[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 38 (Monday, March 30, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1726-H1739]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CAMPAIGN REFORM AND ELECTION INTEGRITY ACT OF 1998
Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3581) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to
reform the financing of campaigns for election for Federal office, and
for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page H1727]]
H.R. 3581
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
Reform and Election Integrity Act of 1998''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS
Sec. 101. Prohibiting involuntary use of funds of employees of
corporations and other employers and members of unions
and organizations for political activities.
TITLE II--BANNING NONCITIZEN CONTRIBUTIONS
Sec. 201. Prohibiting noncitizen individuals from making contributions
in connection with Federal elections.
Sec. 202. Increase in penalty for violations of ban.
TITLE III--IMPROVING REPORTING AND ENFORCEMENT
Sec. 301. Expediting reporting of information.
Sec. 302. Expansion of type of information reported.
Sec. 303. Promoting effective enforcement by Federal Election
Commission.
Sec. 304. Banning acceptance of cash contributions greater than $100.
Sec. 305. Protecting confidentiality of small contributions by
employees of corporations and members of labor
organizations.
Sec. 306. Disclosure and reports relating to polling by telephone or
electronic device.
TITLE IV--EXCESSIVE SPENDING BY CANDIDATES FROM PERSONAL FUNDS
Sec. 401. Modification of limitations on contributions when candidates
spend or contribute large amounts of personal funds.
TITLE V--ELECTION INTEGRITY
Subtitle A--Voter Eligibility Verification Pilot Program
Sec. 501. Voter eligibility pilot confirmation program.
Sec. 502. Authorization of appropriations.
Subtitle B--Other Measures to Protect Election Integrity
Sec. 511. Requiring inclusion of citizenship check-off and information
with all applications for voter registration.
Sec. 512. Improving administration of voter removal programs.
TITLE VI--REVISION AND INDEXING OF CERTAIN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS AND
PENALTIES
Sec. 601. Increase in certain contribution limits.
Sec. 602. Indexing limits on certain contributions.
Sec. 603. Indexing amount of penalties and fines.
TITLE VII--RESTRICTIONS ON SOFT MONEY
Sec. 701. Ban on soft money of national political parties and
candidates; ban on use of soft money by State political
parties for Federal election activity.
Sec. 702. Ban on disbursements of soft money by foreign nationals
Sec. 703. Enforcement of spending limit on presidential and vice
presidential candidates who receive public financing.
Sec. 704. Conspiracy to violate presidential campaign spending limits.
TITLE VIII--DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN COMMUNICATIONS
Sec. 801. Disclosure of certain communications.
TITLE IX--EFFECTIVE DATE
Sec. 901. Effective date.
TITLE I--VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS
SEC. 101. PROHIBITING INVOLUNTARY USE OF FUNDS OF EMPLOYEES
OF CORPORATIONS AND OTHER EMPLOYERS AND MEMBERS
OF UNIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS FOR POLITICAL
ACTIVITIES.
(a) In General.--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)(A) Except with the separate, prior, written,
voluntary authorization of the individual involved, it shall
be unlawful--
``(i) for any national bank or corporation described in
this section to collect from or assess a stockholder or
employee any portion of any dues, initiation fee, or other
payment made as a condition of employment which will be used
for political activity in which the national bank or
corporation is engaged; and
``(ii) for any labor organization described in this section
to collect from or assess a member or nonmember any portion
of any dues, initiation fee, or other payment which will be
used for political activity in which the labor organization
is engaged.
``(B) An authorization described in subparagraph (A) shall
remain in effect until revoked and may be revoked at any
time. Each entity collecting from or assessing amounts from
an individual with an authorization in effect under such
subparagraph shall provide the individual with a statement
that the individual may at any time revoke the authorization.
``(2)(A) Prior to the beginning of any 12-month period (as
determined by the corporation), each corporation described in
this section shall provide each of its shareholders with a
notice containing the following:
``(i) The proposed aggregate amount for disbursements for
political activities by the corporation for the period.
``(ii) The individual's applicable percentage and
applicable pro rata amount for the period.
``(iii) A form that the individual may complete and return
to the corporation to indicate the individual's objection to
the disbursement of amounts for political activities during
the period.
``(B) It shall be unlawful for a corporation to which
subparagraph (A) applies to make disbursements for political
activities during the 12-month period described in such
subparagraph in an amount greater than--
``(i) the proposed aggregate amount for such disbursements
for the period, as specified in the notice provided under
subparagraph (A); reduced by
``(ii) the sum of the applicable pro rata amounts for such
period of all shareholders who return the form described in
subparagraph (A)(iii) to the corporation prior to the
beginning of the period.
``(C) In this paragraph, the following definitions shall
apply:
``(i) The term `applicable percentage' means, with respect
to a shareholder of a corporation, the amount (expressed as a
percentage) equal to the number of shares of the corporation
(within a particular class or type of stock) owned by the
shareholder at the time the notice described in subparagraph
(A) is provided, divided by the aggregate number of such
shares owned by all shareholders of the corporation at such
time.
``(ii) The term `applicable pro rata amount' means, with
respect to a shareholder for a 12-month period, the product
of the shareholder's applicable percentage for the period and
the proposed aggregate amount for disbursements for political
activities by the corporation for the period, as specified in
the notice provided under subparagraph (A).
``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `political
activity' means any activity carried out for the purpose of
influencing (in whole or in part) any election for Federal
office, influencing the consideration or outcome of any
Federal legislation or the issuance or outcome of any Federal
regulations, or educating individuals about candidates for
election for Federal office or any Federal legislation, law,
or regulations.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to amounts collected or assessed on or after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE II--BANNING NONCITIZEN CONTRIBUTIONS
SEC. 201. PROHIBITING NONCITIZEN INDIVIDUALS FROM MAKING
CONTRIBUTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH FEDERAL
ELECTIONS.
(a) Prohibition Applicable to All Noncitizens.--Section
319(b)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 441e(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``and who is not
lawfully admitted'' and all that follows and inserting a
period.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to contributions or expenditures
made on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 202. INCREASE IN PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS OF BAN.
(a) Application of Penalty to Foreign Nationals and
Citizens Who Solicit or Accept Foreign Payments.--Section 319
of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441e)
is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
subsection:
``(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
amount or duration of any penalty, fine, or sentence imposed
on any person who violates subsection (a) shall be 200
percent of the amount or duration which is otherwise provided
for under this Act or any other applicable law.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to violations occurring on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE III--IMPROVING REPORTING AND ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 301. EXPEDITING REPORTING OF INFORMATION.
(a) Permitting Candidates to Elect to File Reports for
Contributions and Expenditures Made Within 90 Days of
Election Within 24 Hours and Post on Internet.--
(1) In general.--Section 304(a) of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)) is amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
``(12)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
any authorized political committee of a candidate may notify
the Commission that, with respect to each contribution
received or expenditure made by the committee during the
period which begins on the 90th day before an election and
ends at the time the polls close for such election, the
candidate elects to file any information required to be filed
with the Commission under this section with respect to such
contribution or expenditure within 24 hours after the receipt
of the contribution or the making of the expenditure.
