGISTRATION OF CANDIDATE AND 
                   CANDIDATE'S PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE.

       Section 303(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 433(a)) is amended in the first sentence by 
     striking ``no later than 10 days after designation'' and 
     inserting ``on the date of its designation''.

     SEC. 507. REPORTING ON GENERAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES OF PERSONS 
                   OTHER THAN POLITICAL PARTIES.

       (a) Reporting Requirement.--Section 304 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434), as amended by 
     sections 307 and 505, is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Certain Communications by Corporations and Labor 
     Organizations.--(1) Any person making disbursements to pay 
     the cost of applicable communication activities aggregating 
     $5,000 or more with respect to a candidate in an election 
     after the 20th day, but more than 24 hours, before the 
     election shall file a report of such disbursements within 24 
     hours after such disbursements are made.
       ``(2) Any person making disbursements to pay the cost of 
     applicable communications activities aggregating $5,000 or 
     more with respect to a candidate in an election at any time 
     up to and including the 20th day before the election shall 
     file a report within 48 hours after such disbursements are 
     made.
       ``(3) Any person required to file a report under paragraph 
     (1) or (2) which also makes disbursements to pay the cost 
     directly attributable to a get-out-the-vote campaign 
     described in section 316(b)(2)(B) aggregating $25,000 or more 
     with respect to an election shall file a report within 48 
     hours after such disbursements are made.
       ``(4) An additional report shall be filed each time 
     additional disbursements described in paragraph (1), (2), or 
     (3), whichever is applicable, aggregating $10,000 are made 
     with respect to the same candidate in the same election as 
     the initial report filed under this subsection. Each such 
     report shall be filed within 48 hours after the disbursements 
     are made.
       ``(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term `applicable 
     communication activities' means activities which are covered 
     by the exception to section 301(9)(B)(iii).
       ``(6) Any statement under this subsection--
       ``(A) shall be filed in the case of--
       ``(i) disbursements relating to candidates for the House of 
     Representatives, with the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives and the Secretary of State of the State 
     involved, and
       ``(ii) any other disbursements, with the Commission, and
       ``(B) shall contain such information as the Commission 
     shall prescribe.''
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 301(9)(B) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 431(9)(B)) is amended by inserting ``and shall, if 
     such costs exceeds the amount described in paragraph (1), 
     (2), or (4) of section 304(g), be reported in the manner 
     provided in section 304(g)'' before the semicolon at the end 
     of clause (iii).
           TITLE VI--BROADCAST RATES AND CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING

     SEC. 601. BROADCAST RATES AND CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING.

       (a) Broadcast Rates.--Section 315 of the Communications Act 
     of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 315) is amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the charges 
     made for the use of a broadcasting station by a person who is 
     a legally qualified candidate for public office in connection 
     with the person's campaign for nomination for election, or 
     election, to public office shall not exceed the charges made 
     for comparable use of such station by other users thereof.
       ``(2) In the case of an eligible House of Representatives 
     candidate, during the 30 days preceding the date of the 
     primary or primary runoff election and during the 60 days 
     preceding the date of a general or special election in which 
     the person is a candidate, the charges made for the use of a 
     broadcasting station by the candidate shall not exceed 50 
     percent of the lowest unit charge of the station for the same 
     class and amount of time for the same period.'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (f) and (g), respectively;
       (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a licensee 
     shall not preempt the use, during any period specified in 
     subsection (b)(1)(A), of a broadcast station by a legally 
     qualified candidate for public office who has purchased and 
     paid for such use pursuant to subsection (b)(1)(A).
       ``(2) If a program to be broadcast by a broadcasting 
     station is preempted because of circumstances beyond the 
     control of the broadcasting station, any candidate 
     advertising spot scheduled to be broadcast during that 
     program may also be preempted.
       ``(d) If any person makes an independent expenditure 
     through a communication on a broadcasting station that 
     expressly advocates the defeat of an eligible House of 
     Representatives candidate, or the election of an

[[Page H8502]]

     eligible House of Representatives candidate (regardless of 
     whether such opponent is an eligible candidate), the 
     licensee, as applicable, shall, not later than 5 business 
     days after the date on which the communication is made (or 
     not later than 24 hours after the communication is made if 
     the communication occurs not more than 2 weeks before the 
     date of the election), transmit to the candidate--
       ``(1) a statement of the date and time on which the 
     communication was made;
       ``(2) a script or tape recording of the communication, or 
     an accurate summary of the communication if a script or tape 
     recording is not available; and
       ``(3) an offer of an equal opportunity for the candidate to 
     use the broadcasting station to respond to the communication 
     without having to pay for the use in advance.
       ``(e) A licensee that endorses a candidate for Federal 
     office in an editorial shall, within the time period stated 
     in subsection (d), provide to all other candidates for 
     election to the same office--
       ``(1) a statement of the date and time of the 
     communication;
       ``(2) a script or tape recording of the communication, or 
     an accurate summary of the communication if a script or tape 
     recording is not available; and
       ``(3) an offer of an equal opportunity for the candidate or 
     spokesperson for the candidate to use the broadcasting 
     station to respond to the communication.''; and
       (4) in subsection (f), as redesignated by paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) the terms `eligible House of Representatives 
     candidate' and `independent expenditure' have the meanings 
     stated in section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971.''.
       (b) Revocation of License for Failure To Permit Access.--
     Section 312(a)(7) of such Act (47 U.S.C. 312(a)(7)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or repeated'';
       (2) by inserting ``or cable system'' after ``broadcasting 
     station''; and
       (3) by striking ``his candidacy'' and inserting ``his or 
     her candidacy, under the same terms, conditions, and business 
     practices as apply to its most favored advertiser''.
       (c) Meeting Requirements for Rates as Condition of Granting 
     or Renewal of License.--Section 307 of such Act (47 U.S.C. 
     307) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) The continuation of an existing license, the renewal 
     of an expiring license, and the issuance of a new license 
     shall be expressly conditioned on the agreement by the 
     licensee or the applicant to meet the requirements of section 
     315(b), except that the Commission may waive this condition 
     in the case of a licensee or applicant who demonstrates (in 
     accordance with such criteria as the Commission may establish 
     in consultation with the Federal Election Commission) that 
     meeting such requirements will impose a significant financial 
     hardship.''.

     SEC. 602. CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING AMENDMENTS.

       Section 318 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441d) is amended--
       (1) in the matter before paragraph (1) of subsection (a), 
     by striking ``Whenever'' and inserting ``Whenever a political 
     committee makes a disbursement for the purpose of financing 
     any communication through any broadcasting station, 
     newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, 
     or any other type of general public political advertising, or 
     whenever'';
       (2) in the matter before paragraph (1) of subsection (a), 
     by striking ``an expenditure'' and inserting ``a 
     disbursement'';
       (3) in the matter before paragraph (1) of subsection (a), 
     by striking ``direct'';
       (4) in paragraph (3) of subsection (a), by inserting after 
     ``name'' the following ``and permanent street address''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(c) Any printed communication described in subsection (a) 
     shall be--
       ``(1) of sufficient type size to be clearly readable by the 
     recipient of the communication;
       ``(2) contained in a printed box set apart from the other 
     contents of the communication; and
       ``(3) consist of a reasonable degree of color contrast 
     between the background and the printed statement.
       ``(d)(1) Any communication described in subsection (a)(1) 
     or (a)(2) that is provided to and distributed by any 
     broadcasting station or cable system (as such terms are 
     defined in sections 315 and 602, respectively, of the Federal 
     Communications Act of 1934) shall include, in addition to the 
     requirements of subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2), an audio 
     statement by the candidate that identifies the candidate and 
     states that the candidate has approved the communication.
       ``(2) If a communication described in paragraph (1) 
     contains any visual images, the communication shall include a 
     written statement which contains the same information as the 
     audio statement and which--
       ``(A) appears at the end of the communication in a clearly 
     readable manner with a reasonable degree of color contrast 
     between the background and the printed statement, for a 
     period of at least 4 seconds; and
       ``(B) is accompanied by a clearly identifiable photographic 
     or similar image of the candidate.
       ``(e)(1) Any communication described in subsection (a)(3) 
     that is provided to and distributed by any broadcasting 
     station or cable system described in subsection (d)(1) shall 
     include, in addition to the requirements of that subsection, 
     in a clearly spoken manner, the following statement--
       `             is responsible for the content of this 
     advertisement.'

     with the blank to be filled in with the name of the political 
     committee or other person paying for the communication and 
     the name of any connected organization of the payor.
       ``(2) If the communication described in paragraph (1) 
     contains visual images, the communication shall include a 
     written statement which contains the same information as the 
     audio statement and which appears in a clearly readable 
     manner with a reasonable degree of color contrast between the 
     background and the printed statement for a period of at least 
     4 seconds.''.

     SEC. 603. ELIGIBILITY FOR NONPROFIT THIRD-CLASS BULK RATES OF 
                   POSTAGE.

       Paragraph (2) of section 3626(e) of title 39, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``Committee, and the'' 
     and inserting ``Committee, the'', and by striking 
     ``Committee;'' and inserting ``Committee, and a qualified 
     campaign committee;'';
       (2) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (3) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) the term `qualified campaign committee' means the 
     campaign committee of an eligible House of Representatives 
     candidate; and
       ``(E) the term `eligible House of Representatives 
     candidate' has the meaning given that term in section 301 of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.''.
                        TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 701. PROHIBITION OF LEADERSHIP COMMITTEES.

       Section 302(e) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 432(e)) is amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
       ``(3) No political committee that supports or has supported 
     more than one candidate may be designated as an authorized 
     committee, except that--
       ``(A) a candidate for the office of President nominated by 
     a political party may designate the national committee of 
     such political party as the candidate's principal campaign 
     committee, but only if that national committee maintains 
     separate books of account with respect to its functions as a 
     principal campaign committee; and
       ``(B) a candidate may designate a political committee 
     established solely for the purpose of joint fundraising by 
     such candidates as an authorized committee.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6)(A) A candidate for Federal office or any individual 
     holding Federal office may not establish, finance, maintain, 
     or control any Federal or non-Federal political committee 
     other than a principal campaign committee of the candidate, 
     authorized committee, party committee, or other political 
     committee designated in accordance with paragraph (3). A 
     candidate for more than one Federal office may designate a 
     separate principal campaign committee for each Federal 
     office. This paragraph shall not preclude a Federal 
     officeholder who is a candidate for State or local office 
     from establishing, financing, maintaining, or controlling a 
     political committee for election of the individual to such 
     State or local office.
       ``(B) For 2 years after the effective date of this 
     paragraph, any political committee established before such 
     date but which is prohibited under subparagraph (A) may 
     continue to make contributions. At the end of that period 
     such political committee shall disburse all funds by one or 
     more of the following means: making contributions to an 
     entity qualified under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986; making a contribution to the treasury 
     of the United States; contributing to the national, State or 
     local committees of a political party; or making 
     contributions not to exceed $1,000 to candidates for elective 
     office.''.

     SEC. 702. APPEARANCE BY FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION AS AMICI 
                   CURIAE.

