[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.
____________________