[[Page H1728]]
``(B) The Commission shall make the information filed under
this paragraph available on the Internet immediately upon
receipt.''.
(2) Internet defined.--Section 301(19) of such Act (2
U.S.C. 431(19)) is amended to read as follows:
``(19) The term `Internet' means the international computer
network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet-
switched data networks.''.
(b) 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 such Act (2 U.S.C.
434(a)(6)(A)) is amended--
(1) 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
(2) 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)''.
(c) Requiring Actual Receipt of Certain 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)) is amended by striking ``or (4)(A)(ii)''
and inserting ``or (4)(A)(ii), or the second sentence of
subsection (c)(2)''.
(d) Requiring Reports of Certain Filers to be Transmitted
Electronically; Certification of Private Sector Software.--
Section 304(a)(11)(A) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(11)(A)) is
amended by striking the period at the end and inserting the
following: ``, except that in the case of a report submitted
by a person who reports an aggregate amount of contributions
or expenditures (as the case may be) in all reports filed
with respect to the election involved (taking into account
the period covered by the report) in an amount equal to or
greater than $50,000, the Commission shall require the report
to be filed and preserved by such means, format, or method.
The Commission shall certify (on an ongoing basis) private
sector computer software which may be used for filing reports
by such means, format, or method.''.
(e) 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).
SEC. 302. EXPANSION OF TYPE OF INFORMATION REPORTED.
(a) Requiring Record Keeping and Report of Secondary
Payments by Campaign Committees.--
(1) Reporting.--Section 304(b)(5)(A) of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (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)
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(j) 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 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.
(b) 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.''.
(c) 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. 303. PROMOTING EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT BY FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION.
(a) Requiring FEC to Provide Written Responses to
Questions.--
(1) In general.--Title III of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 (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''.
(b) Standard for Initiation of Actions by FEC.--Section
309(a)(2) of such Act (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 Reform and Election Integrity Act
of 1998),''.
(c) Standard Form for Complaints; Stronger Disclaimer
Language.--
(1) Standard form.--Section 309(a)(1) of such Act (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
[[Page H1729]]
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.'''.
SEC. 304. BANNING ACCEPTANCE OF CASH CONTRIBUTIONS GREATER
THAN $100.
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) 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.''.
SEC. 305. PROTECTING CONFIDENTIALITY OF SMALL CONTRIBUTIONS
BY EMPLOYEES OF CORPORATIONS AND MEMBERS OF
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS.
Section 316(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971
(2 U.S.C. 441b(b)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(8)(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.''.
SEC. 306. DISCLOSURE AND REPORTS RELATING TO POLLING BY
TELEPHONE OR ELECTRONIC DEVICE.
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:
``disclosure and reports relating to polling by telephone or electronic
device
``Sec. 323. (a) Disclosure of Identity of Person Paying
Expenses of Poll.--Any person who conducts a Federal election
poll by telephone or electronic device shall disclose to each
respondent the identity of the person paying the expenses of
the poll. The disclosure shall be made at the end of the
interview involved.
``(b) Reporting Certain Information.--In the case of any
Federal election poll taken by telephone or electronic device
during the 90-day period which ends on the date of the
election involved--
``(1) if the results are not to be made public, the person
who conducts the poll shall report to the Commission the
total cost of the poll and all sources of funds for the poll;
and
``(2) the person who conducts the poll shall report to the
Commission the total number of households contacted and
include with such report a copy of the poll questions.
``(c) Federal Election Poll Defined.--As used in this
section, the term `Federal election poll' means a survey--
``(1) in which the respondent is asked to state a
preference in a future election for Federal office; and
``(2) in which more than 1,200 households are surveyed.''.
TITLE IV--EXCESSIVE SPENDING BY CANDIDATES FROM PERSONAL FUNDS
SEC. 401. 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
304, is 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 no opponent may 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, less any personal funds expended by such opponent
(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 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 any opponent
of the candidate, except that no 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, less any personal funds expended by
such opponent (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 subsections (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 any
opponent of the candidate, except that no 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, less any personal funds expended by such
opponent (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.''.
TITLE V--ELECTION INTEGRITY
Subtitle A--Voter Eligibility Verification Pilot Program
SEC. 501. VOTER ELIGIBILITY PILOT CONFIRMATION PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General, in consultation with
the Commissioner of Social Security, shall establish a pilot
program to test a confirmation system through which they--
(1) respond to inquiries, made by State and local officials
(including voting registrars) with responsibility for
determining an individual's qualification to vote in a
Federal, State, or local election, to verify the citizenship
of an individual who has submitted a voter registration
application, and
(2) maintain such records of the inquiries made and
verifications provided as may be necessary for pilot program
evaluation.
In order to make an inquiry through the pilot program with
respect to an individual, an election official shall provide
the name, date of birth, and last 4 digits of the social
security account number of the individual.
(b) Initial Response.--The pilot program shall provide for
a confirmation or a tentative nonconfirmation of an
individual's citizenship by the Commissioner of Social
Security as soon as practicable after an initial inquiry to
the Commissioner.
(c) Secondary Verification Process in Case of Tentative
Nonconfirmation.--In cases of tentative nonconfirmation, the
Attorney General shall specify, in consultation with the
Commissioner of Social Security and the Commissioner of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, an available
secondary verification process to confirm the validity of
information provided and to provide a final confirmation or
nonconfirmation as soon as practicable after the date of the
tentative nonconfirmation.
(d) Design and Operation of Pilot Program.--
(1) In general.--The pilot program shall be designed and
operated--
[[Page H1730]]
(A) to apply in, at a minimum, the States of California,
New York, Texas, Florida, and Illinois;
(B) to be used on a voluntary basis, as a supplementary
information source, by State and local election officials for
the purpose of assessing, through citizenship verification,
the eligibility of an individual to vote in Federal, State,
or local elections;
(C) to respond to an inquiry concerning citizenship only in
a case where determining whether an individual is a citizen
is--
(i) necessary for determining whether the individual is
eligible to vote in an election for Federal, State, or local
office; and
(ii) part of a program or activity to protect the integrity
of the electoral process that is uniform, nondiscriminatory,
and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 1973 et seq.);
(D) to maximize its reliability and ease of use, consistent
with insulating and protecting the privacy and security of
the underlying information;
(E) to permit inquiries to be made to the pilot program
through a toll-free telephone line or other toll-free
electronic media;
(F) to respond to all inquiries made by authorized persons
and to register all times when the pilot program is not
responding to inquiries because of a malfunction;
(G) with appropriate administrative, technical, and
physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure of
personal information, including violations of the
requirements of section 205(c)(2)(C)(viii) of the Social
Security Act; and
(H) to have reasonable safeguards against the pilot
program's resulting in unlawful discriminatory practices
based on national origin or citizenship status, including the
selective or unauthorized use of the pilot program.