       Section 306(f) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 437c(f)) is amended by striking out paragraph (4) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof the following new paragraph:
       ``(4)(A) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2), 
     or of any other provision of law, the Commission is 
     authorized to appear on its own behalf in any action related 
     to the exercise of its statutory duties or powers in any 
     court as either a party or as amicus curiae, either--
       ``(i) by attorneys employed in its office, or
       ``(ii) by counsel whom it may appoint, on a temporary basis 
     as may be necessary for such purpose, without regard to the 
     provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing 
     appointments in the competitive service, and whose 
     compensation it may fix without regard to the provisions of 
     chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title. 
     The compensation of counsel so appointed on a temporary basis 
     shall be paid out of any funds otherwise available to pay the 
     compensation of employees of the Commission.
       ``(B) The authority granted under subparagraph (A) includes 
     the power to appeal from,

[[Page H8503]]

     and petition the Supreme Court for certiorari to review, 
     judgments or decrees entered with respect to actions in which 
     the Commission appears pursuant to the authority provided in 
     this section.''.

     SEC. 703. PROHIBITING SOLICITATION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY 
                   MEMBERS IN HALL OF THE HOUSE OF 
                   REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) In General.--A Member of the House of Representatives 
     may not solicit or accept campaign contributions in the Hall 
     of the House of Representatives, rooms leading thereto, or 
     the cloakrooms.
       (b) Definition.--In subsection (a), the term ``Member of 
     the House of Representatives'' means a Representative in, or 
     a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, Congress.
       (c) Exercise of Rulemaking Authority.--This section is 
     enacted by Congress--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of 
     Representatives, and as such this section is deemed a part of 
     the rules of the House of Representatives and supersedes 
     other rules only to the extent inconsistent therewith; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     the House of Representatives to change the rule at any time, 
     in the same manner and to the same extent as in the case of 
     any other rule of the House of Representatives.
              TITLE VIII--EFFECTIVE DATES; AUTHORIZATIONS

     SEC. 801. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the amendments 
     made by, and the provisions of, this Act shall take effect on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, but shall not apply 
     with respect to activities in connection with any election 
     occurring before January 1, 1997.

     SEC. 802. SEVERABILITY.

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, if any provision of this Act (including any 
     amendment made by this Act), or the application of any such 
     provision to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the 
     validity of any other provision of this Act, or the 
     application of such provision to other persons and 
     circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.
       (b) Exceptions.--If any provision of subtitle A of title V 
     of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (as added by 
     title I) is held to be invalid, all provisions of such 
     subtitle, and the amendment made by section 122, shall be 
     treated as invalid.

     SEC. 803. EXPEDITED REVIEW OF CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.

       (a) Direct Appeal to Supreme Court.--An appeal may be taken 
     directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from any 
     final judgment, decree, or order issued by any court finding 
     any provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act to be 
     unconstitutional.
       (b) Acceptance and Expedition.--The Supreme Court shall, if 
     it has not previously ruled on the question addressed in the 
     ruling below, accept jurisdiction over, advance on the 
     docket, and expedite the appeal to the greatest extent 
     possible.

     SEC. 804. REGULATIONS.

       The Federal Election Commission shall prescribe any 
     regulations required to carry out the provisions of this Act 
     within 12 months after the effective date of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 481, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] 
will each be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] who has led the effort on our side 
of the aisle to propose an alternative to this very unfortunate bill.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise urging my colleagues to support the bill that is 
under consideration, H.R. 3505. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. Let 
me tell the Members why. This bill imposes spending limits on political 
candidates. It reduces the influence on special interest money. It 
eliminates soft money. It corrals unregulated advocacy spending. It is 
a good bill because this is what the American people have asked for, 
and it is what they deserve: campaigns that are free of big money, free 
of powerful interests, and unregulated third party spending. It is a 
good bill because it brings sanity to an insane world of campaign 
finance reform. It is a good bill because it lets us say goodbye to the 
high-roller politics.
  Let us take a look at what is happening in America. Right now there 
are no spending limits, and certainly under the bill of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Thomas], there are no limits. Candidates can spend 
whatever and however they want to spend. There is a $600,000 spending 
limit in a 2-year cycle under our bill. The American people want to see 
limits on what people spend in campaigns. They think there is too much 
money being spent in campaigns.
  Earlier this year the League of Women Voters ran a series of citizen 
assemblies focused on the issues of campaign finance reform and found 
overwhelmingly: ``The citizens feel it is obscene to spend so much 
money on elections in this time of scarce public resources.''
  In the last election cycle we in this Chamber, the Members who got 
elected in this Chamber, spent a total of $230.8 million to get 
elected, $230.8 million, and that does not even count our opponents, 
the people who ran against us. Those who ran against us spent $300 
million or so trying to defeat us. On the average, together, those who 
got elected and those who did not, we spent over $500,000 each to get 
here. That is a lot of money. The trend is for more money to be spent, 
not less.
  Over the last 10 years, the total amount spent by winning House 
candidates has just about doubled. Where are we going to be under the 
Thomas legislation 10 years from now? In the last 20 years, the total 
amount spent by winning House candidates has increased by more than 14 
times. It is runaway. Not only is a lot of money being spent, it takes 
a lot of time to raise it.
  If we end the money chase, our elections will focus more on issues 
and on policy debates and less on the issue of collecting dollars. That 
is what my bill seeks to do, to end the money chase. We debate here 
daily about tightening our belts and reducing Government spending. How 
many votes in the last few days or weeks have been cast on the floor 
where we were cutting appropriations, limiting Government expenditures? 
Why can we not do that for campaigns?

                              {time}  1430

  Why can we not cut, squeeze, and trim? The spending limits in the 
bill that I am offering are voluntary. They show a commitment on the 
part of the candidate to spend money wisely and responsibly. They put 
limits on the amount we can raise from PAC's. They put limits on the 
amount we can raise from wealthy people, on the amount of money a 
wealthy person can put into his or her own campaign. The opposition 
bill has no limits.
  We ask this of our government bureaucrats. We ask it of welfare 
recipients. We should ask no less of politicians. I urge an ``aye'' 
vote on my bill.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about two things about this bill that 
actually are good and go in the right direction and that are good 
enough to at least encourage me to reluctantly vote for the bill. First 
of all, we reduce from $5,000 to $2,500 per election the amount of 
money that a political action committee can give to a candidate. The 
previous speaker from Connecticut suggests that this means that working 
people and less affluent people will not have the same opportunities 
for political expression as a result of that and it is absolutely 
false.
  The fact is that there is a tremendous difference between the 
character of a political action committee and the character of 
individual contributions. Individuals are infinitely complex. They are 
subtle. They are varied. They have a very wide spectrum of causes and 
concerns and issues that matter to them, whereas political action 
committees representing special interests that are based for the most 
part in Washington, DC, are thick. They are narrow. They have a very 
crude view of the political process, and it is fundamentally 
transactional. The first transactional is access; the second is 
influence; and, finally, the transaction is to get a vote.
  On how many issues, how many votes in a 2-year cycle; maybe one, 
maybe five, certainly not many more than that. The idea, the game, is 
to get a specific result. That is not how individuals are. That is not 
how individuals contribute.
  PAC's, political action committees, representing special interests, 
are an undermining influence on this U.S. Congress. The public knows 
that. Going from $5,000 to $2,500 is the right direction. It ought to 
be from $2,500 to zero.
  The second thing that is good about this bill is that it requires a 
majority

[[Page H8504]]

of the contributions must come from individuals who live inside the 
district which is electing that particular person to the Congress.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] who hails from the Olympic capital, 
Atlanta.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my 
colleagues to oppose this so-called Thomas campaign finance reform 
bill. The Thomas bill is a shame, a sham, a scam. It is a farce, it is 
a joke, because it is not reform at all. This is a special interest 
bill designed to allow the superwealthy to funnel hundreds of thousands 
of dollars into the Republican campaign coffers.
  The American people are in agreement. Our political process is sick. 
It is corrupt. There is too much money, too much special interest 
influence on our elections. But that is Dr. Gingrich's prescription for 
this problem? Well, testifying before the Committee on House Oversight, 
Gingrich said there was not too much money in our political process, 
there was too little. Far more money is needed, he contended.
  Well, this bill is Dr. Gingrich's solution. It would increase the 
ability of superwealthy people to influence our election. In fact, in 
its original form this bill would have allowed an individual to donate 
more than $3 million to Republican coffers. Only when the Democrats in 
the House exposed this scandal did the Republicans change this bill 
overnight.
  Mr. Chairman, Newt Gingrich has succeeded in funneling between $10 
and $20 million into campaigns through his personal political slush 
fund, GOPAC, without ever reporting a single dime. It is alleged that 
he used nonprofit groups to further channel funds to his pet political 
projects.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill will open the floodgates of special interest 
funds. This bill is the Republican way to do under the law what must 
now be done by going around the law.
  This bill, not Medicare, Mr. Chairman, deserves to wither on the 
vine. Let me say it again, Mr. Chairman: This bill, not Medicare, 
deserves to wither on the vine.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is from the Olympic city and just as the 
IBM computers are garbling the various statistics and data going on at 
the Olympics, I think we are beginning to see that in terms of the 
dollar amounts involved in these various bills, so I think it is time 
to review the bidding.
  We have a $1,000 amount for individuals, indexed prospectively. The 
Democrats have the same amount. For PAC's we have $2,500. They have 
$8,000 in an election cycle, $5,000 in an election, twice as much as we 
do. On the aggregate amount that an individual can give a party, they 
have $100,000, we have $100,000.
  So when you get wound up in your rhetoric about what our bill does 
versus the Farr bill, please, it's the same amount on individuals, half 
as much on PAC's, and the same amount on aggregate amount to parties.
  Where we went wrong temporarily was listening to Don Fowler, the 
chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who said they should be 
unlimited to parties and that the amount that individuals could give 
should be $2,500. We put that in the bill. When we examined it more 
closely, we decided he was a bit too exuberant. So when you look at the 
numbers, please keep in mind facts and reality.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Fawell], the chairman of an extremely important subcommittee of the 
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities which has given us 
a very valuable addition to the bill known as the Worker's Right To 
Know.
  Mr. FAWELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, Mr. 
Chairman, and I rise in opposition to the substitute and in support of 
the Thomas bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to, as the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Thomas] has indicated, center my comments in regard to title IV. But I 
do want to laud the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas]. I know of 
no man in this Congress who more avidly pursues campaign reform, and 
whatever topic he goes after, he does it, I think, in a very fine, 
workmanlike manner. I commend him. I think that nothing is perfect, but 
I think this gentleman has done a service for the Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, the Worker Right to Know Act, I think, can be, 
understandably, easily misunderstood; and there is a proclivity, I 
think, to misunderstand it. I would summarize it as being a procedural 
Bill of Rights, constitutional rights to the workers of America, and 
something that can give them some empowerment.
  It implements the Beck decision, which was passed by the Supreme 
Court back in 1988 and never really has had any implementation from the 
National Labor Relations Board. Basically, what it states is this: A 
union cannot accept noncollective-bargaining dues from workers without 
having their written consent.
  There are not many workers in America who are going to object to 
something like that as being terrible. In addition, it also puts an 
obligation of disclosure upon unions, and it states that at the time 
that you wish to collect these noncollective-bargaining dues from union 
members, at the same time you have to disclose the ratio between 
noncollective-bargaining dues and collective-bargaining dues. And that 
is only reasonable because it is not the union workers who understand 
these ratios.
  Obviously, the union has all this knowledge. So why do they not 
easily share it with their membership? There is nothing wrong with 
that. So what we have here is notice and consent and disclosure. I just 
cannot see where many people can get too uptight about something like 
that.
  There is also a provision that the union in reporting its expenses 
should do so by functional classification so as to be able to better 
serve their membership so the membership can better ascertain how the 
money is being spent in terms of, again, collective bargaining and 
noncollective bargaining.
  What in the world is wrong with that? Compare it to the current 
procedure that exists today. The Supreme Court indeed has said that a 
worker has the right to object to paying noncollective-bargaining dues. 
But if you are a worker, you should have come to our hearings and 
listened to what the workers of America had to say about what they have 
to go through in order to be able to exercise these rights.
  They really do not know what procedures; it varies from union to 
union. In fact, a poll showed that 78 percent of all the union workers, 
at least of some, I think 2,000 or 3,000 of union workers that were 
polled, perhaps more than that, 78 percent did not even know they had 
the right to object to paying noncollective-bargaining dues. They were 
not even aware of that.
  The stories they told to our subcommittee, oftentimes they face great 
intimidation, they have to resign from the union. So here is this poor 
guy who comes along or this gal, and she wants to object to the fact 
that her dues might be being used for political purposes that she does 
not agree with. Forty percent of the workers are voting Republican, by 
the way. And they tell her, ``You've got to resign.'' They kick her out 
of the union because she brings this up.
  We are not even changing that, by the way. After they have to resign 
from the union, which is customarily what happens, we know they still 
have to continue to pay collective-bargaining dues. But we do not 
change the law which states they have nothing to say, they have to give 
up all their rights of membership which means they have no right to 
vote on a strike or not to strike, or any of the other crucial 
decisions. They have to give all that up. We are not even altering that 
law.
  We are just basically saying, do you not think it would be a good 
idea if the worker has the right to opt in rather than have the burden 
of opting out? Is that not fair?
  In my district, there are groups of labor union workers who are 
endorsing this concept. They look upon it as a nice piece of democracy 
that will strengthen the union. I hope that Members will look at it 
that way, too. This is minority rights, and it is something that we all 
ought to endorse as a good, decent part of this Thomas legislation.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], a strong advocate of working 
men and women in this country.