(2) Use of employment eligibility confirmation system.--To
the extent practicable, in establishing the confirmation
system under this section, the Attorney General, in
consultation with the Commissioner of Social Security, shall
use the employment eligibility confirmation system
established under section 404 of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law
104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-664).
(e) Responsibilities of the Commissioner of Social
Security.--As part of the pilot program, the Commissioner of
Social Security shall establish a reliable, secure method
which compares the name, date of birth, and last 4 digits of
the social security account number provided in an inquiry
against such information maintained by the Commissioner, in
order to confirm (or not confirm) the correspondence of the
name, date of birth, and number provided and whether the
individual is shown as a citizen of the United States on the
records maintained by the Commissioner (including whether
such records show that the individual was born in the United
States). The Commissioner shall not disclose or release
social security information (other than such confirmation or
nonconfirmation).
(f) Responsibilities of the Commissioner of the Immigration
and Naturalization Service.--As part of the pilot program,
the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service shall establish a reliable, secure method which
compares the name and date of birth which are provided in an
inquiry against information maintained by the Commissioner in
order to confirm (or not confirm) the validity of the
information provided, the correspondence of the name and date
of birth, and whether the individual is a citizen of the
United States.
(g) Updating Information.--The Commissioner of Social
Security and the Commissioner of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service shall update their information in a
manner that promotes the maximum accuracy and shall provide a
process for the prompt correction of erroneous information,
including instances in which it is brought to their attention
in the secondary verification process described in subsection
(c) or in any action by an individual to use the process
provided under this subsection upon receipt of notification
from an election official under subsection (i).
(h) Limitation on Use of the Pilot Program and Any Related
Systems.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, nothing in this section shall be construed to permit or
allow any department, bureau, or other agency of the United
States Government to utilize any information, data base, or
other records assembled under this section for any other
purpose other than as provided for under this section.
(2) No national identification card.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to authorize, directly or
indirectly, the issuance or use of national identification
cards or the establishment of a national identification card.
(3) No new data bases.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to authorize, directly or indirectly, the Attorney
General and the Commissioner of Social Security to create any
joint computer data base that is not in existence on the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(i) Actions by Election Officials Unable to Confirm
Citizenship.--
(1) In general.--If an election official receives a notice
of final nonconfirmation under subsection (c) with respect to
an individual, the official--
(A) shall notify the individual in writing; and
(B) shall inform the individual in writing of the
individual's right to use--
(i) the process provided under subsection (g) for the
prompt correction of erroneous information in the pilot
program; or
(ii) any other process for establishing eligibility to vote
provided under State or Federal law.
(2) Registration applicants.--In the case of an individual
who is an applicant for voter registration, and who receives
a notice from an official under paragraph (1), the official
may (subject to, and in a manner consistent with, State law)
reject the application (subject to the right to reapply), but
only if the following conditions have been satisfied:
(A) The 30-day period beginning on the date the notice was
mailed or otherwise provided to the individual has elapsed.
(B) During such 30-day period, the official did not receive
adequate confirmation of the citizenship of the individual
from--
(i) a source other than the pilot program established under
this section; or
(ii) such pilot program, pursuant to a new inquiry to the
pilot program made by the official upon receipt of
information (from the individual or through any other
reliable source) that erroneous or incomplete material
information previously in the pilot program has been updated,
supplemented, or corrected.
(3) Ineligible voter removal programs.--In the case of an
individual who is registered to vote, and who receives a
notice from an official under paragraph (1) in connection
with a program to remove the names of ineligible voters from
an official list of eligible voters, the official may
(subject to, and in a manner consistent with, State law)
remove the name of the individual from the list (subject to
the right to submit another voter registration application),
but only if the following conditions have been satisfied:
(A) The 30-day period beginning on the date the notice was
mailed or otherwise provided to the individual has elapsed.
(B) During such 30-day period, the official did not receive
adequate confirmation of the citizenship of the individual
from a source described in clause (i) or (ii) of paragraph
(2)(B).
(j) Authority to Use Social Security Account Numbers.--Any
State (or political subdivision thereof) may, for the purpose
of making inquiries under the pilot program in the
administration of any voter registration law within its
jurisdiction, use the last 4 digits of the social security
account numbers issued by the Commissioner of Social
Security, and may, for such purpose, require any individual
who is or appears to be affected by a voter registration law
of such State (or political subdivision thereof) to furnish
to such State (or political subdivision thereof) or any
agency thereof having administrative responsibility for such
law, the last 4 digits of the social security account number
(or numbers, if the individual has more than one such number)
issued to the individual by the Commissioner. Nothing in this
subsection may be construed to prohibit or limit the
application of any voter registration program which is in
compliance with any applicable Federal or State law.
(k) Termination and Report.--The pilot program shall
terminate September 30, 2001. The Attorney General and the
Commissioner of Social Security shall each submit to the
Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Ways and
Means of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on
the Judiciary and the Committee on Finance of the Senate
reports on the pilot program not later than December 31,
2001. Such reports shall--
(1) assess the degree of fraudulent attesting of United
States citizenship in jurisdictions covered by the pilot
program;
(2) assess the appropriate staffing and funding levels
which would be required for full, permanent, and nationwide
implementation of the pilot program, including the estimated
total cost for national implementation per individual record;
(3) include an assessment by the Commissioner of Social
Security of the advisability and ramifications of disclosure
of social security account numbers to the extent provided for
under the pilot program and upon full, permanent, and
nationwide implementation of the pilot program;
(4) assess the degree to which the records maintained by
the Commissioner of Social Security and the Commissioner of
the Immigration and Naturalization Service are able to be
used to reliably determine the citizenship of individuals who
have submitted voter registration applications;
(5) assess the effectiveness of the pilot program's
safeguards against unlawful discriminatory practices;
(6) include recommendations on whether or not the pilot
program should be continued or modified; and
(7) include such other information as the Attorney General
or the Commissioner of Social Security may determine to be
relevant.
SEC. 502. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department
of Justice, for the Immigration and Naturalization Service,
for fiscal years beginning on or after October 1, 1998, such
sums as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this
subtitle.
[[Page H1731]]
Subtitle B--Other Measures to Protect Election Integrity
SEC. 511. REQUIRING INCLUSION OF CITIZENSHIP CHECK-OFF AND
INFORMATION WITH ALL APPLICATIONS FOR VOTER
REGISTRATION.
(a) In General.--Section 9 of the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-7) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Citizenship Check-Off and Other Information.--
``(1) In general.--Effective January 1, 2000--
``(A) the mail voter registration form developed under
subsection (a)(2) and each application for voter registration
of a State shall include 2 boxes for the applicant to
indicate whether or not the applicant is a citizen of the
United States, and no application for voter registration may
be considered to be completed unless the applicant has
checked the box indicating that the applicant is a citizen of
the United States; and
``(B) such form and each application for voter registration
of a State shall require the applicant to provide--
``(i) the city, State or province (if any), and nation of
the individual's birth; and
``(ii) if the individual is a naturalized citizen of the
United States, the year in which the individual was admitted
to citizenship and the location where the admission to
citizenship occurred (if applicable).