[[Page H8505]]

  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, campaign money at its current 
levels in the Congress of the United States is dangerous to our 
democracy, it is toxic to our system, it is corrosive of our values and 
it is corrupting of this institution. It is time that we get it under 
control and that once again we allow average men and women in this 
country to participate. But unfortunately the legislation brought forth 
by the Republicans does not do that. It does not do that because in 
fact, as the gentleman just explained, it makes it more difficult for 
working men and women to participate in campaigns while making it 
easier for the wealthy of this country to participate. It still allows 
soft money, which has become the sewer of campaign money, to run 
unregulated and has nothing to do about that.
  Soft money. I bet a lot of Americans wish they had soft money. They 
only have hard money, money that they work hard for every day. But some 
people are so wealthy they have soft money. It is given out in $20,000 
and $30,000 and $50,000 and $100,000 bundles to parties, to unregulated 
activities, to influence campaigns.

                              {time}  1445

  What has been the result? Well, we saw what the results were with 
Republicans when in the first 100 days during the Contract on America, 
they were raising money in unprecedented levels. They threw open the 
doors of the offices around here to lobbyists to write legislation. 
They created the Thursday Club so lobbyists could come in and consult 
with them, but you could not get in the room unless you gave them 
campaign money. Campaign money bought you access to that room. Mr. and 
Mrs. America could not get in that room, but if you gave them enough 
money for their party, for their candidates, then you could get in that 
room and you could rewrite the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act. You 
could rewrite the regulations, the Endangered Species Act if you gave 
them enough campaign money. Congressman DeLay made it clear, if you are 
not on the list, if you were not contributing, you do not get to 
participate.
  What happens to the rest of the American citizenry that cannot come 
to Washington, that cannot give soft money, that cannot give hundreds 
of thousands of dollars? Under the Thomas bill, they are out of luck, 
but so is democracy when we start excluding those kinds of individuals.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to place in the 
Record a letter from Common Cause. It starts out, ``Dear President 
Clinton: According to recent news reports, the Democratic National 
Committee has promised special access to you and other top 
administration officials in exchange for large campaign 
contributions,'' et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
  The letter referred to follows:

                                                 Common Cause,

                                     Washington, DC, July 5, 1995.
       Dear President Clinton: According to recent news reports, 
     the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has promised special 
     access to you and other top Administration officials in 
     exchange for large campaign contributions.
       We call on you immediately to end these fundraising 
     tactics, and to publicly make clear that neither you nor 
     members of your Administration will engage in such 
     activities.
       According to an article published in the Chicago Sun-Times:
       For $100,000, a contributor gets two meals with you and two 
     meals with Vice President Gore, as well as a slot on a 
     foreign trade mission with party leaders, and other benefits 
     such as a daily fax report and an assigned DNC staff member 
     ``to assist them in their personal request.''
       For $50,000, a contributor gets invited to a reception with 
     you, one dinner with Vice President Gore, two special high-
     level briefings, and other benefits.
       For $10,000, a contributor gets invited to a presidential 
     reception, a dinner with Vice President Gore and 
     ``preferred'' status at the 1996 Democratic Convention.
       In promoting this fundraising approach, the DNC has 
     apparently surveyed the ``access and influence'' marketplace, 
     toted up a price tag, published a catalog and advertised a 
     sale of your time and attention, as well as that of the Vice 
     President and other top Administration officials.
       There is no defense for this. It is not enough to say that 
     this type of fundraising is just an unfortunate part of the 
     current campaign finance system. Nor is it enough to say that 
     past Administrations have engaged in similar sales of access 
     to the Presidency.
       This is wrong, pure and simple. Every American knows that 
     it is wrong and your own statements make clear that you know 
     it is wrong.
       In your book, ``Putting People First,'' you said that 
     American politics ``is being held hostage by big money 
     interests . . . while political action committees, industry 
     lobbies, and cliques of $100,000 donors buy access to 
     Congress and the White House.''
       Yet despite your own statements, you are now participating 
     in a fundraising effort that will allow ``cliques of $100,000 
     donors'' to ``buy access'' to your White House. This kind of 
     fundraising perpetuates the all too prevalent cynicism in 
     this country that our government is for sale, that the 
     wealthy have privileged access to elected officials and that 
     special-interest money dominates the political process to the 
     benefit of the few at the expense of the many.
       Most Americans could not even dream of making a $100,000 
     campaign contribution. The vast majority of Americans earn 
     far less than $100,000 a year. It is tremendously 
     disillusioning for the American people to see privileged 
     access sold to those who are already the most privileged in 
     our society.
       The DNC's fundraiser makes explicit what is often only 
     implicit in campaign fundraising: that in exchange for large 
     campaign contributions, you can buy the time and attention of 
     this Nation's elected officials. The fundraiser also is a 
     perfect illustration of the corrupting evils of the existing 
     soft money system, where large contributions of $100,000 or 
     more are again part of the American presidential election 
     system, just as they were during the Watergate era.
       President Clinton, we strongly urge you to end this blatant 
     peddling of access to your Presidency. We call on you to 
     publicly announce that you are closing down the DNC's sale of 
     access, and to make clear that neither you nor any member of 
     your Administration will participate in the activities 
     offered by the DNC in exchange for large campaign 
     contributions.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Ann McBride,
                                                        President.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Mrs. Seastrand], an in-the-flesh working woman.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute 
bill and support the Thomas bill.
  As we consider the Worker Right to Know Act included in the campaign 
finance reform bill, some have suggested that this is a solution in 
search of a problem, that unions today rarely, if ever, bring pressure 
to bear on workers to join the union. Unfortunately, such assertions 
ignore the reality of what is really taking place in many American 
workplaces.
  As evidence of this fact, I would like to draw Members' attention to 
the following excerpt from a newsletter published by the International 
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in their October 1995 newsletter. I 
quote: ``Employees who elect to become agency fee payers--that is, who 
choose not to become full-fledged IBEW members--forfeit the right to 
enjoy a number of benefits available only to members. Among the 
benefits available only to full union members are the right to attend 
and participate in union meetings; to nominate and vote for candidates 
for union office; the right to participate in contract ratification and 
strike votes; the right to participate in the formulation of IBEW 
collective bargaining demands; and the right to serve as delegates to 
the international convention.''
  Now, if this were not subtle enough, I would point out the letter Mr. 
Gary Bloom of Medina, MN, received from local 12 of the Office of 
Professional Employees Union. In their correspondent with Mr. Bloom, 
the union was very direct when they informed Mr. Bloom: ``If you choose 
not to be a member of local 12, I shall have no alternative but to 
request GHI that your employment be terminated.''
  The fact of the matter is that every day unions are bringing extreme 
pressure to bear on American workers to join their ranks, including 
threats of reprisal and termination of employment. Moreover, once they 
have pressured these workers to join the union, they then often take 
dues from those workers and spend them on political or social causes 
which the worker may not support.
  So the contentions of organized labor notwithstanding, the fact is 
that there is a problem out there today in the American workplace with 
respect to mandatory assessment of union dues, and it is the one that 
affects the wages of working men and women across this country.
  The Worker Right to Know Act will address that problem by simply 
requiring that the union tell workers how

[[Page H8506]]

their dues are spent and then ask permission to spend those dues on 
noncollective bargaining purposes. When you get right down to it, it is 
really an issue of basic fairness, and I urge my colleagues to support 
the Worker Right to Know Act and oppose this substitute bill.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record at 
this point letters condemning this legislation offered by the majority 
from Common Cause and Public Citizen.
  The letters referred to follows:

                                                 Common Cause,

                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 1996.
       Dear Representative: The repackaged Thomas bill--H.R. 
     3820--is phony reform that locks in the corrupt status quo, 
     leaves open the floodgates for special-interest PAC money and 
     increases the amount that wealthy individuals can contribute 
     to influence federal elections.
       Any Member of Congress who votes for the Thomas bill is 
     voting to protect the corrupt way of life in Washington, DC.
       H.R. 3820 codifies and expands the soft money system--the 
     most flagrant and corrupt abuse in politics today. This 
     system allows unlimited corporate, union and huge individual 
     contributions to be laundered through the political parties 
     to affect federal elections.
       Any Member of Congress who votes for H.R. 3820 is giving a 
     personal blessing and a personal stamp of approval to the 
     corrupt soft money system.
       H.R. 3820 fails to make any real reductions in the PAC 
     system of funding House races. If the Thomas bill had been in 
     effect during the last election, it would have cut less than 
     nine percent of PAC contributions and would have continued 
     the PAC incumbent protection system where 72 percent of PAC 
     funds go to incumbents (and 10 percent go to challengers) and 
     where 90 percent of incumbents are reelected.
       Any Member of Congress who votes for H.R. 3820 is 
     personally endorsing the status quo PAC system and the 
     incumbent protection it provides.
       H.R. 3820 doubles the amount that wealthy individuals can 
     give in hard money to candidates and parties. Under H.R. 
     3820, an individual could give $100,000 per election cycle--
     an amount that is more than three times the annual income of 
     the average American wage earner.
       Any Member of Congress who votes for H.R. 3820 is speaking 
     out for more access and influence in the political system for 
     the wealthiest people in America and less for average 
     American wage earners.
       The Thomas bill is a fraud. Any Member of Congress who 
     wants real reform will simply refuse to go along with this 
     charade and will vote no on H.R. 3820.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Ann McBride,
     President.
                                                                    ____