``(2) State opt-out.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with
respect to applications for voter registration of any State
which notifies the Federal Election Commission prior to
January 1, 2000, that it elects to reject the application of
such paragraph to applications for voter registration of the
State.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--The National Voter Registration
Act of 1993 is amended by striking ``requirement;'' each
place it appears in section 5(c)(2)(C)(ii) (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-
3(c)(2)(C)(ii)), section 7(a)(6)(A)(i)(II) (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-
5(a)(6)(A)(i)(II)), and section 9(b)(2)(B) (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-
7(b)(2)(B), and inserting ``requirement (consistent with
section 9(c));''.
SEC. 512. IMPROVING ADMINISTRATION OF VOTER REMOVAL PROGRAMS.
(a) Permitting State to Require Affirmation of Address of
Registrants Not Voting in 2 Consecutive General Federal
Elections.--Section 8(e) of the National Voter Registration
Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(e)) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(4)(A) If a registrant has not voted or appeared to vote
in two consecutive general elections for Federal office, a
State may send the registrant a notice consisting of--
``(i) a postage prepaid and pre-addressed return card, sent
by forwardable mail, on which the registrant may state his or
her current address; and
``(ii) a notice that if the card is not returned, oral or
written affirmation of the registrant's identification and
address may be required before the registrant is permitted to
vote in a subsequent Federal election.
``(B) If a registrant to whom a State has sent a notice
under subparagraph (A) has not returned the card provided in
the notice and appears at a polling place to cast a vote in a
Federal election, the State may require the registrant to
provide oral or written affirmation of the registrant's
identification and address before an election official at the
polling place as a condition for casting the vote.''.
(b) Permitting State to Place Registrants With Inapplicable
Addresses on Inactive List.--
(1) In general.--Section 8(d)(1)(B)(i) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1973gg-6(d)(1)(B)(i)) is amended by striking
``paragraph (2);'' and inserting ``paragraph (2), or has
provided a mailing address which the Postal Services
indicates is no longer applicable and has provided no other
applicable address;''.
(2) Requiring confirmation of address prior to voting.--
Section 8(d) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(d)) is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) The second sentence of paragraph (2)(A) shall apply
to an individual described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) who has
provided a mailing address which the Postal Services
indicates is no longer applicable and has provided no other
applicable address in the same manner as such sentence
applies to an individual who has failed to respond to a
notice described in paragraph (2).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect January 1, 1999, and shall apply with
respect to general elections for Federal office held on or
after January 1, 1998.
TITLE VI--REVISION AND INDEXING OF CERTAIN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS AND
PENALTIES
SEC. 601. INCREASE IN CERTAIN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS.
(a) Contributions by Individuals.--
(1) Contributions to candidates.--Section 315(a)(1)(A) of
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C.
441a(a)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``$1,000'' and
inserting ``$2,000''.
(2) Contributions to state or local political parties.--
Section 315(a)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D);
and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) to the political committees established and
maintained by a State or local political party, which are not
the authorized political committees of any candidate, in any
calendar year which, in the aggregate, exceed $15,000; or''.
(3) Contributions to national political parties.--Section
315(a)(1)(B) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)(B)) is amended
by striking ``$20,000'' and inserting ``$60,000''.
(4) Aggregate annual limit on all contributions.--Section
315(a)(3) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)) is amended by
striking ``$25,000'' and inserting ``$75,000''.
(b) Contributions by Political Parties.--Section 315(a)(1)
of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)), as amended by subsection
(a)(2), is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E);
and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) in the case of contributions made to a candidate and
any authorized committee of the candidate by a political
committee of a national, State, or local political party
which is not the authorized political committee of any
candidate, in any calendar year which, in the aggregate,
exceed $15,000; or''.
SEC. 602. INDEXING LIMITS ON CERTAIN 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) (other than any limitation under paragraph
(1)(E) or (2)) shall be adjusted as follows:
``(i) For calendar year 2001, 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 paragraph (2)) for 1999 and 2000.
``(ii) For calendar year 2003 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 $100, the amount
shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.''.
(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 1999) in the same
manner as the amounts of limitations on contributions under
section 315(a) are adjusted under section 315(c)(3).''.
SEC. 603. INDEXING AMOUNT OF PENALTIES AND FINES.
(a) Indexing to Account for Past Inflation.--
(1) Penalties.--Section 309(a) of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (5)(A), by striking ``$5,000'' and
inserting ``$15,000'';
(B) in paragraph (5)(B), by striking ``$10,000'' and
inserting ``$30,000'';
(C) in paragraph (6)(A), by striking ``$5,000'' and
inserting ``$15,000'';
(D) in paragraph (6)(B), by striking ``$5,000'' and
inserting ``$15,000''; and
(E) in paragraph (6)(C), by striking ``$10,000'' and
inserting ``$30,000''.
(2) Fines.--Section 309 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 437g) is
amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(12)(B)--
(i) by striking ``$2,000'' and inserting ``$6,000'', and
(ii) by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting ``$15,000''; and
(B) in the second sentence of subsection (d)(1)(A), by
striking ``$25,000'' and inserting ``$75,000''.
(b) Indexing for Future Years.--Section 309 of such Act (2
U.S.C. 437g) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(13) Each amount referred to in this subsection shall be
adjusted (for years beginning with 2001) in the same manner
as the amounts of limitations on contributions under section
315(a) are adjusted under section 315(c)(3).''; and
(2) in the second sentence of subsection (d)(1)(A), as
amended by subsection (a)(2)(B), by inserting after
``$75,000'' the following: ``(adjusted for years beginning
with 2001 in the same manner as the amounts of limitations on
contributions under section 315(a) are adjusted under section
315(c)(3))''.
TITLE VII--RESTRICTIONS ON SOFT MONEY
SEC. 701. BAN ON SOFT MONEY OF NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTIES AND
CANDIDATES; BAN ON USE OF SOFT MONEY BY STATE
POLITICAL PARTIES FOR FEDERAL ELECTION
ACTIVITY.
Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 431 et seq.), as amended by section 306, is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
``restrictions on use of soft money by political parties and candidates
``Sec. 324. (a) Ban on Use by National Parties.--
``(1) In general.--No political committee of a national
political party may solicit, receive, or direct any
contributions, donations,
[[Page H1732]]
or transfers of funds, or spend any funds, which are not
subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting
requirements of this Act.
``(2) Applicability.--Paragraph (1) shall apply to any
entity which is established, financed, maintained, or
controlled (directly or indirectly) by, or which acts on
behalf of, a political committee of a national political
party, including any national congressional campaign
committee of such a party and any officer or agent of such an
entity or committee.
``(b) Candidates.--
``(1) In general.--No candidate for Federal office,
individual holding Federal office, or any agent of such a
candidate or officeholder may solicit, receive, or direct--
``(A) any funds in connection with any Federal election
unless the funds are subject to the limitations, prohibitions
and reporting requirements of this Act;
``(B) any funds that are to be expended in connection with
any election for other than a Federal office unless the funds
are not in excess of the applicable amounts permitted with
respect to contributions to candidates and political
committees under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 315(a),
and are not from sources prohibited from making contributions
by this Act with respect to elections for Federal office; or
``(C) any funds on behalf of any person which are not
subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting
requirements of this Act if such funds are for the purpose of
financing any activity on behalf of a candidate for election
for Federal office or any communication which refers to a
clearly identified candidate for election for Federal office.
``(2) Exception for certain activities.--Paragraph (1)
shall not apply to--
``(A) the solicitation, receipt, or direction of funds by
an individual who is a candidate for a non-Federal office if
such activity is permitted under State law for such
individual's non-Federal campaign committee; or
``(B) the attendance by an individual who holds Federal
office at a fundraising event for a State or local committee
of a political party of the State which the individual
represents as a Federal officeholder, if the event is held in
such State.
``(c) State Parties.--
``(1) In general.--Any payment by a State committee of a
political party for a mixed political activity--
``(A) shall be subject to limitation and reporting under
this Act as if such payment were an expenditure; and
``(B) may be paid only from an account that is subject to
the requirements of this Act.
``(2) Mixed political activity defined.--As used in this
section, the term `mixed political activity' means, with
respect to a payment by a State committee of a political
party, an activity (such as a voter registration program, a
get-out-the-vote drive, or general political advertising)
that is both for the purpose of influencing an election for
Federal office and for any purpose unrelated to influencing
an election for Federal office.
``(d) Prohibiting Transfers of Non-Federal Funds Between
State Parties.--A State committee of a political party may
not transfer any funds to a State committee of a political
party of another State unless the funds are subject to the
limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this
Act.
``(e) Applicability to Funds From All Sources.--This
section shall apply with respect to funds of any individual,
corporation, labor organization, or other person.''.
SEC. 702. BAN ON DISBURSEMENTS OF SOFT MONEY BY FOREIGN
NATIONALS.
(a) Prohibition on Disbursements by Foreign Nationals for
Political Parties and Independent Expenditures.--Section 319
of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441e)
is amended--
(1) in the heading, by striking ``contributions'' and
inserting ``disbursements'';
(2) in subsection (a), by striking ``contribution'' each
place it appears and inserting ``disbursement''; and
(3) in subsection (a), by striking the semicolon and
inserting the following: ``, including any disbursement to a
political committee of a political party and any disbursement
for an independent expenditure;''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to disbursements made on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 703. ENFORCEMENT OF SPENDING LIMIT ON PRESIDENTIAL AND
VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES WHO RECEIVE PUBLIC
FINANCING.
(a) In General.--Section 9003 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9003) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(f) Illegal Solicitation of Soft Money.--No candidate for
election to the office of President or Vice President may
receive amounts from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund
under this chapter or chapter 96 unless the candidate
certifies that the candidate shall not solicit any funds for
purposes of influencing (directly or indirectly) such
election, including any funds used for an independent
expenditure under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971,
unless the funds are subject to the limitations,
prohibitions, and reporting requirements of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply with respect to elections occurring on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 704. CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
SPENDING LIMITS.
(a) In General.--Section 9003 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9003), as amended by section 703, is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(g) Prohibiting Conspiracy to Violate Limits.--
``(1) Violation of limits described.--If a candidate for
election to the office of President or Vice President who
receives amounts from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund
under chapter 95 or 96 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
or the agent of such a candidate, seeks to avoid the spending
limits applicable to the candidate under such chapter or
under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 by
soliciting, receiving, transferring, or directing funds from
any source other than such Fund for the direct or indirect
benefit of such candidate's campaign, such candidate or agent
shall be fined not more than $1,000,000, or imprisoned for a
term of not more than 3 years, or both.
``(2) Conspiracy to violate limits defined.--If two or more
persons conspire to violate paragraph (1), and one or more of
such persons do any act to effect the object of the
conspiracy, each shall be fined not more than $1,000,000, or
imprisoned for a term of not more than 3 years, or both.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply with respect to elections occurring on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE VIII--DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN COMMUNICATIONS
SEC. 801. DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN COMMUNICATIONS.
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)(1) In addition to any other information required to
be reported under this Act, any person who makes payments
described in paragraph (2) in an aggregate amount or value in
excess of $250 during a calendar year shall report such
payments and the source of the funds used to make such
payments to the Commission in the same manner and under the
same terms and conditions as a political committee reporting
expenditures and contributions to the Commission under this
section, except that if such person makes such payments in an
aggregate amount or value of $1,000 or more after the 20th
day, but more than 24 hours, before any election, such person
shall report such information within 24 hours after such
payments are made.
``(2) A payment described in this paragraph is a payment
for any communication which is made during the 90-day period
ending on the date of an election and which mentions a
clearly identified candidate for election for Federal office
or the political party of such a candidate, or which contains
the likeness of such a candidate, other than a payment which
would be described in clause (i), (iii), or (v) of section
301(9)(B) if the payment were an expenditure under such
section.''.
TITLE IX--EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 901. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Except as otherwise specifically provided, this Act and the
amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to
elections occurring after January 1999.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Gejdenson) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 3581 has a strong resemblance to H.R. 3458 that
came out of committee, with a couple of changes based upon information
which was provided to us after the committee met. As a matter of fact,
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), indicated that he was
concerned that although there was a soft money ban at the national
level, there was not a commensurate soft money ban of Federal money at
the State level. And so to address that particular concern, the bill
was modified to follow the 103rd Congress's Republican campaign reform
bill which banned soft money at both the Federal and the State level.
There were a number of other very minor adjustments that were made,
so that the bill that is in front of us tonight says, number one, that
only American citizens may contribute to political campaigns. Anyone
who is a noncitizen may not participate in a political campaign, either
in contributions or in spending. No one need go into any detail as to
why that is part of a campaign reform bill, based upon what we now know
and are continuing
[[Page H1733]]
to learn from the 1996 presidential campaign.
In addition, it seems to a number of Members that if someone were
compelled to provide money which could be used for political
contributions, that it somehow seemed to violate the spirit of
voluntary participation, and so we include a provision which requires
that if any money from paychecks is spent by organizations in political
campaigns, that money would have to have been solicited from
individuals. They would have had an opportunity to say, ``Yes, you may
utilize that money for that purpose,'' rather than having it removed
from their paycheck without their permission.