                                               Public Citizen,

                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 1996.
       Dear Representative: Late in the day on Wednesday, Rep. 
     Bill Thomas (R-CA) released amendments to his campaign 
     finance bill, H.R. 3820. The amendments do away with the 
     extraordinary increases in contribution limits, but they do 
     not make H.R. 3820 real reform. It is still a big step in the 
     wrong direction on campaign finance and should be defeated. 
     We urge you to vote NO on H.R. 3820.
       Despite the changes, the underlying philosophy of the H.R. 
     3820 bill remains the same--that there is not enough money in 
     politics. That premise is fundamentally wrong, and therefore, 
     H.R. 3820 still is not worthy of the title of ``Reform.'' In 
     particular, we oppose this bill because it:
       Gives congressional approval to the disgraceful soft money 
     system, under which corporations, labor unions, and wealthy 
     individuals contributed nearly $60 million to the national 
     political party committees last year.
       Opens a huge new avenue for the parties to spend that soft 
     money (which would be illegal if contributed to federal 
     candidates) by allowing them to spend unlimited amounts of 
     soft money on ``communications'' with their members. This 
     provision will lead to unlimited corporate funded 
     newsletters, bulletins, and ads from the opposing party 
     attacking Members of Congress starting on the very first day 
     of the Congress.
       Doubles the annual total amount that wealthy individuals 
     can contribute to PACS, parties, and candidates. Only 167,000 
     contributions of $1,000 were made to federal candidates in 
     the 1994 cycle--less than 7/100 of a percent of the American 
     public. There is simply no justification for giving 
     additional ``buying power'' to the very rich in our country. 
     (The Democratic alternative contains a similar increase in 
     the annual aggregate contribution limit. But unlike H.R. 
     3820, that alternative bans soft money. The new aggregate 
     limit in the Democratic bill allows individuals to make 
     additional contributions to state party ``Grassroots Funds'' 
     to pay for activities that heretofore were generally financed 
     with soft money; it maintains the aggregate limit in existing 
     law for contributions to candidates, PACs, and parties. H.R. 
     3820 preserves soft money and allows wealthy individuals to 
     make additional hard money contributions to candidates, PACs, 
     and parties. That is not reform.)
       Fails to significantly reduce PAC funding of campaigns 
     because it has no aggregate limit for PAC contributions. A 
     cut in the PAC limit to $2,500 per election will have only a 
     slight effect on PAC giving, and that limit will in any event 
     be raised to $3,000 per election in 1999 because of the 
     indexing provisions of the bill.
       Provides for a 50% increase in the individual contribution 
     limit in 1999 under the new indexing provisions. This 
     provision will magnify the influence of the tiny portion of 
     the public able to make the maximum contribution, further 
     alienating people of average means from political process.
       Perpetuates incumbent campaign spending advantages through 
     in-district fundraising requirements that impose de factor 
     spending limits on candidates who lack financial support from 
     the wealthy elite in their district.
       Fails to prohibit bundling by corporate executives who are 
     not technically lobbyists but wield great influence in the 
     legislative process.
       Promotes independent attacks on candidates in the form of 
     ``issue ads'' by writing into law the most restrictive and 
     unrealistic definition of ``express advocacy''.
       The Thomas bill will not solve the campaign finance 
     problem, and in many respects will make it much worse. 
     Members who truly wish to respond to the public's desire for 
     real reform will vote NO on H.R. 3820.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Joan Claybrook,
       President.
     Robert F. Schiff,
       Staff Attorney, Congress Watch.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Clement].
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, our Founding Fathers envisioned a 
government of the people, by the people and for the people, a 
Government made up of citizens from all walks of life, rich and poor, 
not just the elite.
  As we have seen in recent elections, a well-financed candidate can 
practically buy their way to victory. The Republican bill will continue 
to increase the influence of wealthy candidates and special interest 
pandering. My colleagues, if you are serious about campaign finance 
reform, I urge Members to support the Farr substitute.
  The Farr substitute is real campaign finance reform. This timely 
legislation will place voluntary limits on campaign spending and most 
importantly will limit candidates' personal expenditures, effectively 
leveling the playing field for all candidates. The American people 
deserve the effective spending limits, soft money reforms and PAC 
reforms included in the Farr substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I am saddened to see the American public becoming more 
and more disenchanted with the political process. The American 
democracy was built on equal opportunity. Right now I am not so sure 
the ordinary Americans have a place and a voice in the political arena. 
The average American should not only have the opportunity to run for an 
elected office, but to run and win.
  I remember a time when political campaigns were determined by the 
moral character and message of the candidate, not the money in their 
pocket. Let us turn back the clock for the American people. Vote for 
real campaign reform. Vote yes on the Farr substitute.
  We have talked about campaign finance reform for a long time around 
here, but somehow, some way, we have got to put an aggregate number, a 
ceiling on campaign spending. Let us support the Farr substitute.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds, and I am going 
to try it one more time.
  Their limit is voluntary. If someone wants to spend as much money as 
they want, all the rules are out; they do not control spending. What we 
do is change the rules. If a wealthy candidate wishes to exercise their 
rights, we allow parties, we allow individuals, we allow PAC's to 
assist a candidate against the person who exercises their 
constitutional rights. They do not have a solution, they have an 
argument.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Worker Right to Know Act, 
which is title IV of the campaign finance bill we are now considering. 
In doing so, Mr. Chairman, I must take issue with the suggestion from 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that it is Republicans who 
have politicized the issue of compulsory union dues. After all, it was 
at a special convention of the

[[Page H8507]]

AFL-CIO that the union announced that it would impose a special 
assessment on every union member to fund the union's election-year 
political campaign, a campaign in which the union made its intentions 
clear, to attack Republican Members of Congress.
  Also at the convention, the leadership announced its endorsement of 
the Clinton-Gore reelection campaign. So here you have the Washington 
union bosses taking more money out of the pockets of union members 
without any input from the rank and file for the explicit purpose of 
funding the President's reelection campaign and attacking House 
Republicans, all of this when recent polling shows that nearly half of 
union members vote Republican.
  It has also been suggested by my colleagues on the other side that 
Republican interest in compulsory union dues is nothing more than a 
recent political response to the AFL-CIO's transparent attempt to buy 
the November elections. Unfortunately, such assertions ignore the 
facts. The fact of the matter is that since 1985, congressional 
Republicans have introduced more than 20 separate pieces of legislation 
aimed at providing workers with greater control over their union dues.
  So let us be clear on this point, it is Washington union bosses and 
their supporters in the Democrat Party that have recently politicized 
the issue of compulsory union dues and Republicans who have been 
working for years to give employees a greater say in how their dues are 
spent.
  We may disagree on the policy, but American workers deserve our 
honesty with regard to politics. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Worker Right to Know Act.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank again the ranking member 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Thomas] trying to justify a similarity between the substitute in the 
Republican bill on limits. Good try, just not accurate. You have not 
explained the fact that with soft money under the Republican bill, 
millions of dollars can be poured in by special interest and by 
corporations into our national parties, into our State parties and can 
be funneled into local elections. The substitute bans soft money.
  Yes, it is true that we have a voluntary $600,000 limit. The 
Republicans have no limit in their bill. But let me explain that 
voluntary limits have worked, it worked in our Presidential campaign. 
It is consistent with the Constitution. If we do not try to limit the 
amount of money being spent, with recent trends we are going to find 
the average campaign over $1 million.
  We also discourage independent expenditures. The Republican bill does 
nothing about that. We have limits on large contributors. The 
Republican bill does nothing but encourage more money from large 
contributors. The substitute will reduce the amount of money being 
spent in campaigns, the Republican bill will increase it.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the substitute.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith].
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, both sides argue good points 
and there are some I agree with. If they were just standing here on the 
floor with a provision that would say union members get to know, I 
would be voting for it because my husband is union and we need to know 
and be asked before they spend our money, but that is not what we are 
talking about.
  What we are talking about today is a bill that does not change 
anything, anything with what happens here in Washington, DC. Every 
night Members of Congress can still hold their fundraisers across the 
street and raise, listen to this, 50 percent of their money at these 
fundraisers because there is no aggregate cap. If they raise $1 
million, they can raise $500,000 at these PACs' fundraisers. This does 
not change anything.
  But worse yet, tobacco money still can be funneled through the 
parties, made legitimate by the Republican bill; funneled through in 
hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars, to be then funneled 
through to candidates.
  Mr. Chairman, what is worse, wealthy people now prevail. I go home to 
blue-collar America, folks, and we cannot afford $25 a month, much less 
$25,000 to $50,000 and more.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the gentlewoman from Washington that 
if she is able to raise $500,000 from individuals back home, she does 
not have to come to Washington, because the whole concept is she would 
have already won the election because every one of those people she 
talked to back home has a vote.
  When you have a majority required from your district, you are not 
only raising money, you are raising votes. That is the concept of the 
underlying bill.
  Let me take just a minute, because I think it is time to exercise the 
``gotcha rule.'' You have heard the Democrats and the gentleman from 
Maryland go through and extol the virtues of their bill versus ours. 
What they will never do is talk about the fine print. That is our job, 
so I will do it: Gotcha.
  Take a look at section 304 of the Democrat campaign reform bill. 
Currently, corporate contributions cannot be admitted in Federal 
political campaigns. What they are not telling us is that they have a 
provision in their bill, section 304, which says corporate funds from 
credit card royalties are to be converted into Federal PAC 
contributions. If you take out a credit card, and we have all seen 
these schemes with various organizations, and it says ``Democratic 
Party'' on it, the royalties that come from the corporation that sold 
the credit card and carried on the processing of the papers are 
magically converted into Federal funds.