In addition, there is a very long section which will be offered later
as a separate bill on suspension, as well, which has basically pulled
together a number of the reforms that the Federal Elections Commission
has been advocating for the last several years. They are contained in a
number of Members' bills, and what they do is bring up to date the
disclosure of campaign spending either through a more detailed
reporting procedure or, a shortening of the time line for reporting,
given the electronic world that we now live in.
In addition, the Supreme Court has spoken very clearly about the
ability of an individual to spend as much money as they so choose when
it is their own money, and it is therefore extremely difficult for the
average candidate to compete in an election against someone who has
millions and millions of dollars to spend. It is quite clearly
unconstitutional to not allow an individual to spend that money but we
believe it is quite constitutional, based upon a threshold of personal
spending by that individual, to allow for a modification of the
contribution rules that permit an individual who does not have the
wherewithal from their own resources to be able to run a credible and
viable campaign.
{time} 1845
In addition, all of us have read the headlines about the kind of
election activities that have been occurring in various regions of the
United States, California, and Texas, for example. Miami, I believe, is
one that comes to mind rather vividly in terms of the concern about
whether or not the voting rolls contain only those individuals who
should be on those rolls, and also whether or not even if individuals
are legally on those rolls, it is the individuals on the rolls who are
in fact casting their own ballots. So there is a section on voter fraud
which is an enabling section. The section does not mandate anything
upon the chief election officer of a State or a local election unit. It
does, however provide the procedure, so that if that election officer
wishes to validate the roll, he or she has the ability to do so. I
previously mentioned the soft money ban at both the Federal and the
State level.
The other area concerns a number of Members as well in terms of more
recent political activities. It deals with the issue of independent
expenditures. Once again, the United States Supreme Court has made it
clear that unless someone is advocating the election or defeat of a
particular candidate, that expenditure of funds in that category is
protected by the Constitution. That is, the person has a constitutional
right to spend the money.
We believe that the American people need to know fully who is
participating in the elections, notwithstanding the court's statement
that individual groups have a constitutional right to engage in
independent expenditures. What we propose is to designate a so-called
election season, that is the last 90 days of a campaign. We choose that
period as the election season because here in the House of
Representatives, no elected Member is allowed to use taxpayer dollars
to send out mass mailings during that period because it is a sensitive
period. It is, in essence, the election season. The bill then says
anyone who is advocating the election or defeat of a candidate or
mentions a candidate or political party, if they do so during the
political season, 90 days prior to an election, must report. They must
disclose.
That is the basic bill although we borrowed from a number of other
Members' particular provisions, and I am sure they will wish to address
those particular provisions.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to say to my colleagues that, first, I do not believe that
this is a process that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas)
himself would have chosen. I am not going to ask him to answer that
question but we have a situation on the floor where Members have been
denied an opportunity, I think, to even read the legislation, many
Members returning from a funeral, that we are about to vote on here
tonight. I think we have to start off with the fundamentals.
In China, at one point Mao Tse Tung announced the cultural
revolution. The cultural revolution was really about cultural
destruction. To call this bill before us campaign finance reform, it
should be more properly referred to as campaign finance reform
destruction.
It raises the amount of money individuals can give, hard dollars from
$25,000 a year to $75,000 a year. This is consistent with what many of
the Republicans believe. Speaker Gingrich himself said that more money
was a sign of a healthy debate. Well, the voters have not felt that
way. The voters in this country, as spending has gone up, voter
participation has shot down. So they are sending us a message.
But not just the substance of this legislation is bad. The process
before us is horrific. This is a process the Politburo under Joseph
Stalin would have been proud of. Think about what we are doing here
today.
We are taking up campaign finance reform after the Senate has
definitively shown they can filibuster the bill to death. Strike one.
We have made sure that no alternative from the opposition can be
heard here today. Strike two.
And just in case by some faint stretch of the imagination the
Republican bill might pass, we have come to the floor with a process
where we do not need 51 percent of the vote to win today. We have to
have two-thirds of the votes because they know they cannot get them. So
we are here.
Let us see what some of our friends are saying about this process not
to pass campaign finance reform, not to put in spending limits to try
to restrain the amount of money that is in campaigns. We are here as a
charade.
Members might say that this is simply my assessment of the situation.
Before I go to the New York Times, let me say the Democrats have a
record here that we can be proud of.
In 1971, the Democrats in the House and the Senate overrode a veto by
President Nixon, overrode that veto to begin the road on campaign
finance reform. In 1974, the most substantial bill ever to pass
Congress passed by a Democratic House and Senate in 1992. We passed
campaign finance reform through the House and Senate. I had the
privilege of leading that effort, vetoed by President Bush.
We finally elect a Democratic President. This Congress, under
Democratic leadership, passed campaign finance reform that was
comprehensive. Even the Senate was able to pass campaign finance
reform. But then in sheer horror, the Republicans understood that the
President would sign the bill. So they filibustered the bill from going
to conference. So we had no reform.
It is not just what I say and others are going to say about this
process that has demeaned this House. It is the assessment of almost
every major publication in the country.
A plot to bury reform, the New York Times; campaign finance charades,
the New York Times; the Washington Post, mocking campaign reform. And
it goes on. A cynical sham, a hoax on the American people, a complete
travesty, several of the worst campaign ideas rolled into one,
repugnant and partisan.
I ask the handful of Members on that side of the aisle, and there is
only a handful, I am sorry to say, to join with the Democrats in this
House to reject this charade, to give the American people a real debate
on real campaign finance reform that would limit spending, that would
limit the amount of money in campaigns. At the end of the day we might
not win, but at least we would have a straight-up discussion and an
honest vote. And what we are doing here today is not honest.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
[[Page H1734]]
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) one of the major forces in reshaping the
direction of campaign reform.
(Mr. HUTCHINSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam Speaker, I came to Congress with a desire to
reduce cynicism and to build confidence in our institutions of
government. That is why I have worked with a bipartisan group of
freshman Members to accomplish reform and to empower individuals in our
political process. Because of those beliefs and work, I rise in support
of this legislation sponsored by the chairman, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas). It is not a perfect bill but it is a good
bill. It bans soft money to our national parties, which has been the
greatest source of campaign abuse, and I compliment the chairman for
his willingness to make adjustments through this process to accomplish
substantial reform.
I am pleased to express my support of this bill, but I am deeply
disappointed that in the last moments the people's hope for reform was
crushed when majority rule became defeat by design.
While the bill is worthy of support, the process today will not
produce victory but reflects the dark side of this institution, and
both sides of the aisle have contributed to this darkness.
The last minute move to put a few bills on suspension sent a message
to the American people that we are afraid of reform, and that we will
undermine it at any price, even that highest price, the confidence of
the American people.
The public has become cynical in regard to the process of government.
Each election we lose more voters. Each year more voters say, what is
the point. I do not have enough money to compete with the corporations
and unions who really control our government.
When we act with such transparent tactics can we blame the public for
giving up hope? Do we really believe that we can go home and tell our
constituents that we had an honest debate in voting reform. I do not
think so. I came to the United States Congress to change the status
quo, not defend it. I will not go home and look my constituents in the
eye and tell them Congress made an honest effort to reform a deeply
flawed system despite the merits of this bill.
I have not been in Washington that long. In 1994, the Republican
Party took Congress by storm. There was enough fire in the belly of
those reformers to light up the city of Washington. I hope that we will
not let that fire die; that we will vote for this legislation but build
on this effort today, and accomplish reform and build confidence in
what we are doing in Congress.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Allen), who has done such a terrific job leading the
freshman class.
Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I feel like I am in wonderland. This is
supposedly a debate on campaign reform but the vote is rigged, the
process is rigged. And one way my colleagues can tell that is the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and I, who spent 6 months
working with freshmen on both sides of the aisle to develop a
bipartisan approach to this problem, are now on opposite sides.
This bill that is coming to the House today is not a bipartisan bill.
The fact is that there are ways to deal with this issue. We can deal
with it the way the freshmen did in a bipartisan way over a period of
months. We can deal with it the way the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) have dealt
with this bill, in a bipartisan way over a period of years. This is a
sham. It is a fraud.
We started our freshman process by agreeing that we have to take the
poison pills off the table and this bill has a poison pill. It has the
biggest of all. That is a worker gag rule, a rule that is aimed
unfairly at the men and women in this country who contribute a few
bucks a month. It promotes big money in politics. It continues big
money in politics. It is aimed directly at working Americans.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. Hill).
Mr. HILL. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time. I would like to invite my colleagues tonight to vote yes on this
measure, but I must confess that my vote will be a very reluctant yes.
I would far prefer today to be voting on the freshman bipartisan
Campaign Integrity Act or the Shays-Meehan bill.
Finding a bipartisan approach to campaign finance reform is not easy.
That is because of the abuse of soft money. This bill does work to end
the influence of soft money, the money coming from corporations and
labor unions, and they oppose these provisions because they benefit
from it. From 1992 to 1996, soft money going to our national parties
went from 35 million a year to 270 million. It is estimated now that it
will go to 500 million in the next cycle. It is overwhelming our
system. I am deeply concerned about the process that brought us here
today.
I am deeply concerned that the two bipartisan measures, the freshman
measure and Shays-Meehan, are not being voted on tonight. I will work
for the balance of this Congress to find an opportunity for a serious
vote on a bipartisan measure, either the freshman bill or the Shays-
Meehan bill, that will ban soft money.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr) who has led efforts in this and previous
Congresses on campaign finance reform.
Mr. FARR of California. Madam Speaker, we are here tonight to discuss
campaign finance reform. Where is everybody else? Half the Nation is
watching basketball games. Half the Congress is attending a funeral.
What kind of business are we in?
This House, your side, the House Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight spent $5 million, had 13 days of public hearings, 33
witnesses and you bring nothing to the floor that deals with that
issue. You try to say you are having campaign finance reform that
requires a two-third vote of this House? This is a mockery of
democracy. It is a violation of the spirit of Hershey. There is no
bipartisan effort here. There is no Democratic bill on the floor. There
is no substance to our debate.
We cannot have a debate in 20 minutes on an issue like this. There is
no amendment allowed. It increases the limits one can give to
campaigns. It triples and doubles the amount of money that can go to
campaigns, not caps them out.
The timing tonight, this is a mockery of democracy.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), one of the cosponsors of the
bill, someone who has been involved as long as anyone else in honest,
earnest campaign reform.
{time} 1900
Mr. HORN. Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague (Mr.
Thomas) from California. He has spent untold days, hours, and weeks to
create a bill with some sense and to bring key issues before the House.
There is no question there are stark and fundamental disagreements
between the two parties on the issue of campaign finance reform. There
is no question that a lot of us on both sides of the aisle have tried
to build a genuine bipartisan effort. If we are ever to achieve real
reform, it must be done on a fair, bipartisan basis.
But do not give up hope. The reality is the other body says they want
disclosure. We have given them disclosure, the last 90 days of the
campaign. We have a bipartisan support for a disclosure bill. One of
the ones I put in has as many Democrats as there are Republicans; and
the commission bill, there are many from both parties.
But the bill offered by my colleague from California is a truly
serious effort to meet the standard of progress. He starts in with
banning so-called soft money. Now, our friend on the other side of the
aisle knows well that the great abuse of the 1996 presidential campaign
was the misuse of soft money at the national and State party level. We
ban that.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) requires disclosure of all
campaign contributions and expenditures within 90 days of an election.
Those are special interest group expenditures. For the first time, we
will have progress in this area. The special interests will have to
meet the test that we
[[Page H1735]]
meet as candidates disclosing money in the last weeks of the election.
Mr. Thomas also requires members of unions and business corporations
to approve of electoral activity. The fact is, that is real progress.
So let is not hear all this rhetoric on the floor, the screaming, arm
waving, and shouting. Let us get down to cases.
Do my colleagues want to make progress? This is the bill that makes
progress.
We are banning soft money.
We are disclosing all special-interest money in the last 90 days of
the campaign.
We are requiring members of unions--and that hurts our friends on the
other side of the aisle--and business corporations, which hurts a few
on this side of the aisle. We have required membership approval if
those in a union or a business corporation use individual dues or funds
to engage in electoral activity. That is progress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Minority Leader and
future Speaker of the House.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Madam Speaker, since the opening days of this Congress,
Democrats have been fighting for a fair and open debate, an open debate
on all of the campaign finance bills that have been presented in this
Congress. In the last election, the money in politics hit an all-time
high of $4 billion, while voter turnout fell 50 percent, a record low
for a presidential election.
Average Americans feel that their voice is not being heard and does
not count anymore, that they are being drowned out by the wealthy
special interests. Democrats believe and know that we need campaign
reform to regain the trust of America's families and restore integrity
to the electoral process. But every time Democrats have called for a
vote on reform, Republicans have refused to take action.
It took the specter, literally the specter, of a discharge petition
to spook the Republican leadership into finally scheduling what they
called a vote tonight on reform. But the bill Republicans have come up
with is anything but reform. The Republican bill would be a bonanza for
wealthy special interests and a nightmare for average citizens. The
Republican bill would allow wealthy citizens to have even greater
influence in the political process by tripling the amount that people
could give.
At the same time, it effectively silences the voice of working
families by imposing a worker gag rule on union members and others and
blocking access to the ballot for Hispanic citizens.
Common Cause has called the Republican bill a cynical sham laced with
poison pill amendments. The nonpartisan League of Women Voters called
it a complete travesty, a big step in the wrong direction. Public
Citizens said, it is the exact opposite of reform. But that, frankly,
is only half of the outrage we are witnessing tonight.