                              {time}  1500

  They will not tell us that. They will criticize our bill on the time 
they are supposed to be explaining their bill, so I thought I would. 
Gotcha.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood], one of the more thoughtful Members of the 
House.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Farr substitute and 
in support of H.R. 3820
  As many Members of this body are aware, I have had serious 
reservations about some provisions of the Republican campaign reform 
bill. When we opened debate on this key reform proposal, I envisioned a 
new day in American politics: A crisp November morning when the stars 
and stripes that fly above our city and town halls, our local schools 
and in our parks would honor an electoral process free from the 
corruption of special interests; an election day morning when Americans 
could go to the polls and cast their votes realizing that their 
political involvement was again valued in our campaign system.
  Over the last 16 years I have been a candidate in 15 elections. 
During my career in the State legislature, in the State senate, I 
accepted PAC contributions; but since my election to the Congress 4 
years ago, I have not accepted PAC checks, and I love the difference. 
In 1992 I defeated a 14-year incumbent who received the vast majority 
of his contributions from outside our Philadelphia suburban district.
  These experiences, as well as my long-time commitment to reforming 
our Nation's electoral process, led me to take an active role in this 
debate.
  Indeed, during the Committee on Rules consideration of this bill, I 
offered amendments. My provisions would have banned connected PAC's, 
which are corporate or labor union PAC's that use union or corporate 
treasuries to subsidize their administrative and solicitation costs.
  In addition, my amendments would have eliminated the retroactive 
indexing originally in this bill and brought both individual and PAC 
contribution levels down to $1,000. Unfortunately, I was not offered 
the opportunity to offer my amendments before this body.
  The Republican campaign finance reform bill, even with the manager's 
amendment, has a number of weaknesses, in my view. It does fail to 
adequately address real PAC reform and to remove the special interests 
from our electoral system. This legislation also maintains a disparity 
between the individual and PAC contribution limits,

[[Page H8508]]

and injects more money into the electoral system through increases in 
the aggregate contribution limit.
  I do not believe this is a comprehensive campaign finance reform 
package, yet acknowledging these weaknesses, this legislation is a step 
forward and a step forward for which the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Thomas] should be commended, and I will vote for the bill as amended.
  By cutting the PAC contribution limit in half and requiring that 50 
percent of the candidate's campaign funds come from inside one's 
district, this bill does work to return elections to individual 
Americans. Furthermore, this reform package includes provisions to 
reduce the influence of wealthy candidates, to eliminate leadership 
PAC's and bundling, and to encourage grass roots volunteers and 
increased FEC disclosure.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I see the passage of this legislation 
not as the conclusion of our campaign finance debate but rather as a 
beginning, the beginning of a true commitment by the Republicans in 
this Congress to craft real campaign finance reform. I am confident and 
hopeful that we can and will use this legislation as a starting point 
from which to launch our debate on this difficult and crucial issue in 
the next Congress.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett], a strong advocate of reform.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a disappointing day for Congress, but more than 
that, it is a disappointing day for the people of this country, because 
they were promised that we would have campaign finance reform in this 
Congress.
  Instead of getting campaign finance reform, we are getting campaign 
finance deform, because what this bill that has been presented by the 
Republicans does, it allows wealthier Americans to have more influence 
in the political system. I would venture to guess if we put a poll to 
the American people and asked them if they want wealthy Americans to 
have more influence in this system, overwhelmingly the people would say 
no.
  For as long as there is going to be politics, Democrats will complain 
about Republican money and Republicans are going to complain about 
Democratic money. The only way to resolve this problem is to take some 
of the money out of the system, to lower the amount that candidates can 
spend, and that is what the Farr alternative attempts to do.
  The Republican bill does not do that. In fact, the Republican bill is 
based on the premise there is not enough money in this system. That is 
ludicrous. The problem is there is too much money. Vote down the 
Republican alternative. Support the Farr alternative.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in opposition to H.R. 3820, the Republican campaign 
finance reform bill before us today. This bill only further solidify 
the stranglehold of special interests on our representative process. It 
is not true reform.
  It is interesting to note the manner in which the Republican 
leadership has handled this issue. With much fanfare they made the 
campaign finance reform bill the centerpiece of a proposed reform week. 
Just as the reform week turned out to be a sham, so too has this 
campaign finance reform bill.
  The American people want less, not more money in the electoral 
process. H.R. 3820, the Republican bill, increases the amount of money 
in the electoral process. It increases the amount a wealthy individual 
can give to a campaign, it increases the aggregate amount a wealthy 
individual can give to all campaigns in general, and it increases the 
amount that wealthy individuals can give to the parties.
  We must increase participation of average people in our country, not 
the participation of the wealthiest individuals and the participation 
of even more money.
  We do have a chance today to reform campaign finance, but it is 
through the passage of Representative Farr's campaign finance reform 
bill, not through the Republican campaign finance sham. The Democratic 
alternative being offered today reduces the amount of money in 
politics. It imposes a voluntary limit on campaign spending.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic alternative, which is 
true campaign finance reform, and to oppose the Republican leadership's 
bill, which is a campaign finance promotion bill.
  It is time to deliver our system out of the hands of the special 
interests which control it and back into the hands of the American 
people. We have a responsibility to remove obstacles of participation 
in the electoral process for the American people. We can do that by 
passing the Farr legislation today and rejecting the Republican 
leadership sham.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to 
me.
  As it concerns the wealthy individuals, the Republican bill and the 
Democratic bill are almost identical. The Republicans limit individual 
contributions to $1,000. On PAC's, we say that wealthy individuals or 
any individual can only give $2,500 to a PAC.
  The Democratic side says we will be cheaper than that. We will only 
give $5,000. I think it is kind of like the Democratic math again. They 
let wealthy candidates give more money to PAC's than Republicans do.
  On the aggregate amount, Republican and Democratic bills have the 
same amount. So I think the previous speaker misrepresented what is in 
the Republican bill.
  But let us take a look at what this bill does. It is genuine movement 
forward: Fifty percent in-district; provisions for wealthy candidates; 
provisions for carryover funds; reduced PAC funding; bans leadership 
PAC's; and goes after compulsory dues.
  The bottom line: This is genuine reform in the Republican bill. It is 
progress. It is not perfect but it is a significant step forward. I 
urge support of the Thomas bill.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].
  (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a somewhat different position than 
many of my party on this particular proposal. I think many of its 
provisions are very interesting. The idea of strengthening political 
parties, frankly, prior to the amendments the gentleman made in the 
Committee on Rules, the notion of opening up larger individual 
contributions made sense to me.
  There are many interesting ideas for participation in this process 
that I respect and that I think are worth seriously discussing. But I 
would suggest the provisions the majority has included in this bill 
dealing with union members and union dues demonstrates a level of 
animus, hostility, and hypocrisy. A deregulatory majority that speaks 
with such passion about the onus on the average person of government 
regulation, in the context of a series of laws that protect and require 
union democracy, elected representatives, have prohibited closed shops, 
have made compulsory unionism through union shop agreements weaker by 
allowing dues, who through the Beck decision have provided for rebate 
of monies spent that are not directly related to the collective 
bargaining process, by adding to all those existing schemes, a process 
that is so regulatory, which is so costly to the union movement, and 
which so denies the premises of elected representation and rule of the 
majority in that political process, demonstrates a hypocrisy which 
undermines the credibility of the entire bill.
  This should never have been put that in. It takes away from the 
arguments about political pluralism, participation, and how to broaden 
it. It demeans the very subject the gentleman claims to try to reform 
by doing it.
  I find it ironic that so many of the speakers from the majority party 
who speak on this issue do not focus upon the campaign reform 
provisions in this. They come in here to bash the unions, to bash the 
representatives of the working people of this country. They are not 
just trying to reform a political process and a campaign finance 
process, they are trying to tilt it against

[[Page H8509]]

the interests that the union movement has always held historic, the 
protection of working people, the promotion of civil rights, the safety 
of the workplace, and to tilt it in favor of the corporations that have 
been their historic and traditional financiers.
  I do not think this is the place for that kind of a provision.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, how much time is reminding for 
each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] has 12\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] has 
10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote 
against the Republican campaign finance bill and support the 
commonsense Farr substitute.
  The Republican bill is basically a sham. The Republicans received so 
much criticism from their own parties and groups, such as Common Cause 
and United We Stand, that they are now seeking to amend their own bill. 
It is clear the Republican bill is changing campaign spending to allow 
more money into the political process, not less, completely contrary to 
the will of the American people.
  Now, let me tell my colleagues why I like the Farr substitute. Every 
source of private funds for a campaign, in my opinion, is basically 
bad. I would like to see public financing of campaigns, but we are not 
voting on that today. But the nice thing, the good thing about the Farr 
substitute is it caps the amount of money that is spent on a campaign 
and then mixes up the sources of those funds, $600,000 maximum, and 
then it says only $200,000 from PAC's, only $200,000 from large donors, 
which is defined as $200 or more, only $50,000 of a Member's own 
individual money, and I guess the rest probably small donors.
  That is what we need, a mixture of various sources of funding so no 
funding source, not wealthy individuals, not PAC's or individual 
contributions, is the primary source of money for a campaign. It is 
only through mixing the sources and capping the amount of money that we 
can spend on a campaign that I think we have a way of financing a 
campaign that basically makes sense and does not allow for special 
interests or any particular interests to influence too much what 
happens to the campaign.
  In the same way the Farr bill also allows for lower postal rates, it 
reduces rates for broadcasting, and so it allows the message to get out 
better. That is what campaigns should be all about: Who is the best 
candidate? Who has the best message? Not who has the wealthiest 
contributor or who has the most PAC money or who has the most money 
overall.
  The reason why this Republican bill is terrible and is a sham is 
because it is trying to put more money into campaigns and not limit the 
amount and the sources of the financing.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman correctly described the Democratic bill. 
What it does is coerce people to provide subsidies so that government 
can attempt to convince people they should not exercise their free 
speech rights. That is the typical approach that the Democrats use in 
the use of government; that is, coercion, control, and limits.
  But I really would like to focus on the bill itself. If anyone is 
interested, section 304 says, merchandising and affinity cards. We have 
heard the term ``true reform.'' We have heard common sense in terms of 
the way the Democrats are approaching this.
  Take a look at section 304. It says,

       Notwithstanding the provisions of this section or any other 
     provision of this Act to the contrary, an amount received 
     from a corporation shall be deemed to meet the limitations 
     and prohibitions of this act if such amount represents a 
     commission or a royalty.

True reform or a scam?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I will yield on the gentleman's time.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I was hoping the gentleman 
would yield on his time, since he raised the issue twice.
  Mr. THOMAS. No. I do not have the time. I will not yield on my time. 
I would be more than happy to yield on the gentleman's time.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Well, we will put in the Record what is a de 
minimis issue.
  Mr. THOMAS. The gentleman says taking money from corporations on 
under the guise of hard dollars is a de minimis issue. I think the 
American people would differ with him. That is why he is not talking 
about that section.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Thomas] for yielding the time to me.
  I have concerns. I support the Thomas bill and not the Farr bill. I 
have concerns that the Farr bill does not address this worker right to 
know issue.
  The people, the rank and file dues-paying union members who are 
concerned about the second amendment, they want to keep their guns. 
They are concerned about the issue of abortion or balancing the budget 
and so forth. They do not know where their money is going.
  They are told that their PAC is bipartisan. Let me talk to you about 
bipartisan PAC's. Here is the actual campaign dollars spent in 1994 by 
certain PAC's. AFL-CIO, $804,000; 99.15 percent going to Democrats. The 
American Trial Lawyers Association, $1,759,000; 95 percent of it going 
to Democrats. The Longshoremen, $300,000; 96 percent going to 
Democrats.
  Here is one, Mr. Chairman, my colleagues will really like, the rank 
and file workers are told that the Democrat Republican Independent 
Voter Education Committee is a bipartisan PAC, but $2,131,000 was spent 
on Democrats or 97 percent of their total budget. They should change 
the name and just call this the Democrat status quo PAC.

  The NEA, the National Education Association, $1,968,000; 99 percent 
of it going to Democrats.
  I say there is nothing wrong with rank and file union members being 
told, hey, 99 percent of your money is going to the Democrat party who 
stands against the balanced budget, who stands against protecting and 
increasing Medicare, who stands for all kinds of left wing causes like 
taking your guns away and so forth. I just think that the guys back 
home would like to know that if you are told your PAC is bipartisan, it 
is not. I have a whole list of them, Mr. Chairman. I will submit these 
for the Record.
  The fact is, our American workers have the right to know where their 
money is spent. I say vote ``no'' on Farr; vote ``yes'' for Thomas.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following information:

         Donors--Who's really snared by special interest groups?        
            [PAC Funding--1994 House of Representatives Race]           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      PAC                         Democrat    Republican
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFL-CIO.......................................     $804,709             
                                                   (99.15%)       $6,880
                                                                 (0.85%)
American Federation of Teachers...............   $1,053,690             
                                                   (99.33%)       $7,000
                                                                 (0.66%)
ATL...........................................   $1,759,285             
                                                   (95.00%)      $92,500
                                                                 (5.00%)
Human Rights..................................     $470,495             
                                                   (96.51%)      $17,000
                                                                 (3.49%)
Community Action Program......................      $42,250             
                                                   (96.57%)       $1,500
                                                                 (3.43%)
Democrat Republican Independent Voter Ed.                               
 Committee....................................   $2,131,517             
                                                   (97.82%)      $47,475
                                                                 (2.18%)
ILGWU.........................................     $229,672             
                                                   (96.51%)       $8,070
                                                                 (3.49%)
Int'l Longshoreman's Assoc....................     $300,125             
                                                   (96.66%)      $10,350
                                                                 (3.33%)
IUE...........................................     $204,050             
                                                     (100%)           $0
                                                                 (0.00%)
Int'l Union of Bricklayers....................     $143,550             
                                                   (98.97%)       $1,500
                                                                 (1.03%)
NEA...........................................   $1,968,750             
                                                   (99.00%)      $19,800
                                                                 (1.00%)
Office and Professional Employees.............      $65,150             
                                                   (98.49%)       $1,000
                                                                 (1.51%)
Service Employees Int'l.......................     $699,694             
                                                   (98.18%)      $13,000
                                                                 (1.82%)
UAW Voluntary Comm. Action....................   $1,914,376             
                                                   (99.25%)      $14,455
                                                                 (0.75%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I simply would like to say to 
the gentleman from Georgia, we are going to be giving everyone an 
opportunity to let people know where the money comes from and where it 
goes with the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. 
McCarthy].
  Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me the time.

[[Page H8510]]

  I rise today in strong support of genuine campaign finance reform, 
and urge my colleagues to vote for the Farr substitute. I am glad my 
Republican friends have significantly changed their original proposal 
to embrace the Farr bill. Unfortunately the House leadership's catering 
to special interests still goes too far and fails to meet real reform 
standards.
  Our initiative, the Farr substitute, will change the way business is 
done in Washington. One significant difference in the Farr bill is a 
call for voluntary spending limits. Until we have limits on revenues 
and expenditures in campaigns there will continue to be huge amounts of 
money spent on politics.
  In an attempt to further alienate citizens who are thoroughly sick of 
negative advertising the House Leadership bill actually invites 
independent expenditures on these activities, as well as the potential 
for nondisclosure of these contributions.
  The Farr bill makes important strides towards encouraging 
participation by average Americans by limiting the amount of money in 
campaigns, limiting the extent to which a candidate can rely upon large 
contributions from individuals, and limiting contributions from PAC's. 
The Farr bill is the only plan to eliminate ``soft money,'' the only 
plan to encourage candidates to rely on small contributions, and by 
observing spending limits, the only plan to reduce the costs of TV and 
mail.
  The demands of running a campaign today can distract public officials 
from their responsibility to citizens. Our commitment to improving the 
lives of American families ought to be our primary concern.
  Real campaign finance reform is important and necessary. The Farr 
bill will provide that reform, the House Leadership plan will not. I 
urge my colleagues to support the Farr substitute.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, like other Members of this Congress, I 
have been successful under the current system. I will keep doing the 
things necessary. If we want to serve in Congress, we have no choice 
but to be out trying to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars. But I 
do not like it because I know it is not too much to say that unless we 
fundamentally change this system, ultimately campaign finance will 
consume the very essence of our democracy.
  We are reaching the point wherever every Member of this Congress is 
going to have to spend more time out raising money than tending to the 
Nation's business. It is fundamentally a corrupting influence on the 
operation of this body.
  What answer does Speaker Gingrich provide? He tells us, contrary to 
what every authority has said that it is a myth it is not true, it is 
just one of the greatest myths of modern politics that campaigns are 
too expensive. The American people do not know what they see on TV. The 
political process is, in fact, underfunded. It is not overfunded.
  Well, that idea that we do not have enough special interest money, we 
do not have enough tobacco money, for example, in this Congress to make 
it healthy here makes about as much sense as we do not have enough 
tobacco smoking to make our physical health healthy, which seems to be 
something else the Dole-Gingrich ticket is a bit confused about. All 
this, of course, from the same man who pioneered tax-exempt campaign 
finance through GOPAC.
  No, we have no opportunity for a bipartisan solution today. You have 
yet to hear throughout any part of this debate any of the 10 
Republicans, 10 Republicans who condemn this proposal as fundamentally 
flawed, as freezing out ordinary Americans, to stand up and defend it. 
You have yet to hear one citizen organization that has worked over the 
years to try to see that we get fundamental campaign finance reform do 
anything but to condemn the speech of Mr. Gingrich and the proposal 
before us.
  This is, as they have said, a sham, a fraud. It is not reform.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to tell my colleague 
from Texas that we, as Members, do have a choice. It is within our 
power to say how we are going to raise funds for our campaigns. We do 
have a choice about whether we are going to take political action 
committee money.
  We do have a choice about who and what individuals we are going to 
accept and how much money we are going to spend in campaigns. Nobody 
tells us to go out and raise a million dollars. Nobody tells us to go 
out and raise a quarter of a million dollars from political action 
committees. We do have that choice.
  There are many Members here who are taking perhaps what may be seen 
as a risk, but the American people are rewarding them because they are 
not swayed by that.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
3820 and say that the real campaign finance reform is the Farr bill.
  First of all, it limits spending to $600,000. And then to the 
gentleman from Georgia let me say, he referred to the guys back home. 
This campaign finance reform refers to the ladies back home, 
individuals who have to have those who can represent their interests 
that are not spoken for by the very high cost special interests.
  And yes, what is wrong with having for challengers and others who are 
cash poor the television system willing to provide information to the 
constituencies so they, too, know the issues and are not just around 
high priced receptions where you cannot get any information.
  The Farr bill allows for a third class bulk nonprofit rate on postage 
which, again, allows cash-poor challengers to have access to the U.S. 
Congress. Interestingly enough, the New York Times really called it 
well, on July 17, 1996. They say, the Republican bill is campaign 
reform deformed. But what they really say is, here is a bill that 
allows you to go from a $25,000 donation in Federal campaigns to $3 
million. That is not reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic substitute offered 
by my colleague, Congressman Sam Farr. This substitute represent our 
best hope during this session of Congress of reducing the influence of 
special interests over the political process. As you know, the Senate 
has failed to act on campaign finance reform. The simple truth of the 
matter is that the bill, H.R. 3820 increases the amount of money that 
special interests and wealthy individuals can give to candidates.
  This substitute contains a voluntary spending limit of $600,000 for 
the 2-year election cycle. It indexes the limit for future inflation. 
Furthermore, the substitute would limit the contributions of large 
individual donors to $200,000 in an election cycle and limits a 
candidate to spending no more than $50,000 of their own money, 
including loans. The bill, however, would allow an individual to give 
up to $3,000,000 per election cycle including funding to candidates and 
political parties.
  In exchange for candidates agreeing to the voluntary measures set 
forth in the substitute, they would receive a discount rate for 
broadcasting and a third class bulk nonprofit rate on postage. 
Candidates who do not agree to the voluntary limits would pay the 
regular commercial rate for broadcast time and the regular third class 
postage bulk rate.
  Additionally, this substitute eliminates bundling of campaign 
contributions except for nonaffiliated, independent PAC's that do not 
lobby such as Emily's List. Leadership PAC's are eliminated at the end 
of this year. Contributions from PAC's to individual candidates are 
limited to a maximum of $8,000 during each election cycle. Candidates 
are also limited to receiving no more than $200,000 from PAC's per 
election cycle unless there is a runoff election, which would enable 
PAC's to give additional funds.
  This substitute is a stronger statement for reform. It strikes a good 
balance between protecting the first amendment rights of individuals 
and fostering a positive role for Government in reducing the influence 
of special interests. The bill, however, really goes too far in 
requiring candidates to raise half of their campaign funds from 
individuals who reside in their congressional districts. This provision 
would hurt candidates who are running in poorer congressional districts 
and favor candidates with significant personal wealth.
  I urge my colleagues to support real campaign finance reform by 
voting in favor of this substitute to the bill. It represents an 
opportunity for all of us to make real the promise that President 
Clinton and Speaker Gingrich made to produce real reform in our 
political process.

[[Page H8511]]

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. The last 
statement of the gentlewoman from Texas is simply not true.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
hard work on campaign finance reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Democratic bill, the Farr bill, 
which voluntarily limits expenditures, contributions, and soft money. 
We have before us today two bills that are dramatically different in 
philosophy and direction. One allows more money in politics; one limits 
money in politics.
  But in reality, both bills are dead because the Senate has already 
acted. Congress has tried to reform campaign finance by itself since 
1974. Unless we change course dramatically, all we will have is the 
same old shell game that Congress continues to play with campaign 
finance reform. Now you see a bill; now you do not. Now you pass one in 
the House but not in the Senate. Now you pass them in the House and the 
Senate but it does not get signed.
  Realistically, Mr. Chairman, the only way, the only way to enact 
meaningful campaign finance reform in the 104th Congress is to enact an 
independent commission that will come forth with a principled plan that 
will be voted up or down, similar to the Army suggestion on base 
closing.
  I have introduced such a bill, H.R. 1100, which has bipartisan 
support, including the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] and many 
others.
  Mr. Chairman, the Speaker is the only one who could make it happen. I 
hope he will move to pass a campaign finance reform independent 
commission.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Wamp].
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, cutting PAC's, political action committees, 
contributions from $5,000 to $4,000 simply is not enough. Let us cut 
them in half to $2,500. That is one basic difference.
  We have seen an exhibition on partisanship and demagoguery. For the 
gentleman from Texas or New Jersey to tell me that this proposal is a 
sham is offensive.
  Listen to me. I am one of 22 Members, as is our chairman, that does 
not accept PAC money. We are the ones you should listen to. A journey 
of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. This is a small step, but it 
is a step in the right direction.
  This bill is late. I wish we would have been addressing this bill 
last year. We tried to push it. It took too long. The bill is late, but 
it is not a dollar short. This bill is real reform. It moves us in the 
right direction.
  We have got to cut PAC's in half and listen to the folks who have the 
guts not to accept the PAC money, not the people with a million bucks 
in the bank that take all the PAC money they can get. Listen to us, the 
people who make the phone calls to individuals in our district to raise 
our money. The pure people say, pass this bill.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
  (Mr. KILDEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this Republican campaign 
finance reform bill.
  Instead of stopping the tidal waive of special interest money into 
congressional campaigns, the Republican bill opens the flood gates for 
wealthy individuals to influence the outcome of congressional 
elections.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to set the record straight on the issue of 
donations by union members to labor PAC's.
  And I want to use the American Federation of State, County, and 
Municipal Employees as an example of how unions are responsive to those 
union members who do not wish to contribute to the PAC.
  Since 1974, AFSCME members have had the right to receive a refund for 
that portion of their union dues that goes for political activities.
  All an AFSCME member must do is send a letter to the union's 
Washington office requesting the refund.
  This year alone, about 15,000 AFSCME members will take advantage of 
that right and receive such a rebate.
  In contrast, Mr. Chairman, corporate shareholders, the real owners of 
American corporations, currently have no right to object to the use of 
their corporation's funds for political purposes.
  Shareholders do not have the ability to get a rebate on their 
corporation's funds used to support candidates and parties that they 
themselves do not support.
  Retirees who own stock through their pensions, or workers who own 
stock in their companies--these individuals cannot demand that the 
company they own give them a refund on the portion of the corporation's 
funds used to support a political party that is hostile to their 
interests as retirees or workers.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker from the other side of 
the aisle, the PAC-pure gentleman from Tennessee, says that this bill 
is not a dollar short, referring to the Republican alternative. Amen, 
brother. It is a dollar long. It is dollars long. It is hundreds of 
thousands of dollars long. It is millions of dollars long. It ain't a 
dollar short. You said it like it is.
  The American public wants less, not more money in campaigns. That is 
the message. That is what the Farr bill says, and is not what your bill 
says.
  I tell my friend from Tennessee, it is not the Members that are 
calling it a sham. It is the community, the citizens, the activists who 
have been working for reform who call it a sham.

                              {time}  1530

  I say to my colleagues, you bet. It's a dollar long, not a dollar 
short.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] is correct. Those people who 
are urging support for the Farr bill and oppose the Republican bill are 
the people who believe that government should be used to impose 
controls on people and to limit and coerce them into giving up their 
free speech rights. What we do is empower individuals.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, clearly we do not all agree on 
how best to reform our present campaign system. Democrats wish to limit 
spending, Republicans prefer a variety of other solutions, and there 
seem to be on both sides of the aisle, very honestly, a thousand 
variations of what to do. But surely, surely, all of us can agree on 
the need for full and complete disclosure of the money spent in the 
campaign system. Surely all of us can agree that the American people 
deserve to know where the money comes from and where it goes. As I 
indicated to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] a few minutes 
ago, we should give them nothing less.
  Now in the newspaper locally here today, the Washington Post, the 
first paragraph of a headline story on the front page, an unnamed 
corporate donor has put up $1.3 million to help the Republican Party 
broadcast coverage on its convention next month on the Christian 
Coalition founder Pat Robertson's family channel, unnamed corporate 
donor. My friends across the aisle have said in the past that they 
support disclosure. Now is their chance to practice what they preach 
for we must approach this issue in a bipartisan way if we are going to 
get anywhere.
  Because the hidden money is a problem in our political system, in a 
few moments we will propose a motion to recommit which adopts a 
definition of independent expenditure which is virtually identical to 
that definition found in the Smith-Meehan bipartisan bill. This 
provision will allow a reasonable remedy for a problem which haunts our 
system. This is an area of concern for everyone, and we will ask for 
our colleagues' support. We want it to be the beginning of a bipartisan 
effort that, with full disclosure, will allow us to operate perhaps on 
the same plane in the next Congress when perhaps the desire for real 
campaign reform may be reborn.
  We think it is time for a consensus step forward, and we think we 
need to begin by reaching a basis of understanding about just who it is 
that is part of the political process. Labor, management; left, right; 
we really do

[[Page H8512]]

not care where the chips fall. We simply think that we cannot be 
critical of interest groups and individuals when we do not really know 
who they are or who is contributing.
  It seems to me that we have an opportunity here in a few minutes to 
get beyond the partisan wrangling and to put it all out on the table. 
But for now, let us vote ``aye'' on the real reform proposal on the 
floor today offered by my friend from California [Mr. Farr]. It is the 
only one that really steps up to the plate and takes on the difficult 
questions of dealing with the real way to limit the amount of money 
that flows into the political process.
  The Farr bill is the product of many, many, many years of effort to 
reach consensus. There is opposition to it today that never existed 
before from groups that now fear that it is catching fire and may, in 
fact, gain a majority vote on this floor, and we are very hopeful that 
people will put aside their partisanship and see an opportunity to show 
their constituents that even if this is not real and we are not going 
to pass something this year, we ought to at least begin to move in the 
direction of the kind of campaign reform we have long advocated.
  It has been vetoed, it has been filibustered. Let us give it a new 
life. Vote ``aye'' on the Farr substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, clearly, we do not all agree on how best to reform our 
present campaign system. Democrats wish to limit spending; Republicans 
prefer other solutions; and there seems to be a thousand variations of 
what to do.
  But surely--surely--all of us can agree on the need for full and 
complete disclosure of the money spent in the campaign system. Surely, 
all of us can agree that the American people deserve to know where the 
money comes from--and where it goes. We should give them nothing less.
  My friends across the aisle have said in the past that they support 
disclosure. Now is your chance to practice what you preach, for we must 
approach this issue in a bipartisan way. Because the hidden money is a 
problem in our political system, in a few moments, we will propose a 
motion to recommit which adopts a definition of independent expenditure 
which is virtually identical to that definition found in the Smith-
Meehan bipartisan bill. This provision will allow a reasonable remedy 
for a problem which haunts our system. This is an area of concern for 
everyone--and we will ask for your support. That would be a real 
consensus step forward. But for now vote aye on the only real reform 
bill on the floor today--vote ``aye'' on the Farr bill.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] to conclude the debate both on 
the Republican bill and on the Farr substitute, a gentleman who prior 
to becoming Speaker was the ranking member on the House Administration 
Committee that oversees all of the Federal election laws, someone who 
is very familiar with this area. It is my pleasure for our side to 
yield to the Speaker of the House.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Speaker of the House is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GINGRICH. I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Thomas] for yielding this time to me, and I want to thank all of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle for today's debate and for the 
effort to come to grips with some very real challenges in our political 
system. The fact is that every voter has the right to expect of their 
country that we ought to have a political system where on election day 
they have full knowledge of the facts and they have a real opportunity 
to make a real choice. The fact is, in a free society, one of the keys 
to that freedom is to be able to fire incumbents and hire new people, 
and the fact is that in an ideal setting no candidate would have a 
unique advantage, and the voter would have full information, and for at 
least a quarter of a century now we have been trying to wrestle with 
how, as we enter the information age, can we achieve that kind of 
reform?
  We began to go down a trail over 20 years ago of limiting 
expenditures, which frankly does not work. We see it clearly not 
working today in the Presidential campaign where in theory the taxpayer 
pays the full cost of the campaign with the result now that the unions 
are spending millions on ads, the Democratic National Committee is 
spending millions on ads, and the fact is the Republican National 
Committee is trying to answer what the Democratic National Committee 
and the unions are spending. So instead of having taxpayer-financed 
Presidential campaigns and no other spending, which was the theory of 
that reform, we now have tax-paid Presidential campaigns plus other 
spending, and in fact the nontax-paid spending this year on the 
Presidential campaigns will probably be 2 to 3 times the size of the 
amount spent by the Presidential campaign.
  So we have seen Bob Woodward in his new book, ``The Choice,'' says 
President Clinton clearly, consciously and systematically is getting 
around the law and knows it and has designed his campaign to do it 
because the law does not work. In a free society it is very hard to 
establish limits, and I know that our good friends on the left are 
trying to, and I sympathize with the frustration that leads them toward 
trying to set limits, but they are not real. When we have labor unions 
announcing they are going to spend $500,000 per district trying to beat 
Republican freshmen, to then suggest a $600,000 limit for the campaign 
so that the liberal candidate would have their own $600,000, plus the 
$500,000 from the union, is clearly the kind of limits that in the real 
world make no sense.

  Furthermore, if a colleague happens to be in a media market where the 
media is biased against him or her, the editorial writer gets to write 
for free. The television commentator gets to commentate for free. The 
talk show host gets to be a talk show host for free. The result is we 
can have hundreds of thousands spent before reaching the very first ad. 
It may take a great deal of time and effort to undo the damage done by 
people who are given the time for free or given the print for free.
  So I think that going to route of an overall limit simply has not 
worked.
  David Broder pointed out in a column on July 17 entitled: ``A New 
Twist In Campaign Finance,'' quote, ``House Republicans have come 
forward with a new approach to the conundrum of campaign finance 
reform. It will not become law this year, but it may point the way to 
the future.''
  Now, I am not at all sure it will not become law this year, because 
we have not seen what will happen. I hope it will pass here and start a 
new dialog in the Senate. But I am certain that David Broder was right 
when he said, quote, ``it may point the way to the future.'' Broder 
himself points out, quote, ``Classic reformers--Common Cause and its 
allies--have scrambled around for years to find ways to stem the tide. 
It hasn't worked.''
  And so we are trying to find a way in the real world that we believe 
will work. We start with a very important principle. This bill, the 
Republican campaign reform proposal, returns control to the people of 
the United States by establishing the principle that 50 percent of 
candidates' money has to be raised in the district they represent so 
they have to go back home to talk with the people of their own district 
to raise the money.
  Furthermore, it says that all the outside money combined cannot 
exceed what is raised at home. So one's ability to convince the people 
they are supposed to represent--in effect, it combines the geographic 
precinct with the financial precincts, and one can no longer earn or 
raise all the money out of Washington's groups, or raise it from 
Hollywood stars, or raise it from New York trial lawyers, or raise it 
from other kinds of PAC's. They actually have to go home to raise the 
money.
  Second, it says we are going to take serious steps to offset the 
millionaires who are buying seats. It is just wrong to have the U.S. 
Senate or the U.S. House begin to be the playpen of millionaires who, 
as a hobby, decide that instead of buying a yacht or a third home they 
will buy a congressional seat or a Senate seat.

  And so as this campaign finance reform bill begins to create the 
opportunity for middle-class candidates to raise money without limit if 
their opponent spends over $100,000 personally, so we begin to balance 
the odds, and we no longer allow millionaires to have an unfair 
advantage.
  Third, this bill strengthens the political parties and begins to 
reestablish institutional support so that middle-class candidates can 
rise by working within the framework of their party, and that means it 
also establishes responsibility beyond the ego of the individual 
candidate because the party has

[[Page H8513]]

a longer view and the party has the right vehicle to strengthen if we 
want stable politics.
  In addition, it allows the parties to begin to offset some of the 
advantages of incumbency so that we do not have the field totally 
biased in favor of incumbents, and I want to commend the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas] because now that we are the majority party he 
has continued the same tradition of trying to make it relatively easier 
for a challenger to have a fair chance to win even though as the 
majority party that is to our disadvantage. It was the right thing to 
do.
  Finally, this bill establishes the principle that union members have 
the right to know how their money is spent. The union members have the 
right to know which of their dues are taken for representational 
purposes and which of their dues were taken for nonrepresentational 
purposes. This right was given to them in the Beck decision 8 years ago 
by the Supreme Court when Justice Brennan wrote a decision that said 
every union member has the right to know how their money is being 
spent, and this bill not only requires full disclosure, but it allows 
the union member to decide whether or not they want to give the 
additional nonrepresentational money, which is exactly what the Supreme 
Court said their rights should be 8 years ago.
  So all we are doing in that section is putting into legislation the 
rights that the Supreme Court said were due to the working men and 
women of America and allowing them to know how their union spent their 
money and allowing them to decide voluntarily for the 
nonrepresentational part. It does not change at all the legitimate 
obligation to pay representational dues, but it does provide for worker 
information.

  So, in closing, on the one side we have what I think is a failed 
effort to provide a cap that will not work, which would actually 
strengthen the power of the biased media, would actually strengthen the 
power of outside independent expenditures, would actually strengthen 
the power of people other than candidates and parties. On the other 
hand what we have done is we return power to the district, to the local 
district, we require 50 percent of the money to be raised at home, we 
actually lower the PAC's far more than do our Democratic friends, and 
weaken the PACs' ability to have impact far more. We actually 
strengthen middle-class candidates against millionaires. We actually 
strengthen the parties and thereby strengthen challengers against 
incumbents, and we allow union members to have the right to know how 
their money is spent and decide whether or not they want to voluntarily 
give the money the Supreme Court said they could not be forced to give.
  We think it is a good reform bill, it is a first step in the right 
direction. I commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], I 
commend the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], and others who 
worked very, very hard to make this possible. I believe my colleagues 
should vote ``no'' on the Democratic substitute, they should vote 
``yes'' on final passage, and I urge our colleagues let us pass a good 
campaign finance bill moving in the right direction, as David Broder 
said, and let us then see if we cannot convince our colleagues in the 
Senate to work with us to pass a good campaign finance bill this year.

                              {time}  1545

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute as modified by the rule, offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 243, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 363]

                               AYES--177

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--243

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bevill
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Deutsch
     Ford
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Peterson (FL)
     Quillen
     Roth
     Tanner
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1604

  Messrs. STENHOLM, KILDEE, TAYLOR of Mississippi, and TEJEDA changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

[[Page H8514]]

  Mr. NADLER and Mr. FLAKE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified by the 
rule, was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I missed one rollcall vote earlier today 
because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 363, the Fazio substitute for 
campaign finance reform.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Dreier) having assumed the chair, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 3820) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 
reform the financing of Federal election campaigns, and for other 
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 481, he reported the bill, as 
amended pursuant to that rule, back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


         motion to recommit offered by mr. fazio of california

  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Yes I am, Mr. Speaker, most definitely.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Fazio of California moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     3820 to the Committee on House Oversight with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       Strike section 107 and insert the following (and conform 
     the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 107. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITIONS RELATING TO 
                   INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES.

       (a) Independent Expenditure Definition Amendment.--Section 
     301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     431) is amended by striking paragraphs (17) and (18) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(17)(A) The term `independent expenditure' means an 
     expenditure that--
       ``(i) contains express advocacy; and
       ``(ii) is made without the participation or cooperation of 
     and without consultation with a candidate or a candidate's 
     representative.
       ``(B) The following shall not be considered an independent 
     expenditure:
       ``(i) An expenditure made by an authorized committee of a 
     candidate for Federal office.
       ``(ii) An expenditure if there is any arrangement, 
     coordination, or direction with respect to the expenditure 
     between the candidate or the candidate's agent and the person 
     making the expenditure.
       ``(iii) An expenditure if, in the same election cycle, the 
     person making the expenditure is or has been--
       ``(I) authorized to raise or expend funds on behalf of the 
     candidate or the candidate's authorized committees; or
       ``(II) serving as a member, employee, or agent of the 
     candidate's authorized committees in an executive or 
     policymaking position.
       ``(iv) An expenditure if the person making the expenditure 
     retains the professional services of any individual or other 
     person also providing services in the same election cycle to 
     the candidate in connection with the candidate's pursuit of 
     nomination for election, or election, to Federal office, 
     including any services relating to the candidate's decision 
     to seek Federal office. For purposes of this clause, the term 
     `professional services' shall include any services (other 
     than legal and accounting services solely for purposes of 
     ensuring compliance with any Federal law) in support of 
     any candidate's or candidates' pursuit of nomination for 
     election, or election, to Federal office.

     For purposes of this subparagraph, the person making the 
     expenditure shall include any officer, director, employee, or 
     agent of such person.
       ``(18)(A) The term `express advocacy' means, when a 
     communication is taken as a whole and with limited reference 
     to external events, an expression of support for or 
     opposition to a specific candidate, to a specific group of 
     candidates, or to candidates of a particular political party.
       ``(B) The term `expression of support for or opposition to' 
     includes a suggestion to take action with respect to an 
     election, such as to vote for or against, make contributions 
     to, or participate in campaign activity, or to refrain from 
     taking action.''.
       (b) Contribution Definition Amendment.--Section 301(8)(A) 
     of such Act (2 U.S.C. 431(8)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' after the semicolon 
     at the end;
       (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iii) any payment or other transaction referred to in 
     paragraph (17)(A)(i) that is not an independent expenditure 
     under paragraph (17).''.

  Mr. FAZIO of California (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious by now 
that Democrats believe there is too much money in our political system 
today. But we think it is equally important that all the money in our 
political system be fully disclosed to the American people. Voters must 
know who paid for an advertisement to help them evaluate its purpose.
  Toward that end, Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit includes the 
commonsense definition of what is called an independent expenditure, as 
set forth a decade ago by the Court of Appeals in the Fergatch case, 
which has never been overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court.
  The Republican bill, by contrast, adopts the narrowest possible 
definition, one that is riddled with loopholes. As a result, the 
Republican bill would deprive Americans of the information they want by 
reducing the requirements for disclosure of political money. It would 
also, frankly, have the unfortunate effect of encouraging the anonymous 
negative advertising that has grown so common lately in this country.
  The Republican aversion to disclosure is not limited to independent 
expenditures. Time and time again the Republican leadership has sought 
to stifle communication from working people in the labor movement who 
have fought so hard for an increase in the minimum wage. Specific 
antilabor provisions were grafted onto the Republican bill as an 
exercise, I believe, in union bashing. It seems the majority prefers to 
create a campaign issue rather than seek a solution to the alleged 
problem.
  Recently every Republican on the Committee on House Oversight voted 
against an amendment to require disclosure of the funding sources for 
election-related communication expenditures. This provision would have 
required disclosure by labor unions and it would also have required 
disclosure of the vast amounts of money favored by Republicans and 
their allies, groups like the NFIB and GOPAC, groups which funnel far 
greater amounts of money in total than organized labor.

                              {time}  1615

  The majority, it seems, prefers to talk about disclosure but cannot 
bring themselves to disclose where their supporters get such funding. 
We Democrats say let it all hang out. Business groups, labor groups, 
left, right, middle, everything should be disclosed for public review. 
Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant we can apply, because there is 
such a problem with hidden money in our political system.
  We offer our motion to recommit with instructions to resolve this 
problem in a reasonable, common-sense way, in a way that protects first 
amendment interests while providing the public with the information 
they want, need and deserve. I reach out to every one of my colleagues 
of both parties to join us in this effort. This will be their chance to 
put their vote behind their rhetoric. If they would not support 
disclosure here today, let the American people never again hear them 
whining about labor unions or other groups they oppose. Let us put it 
all on the record.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, when I came to the Congress of the United 
States, I looked to a senior Member to help me in my efforts to work on 
campaign finance reform. He taught me

[[Page H8515]]

that we have to work in a bipartisan manner if we are going to get real 
campaign finance reform passed.
  That was Mike Synar, and he introduced a bill that I signed on to, 
that Republicans signed on to, to have real campaign finance reform in 
a bipartisan way. That is why I have worked so hard in this session in 
a bipartisan way to get real campaign finance reform, in the history 
and tradition of Mike Synar.
  The gentleman from California has introduced a piece of that 
bipartisan bill. It involves disclosures and making sure when people 
make independent expenditures, like the independent expenditures that 
were made against Mike Synar and many other Members, that the American 
people have a right to know where their money comes from. The American 
people have a right to know who is funding this.
  And guess what? Both Democrats and Republicans behind this bipartisan 
effort, every public interest group in America supports this language: 
the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, Public Citizen, United We 
Stand. There is not anyone in the country who is fighting for campaign 
finance reform that does not support this language.
  Let us have a tremendous opportunity to take a bad bill and make it a 
heck of a lot better. Let us send this bill back with this provision, 
in the history of bipartisan reform, in the tradition of Mike Synar, in 
the tradition of good Democratic politics.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). Is there a Member who rises in 
opposition to the motion to recommit?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, some people will say, how in the world can 
anyone stand up and oppose that? The fact of the matter is, Members 
really need to know the whole story. This is not about disclosure. If 
it were about disclosure, we can deal with that in any number of 
statutes.
  The gentleman from California said this is sunlight. Let me tell the 
gentleman, if we pass this, what will happen. He will think it is 
sunlight. Someone else will think it is a grow light. Somebody else 
will think it is a 100-watt bulb. Somebody else will think it is a 300-
watt bulb. What is it?
  The Supreme Court, not a lower court, not some district court, the 
Supreme Court said free speech is so fundamental to a free society that 
we have got to let people express themselves. Advocacy is a fundamental 
right. If you express support for someone, that is express advocacy.
  What they have not told us is that their amendment contains this, on 
page 3 of the amendment: The term ``express advocacy'' means, they want 
to say, when taken as a whole.
  The Court in Buckley said it means when you use the words expressly, 
vote for, elect, support, cast your ballot for, not when taken as a 
whole. They said when it is sunlight, it is sunlight and everybody 
knows it.
  Do not give in to the urge to take the freedom of speech away from 
people. Justice Potter Stewart said, ``I can't define obscenity but I 
know it when I see it,'' these people want to take the definition ``I 
know it when I see it'' and suppress free speech.
  The Supreme Court in Buckley said no, it is not your judgment as to 
whether or not it is free speech. It is the words as they are stated. 
When they are stated, it is. When we think they are, it is not. If you 
believe in a free society, if you believe in the Constitution, you do 
not take the words taken as a whole, you take the words. Reject their 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 209, 
noes 212, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 364]

                               AYES--209

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--212

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

[[Page H8516]]



                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bevill
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Ford
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Peterson (FL)
     Quillen
     Roth
     Tanner
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1637

  Mr. FLANAGAN and Mr. MARTINI changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 162, 
nays 259, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 365]

                               YEAS--162

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bono
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myrick
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--259

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TX)
     Burton
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     White
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bevill
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Ford
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Peterson (FL)
     Quillen
     Roth
     Tanner
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1655

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was not passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________