Not only have the Republicans put a phoney bill on the floor but they
have done it in a way that prevents Democrats and reform-minded
Republicans from offering any, any, alternatives for what they wrongly
call reform. Instead, we are racing through this debate on these phoney
reform bills which, thanks to this trumped-up procedure, will not pass
unless they get a supermajority vote.
Imagine, they are saying tonight we cannot have reform, the one thing
that people said they wanted in the last election, unless we get a two-
thirds vote of the House of Representatives. It is a travesty to put
that kind of test on reform. We know the Republican leadership is
scared to death of what would happen if the House ever got to vote in a
real way on real reform, like the bipartisan McCain-Feingold II,
sponsored by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) on our side
and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) on the Republican side
that we wanted voted on tonight.
Finally, we will not give up. Democrats will continue to fight every
day for real reform. One of the ways we have kept up the fight is the
discharge petition; and just last Friday, our newest Member, newest
Democratic Member, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), signed
the discharge, which will provide for a full and fair debate on these
issues. The American people deserve nothing less.
Tonight is a travesty to the American people; and Democrats will
continue to fight with like-minded Republicans to have, finally, real
reform on the floor with votes on all the plans which the American
people deserve tonight. We are going to get that vote before this
Congress ends.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas)
has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Gejdenson) has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Eshoo), who has done such a great job at all our
meetings on campaign finance reform.
Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3485,
the so-called Campaign Reform and Election Integrity Act. It is not
reform, and it bears no integrity relative to elections. It is a grave-
side ceremony to bury reform by the Speaker.
We should be having a real debate on real reform, the Shays-Meehan
bill. It bans the unregulated, unlimited donations to political parties
known as soft money; it establishes exacting disclosure requirements;
and it limits the fund-raising of independent groups who run those
infamous TV attack ads.
Listen up, America. If you think there is too much money in the
system now, the Republican bill will make you fasten your seatbelts.
Because the Speaker's bill increases the amount that individuals can
give in a yearly cycle up to $75,000 a year. The Speaker has placed a
two-thirds approval requirement on the bill so it simply will not pass.
This is a charade meant only to cynically produce the sentence to be
uttered, ``the House considered campaign finance reform.''
I urge my colleagues to get rid of this bill. The New York Times, the
Washington Post, Public Citizens, Common Cause, League of Women Voters,
and many of us oppose it. Vote against it.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, a great many Americans think that asking
Members of Congress, Republican or Democrat, to reform campaign finance
reform is asking the fox to watch the chicken coop. And I agree that,
until there is sufficient public outcry and understanding to fully
change the inequities and loopholes in our campaign law, politicians,
presidents, and the biased media will continue to use this issue as a
political football.
Having said that, I do believe that H.R. 3485 makes important
improvements in the way we manage our campaigns. I congratulate the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for his very hard work and this
good legislative product. This bill ends the abusive practice of using
union, association and corporate mandatory dues for political
campaigns. It provides a ban on raising or spending soft money on
national political parties and candidates and a ban on disbursements of
soft money by foreign nationals, and it makes clear that only American
citizens should be able to make political contributions. I am also
pleased that this increases accountability and disclosure by expediting
and expanding FEC reporting requirements.
Although I strongly support H.R. 3485, I wish to include a
significant component of my own campaign finance reform bill requiring
that a high percentage of all contributions come from the geographical
area a candidate seeks to represent. After all, it only makes sense
that the majority of our contributions should come from the folks we
represent.
But, as I said, H.R. 3485 is a good bill. It is incremental, the
changes are incremental, but they are better than no change at all. No
one should be encouraged into thinking that this is the final or total
solution to the problems facing
[[Page H1736]]
the current campaign system. They are very great problems.
Nevertheless, this is a very good beginning; and I urge strong support.
For those of my colleagues who do not get all of the pieces in this
that they wanted, such as getting the taxpayers to pay for campaigns or
having other limitations, please use the same spirit I did of
compromise on this. I did not get everything I wanted either. But it is
an awfully good start. And the alternative is going to the American
people and saying, we did nothing on campaign reform. Who wants to be
among those who voted ``no'' on campaign reform?
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), who has led on this issue persistently
since his first days in the House.
Request to Suspend Rules and Pass H.R. 3526, Bipartisan Campaign Reform
Act of 1998
Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to suspend the
rules and ask for consideration of H.R. 3526, the bipartisan campaign
finance reform bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not recognize the gentleman
for that purpose. The gentleman cannot be recognized for that purpose.
The gentleman may speak to the issues in his bill but not ask for it to
be considered.
Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, but I cannot ask for unanimous consent to
suspend the rules and ask for consideration of the bill?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is already one motion to suspend the
rules pending.
Mr. MEEHAN. So this amendment cannot be amended to include it?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This motion is not amendable. The gentleman
may speak to the issues in his bill in general.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. GEJDENSON. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Speaker, I hope that time will not be taken from
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This parliamentary inquiry will not.
Mr. GEJDENSON. So I will ask the Speaker the question, then.
So a Member of Congress is not capable or able to ask the Chair
whether or not he could, by unanimous consent, not by any parliamentary
motion, by unanimous consent, change the procedures we are operating
under? I believe that the gentleman has a right to ask for unanimous
consent at any time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not recognize the gentleman
to make that unanimous consent request.
Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, that is exactly the point. I have worked
with Republican and Democratic Members over the last 5 years working to
find a way to find bipartisan campaign finance reform, to level the
playing field and treat both Democrats and Republicans fairly. I have
worked with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentlewoman
from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach),
the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge), the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr)
and a number of other Members; and, finally, the day is here.
We had a bill that passed the United States Senate. It got 53 votes
in the other body. That is the bill that we wanted to vote on today.
But what did the Republican leadership do? Made a mockery of this
debate, a sham of this debate by going through a suspension of the
rules where a two-thirds vote is required and calling it campaign
finance reform.
Shame on them. This is not the way to have campaign finance reform.
There are Members who worked too hard, too long trying to pass a
campaign finance reform bill that is fair to both political parties,
that ends the corrupt system of raising more and more money through
soft money contributions. All anyone has to do is look at the
contributions of big tobacco in 1997 and how much money they are
spending in attempting to try to influence the process as we try to
make a decision on tobacco.
This debate is, without question, one of the lowest moments for this
House of Representatives. Every conceivable public interest group in
America that has been fighting for campaign finance reform has asked
for a debate.
{time} 1915
Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, every public interest group that has been
fighting for reform over the last decade have worked with a bipartisan
group to put real reform before the table.
Members of the press, New York Times, the Washington Post, every
credible editorial in America have called on this body to have a vote
on real bipartisan campaign finance reform. And what do we have? We
have a motion to suspend the rules that requires a two-thirds vote.
Members of the majority party may think that they are fooling the
American public, but I have to tell them, the public gets it. They
understand what is at work here, and they are just as disgusted at this
process as the Democrats are.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), a member who has been
involved for years both at the State and Federal level in campaign
reform, a cosponsor of H.R. 3581.
Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me
start by saying I agree with virtually everybody who spoke tonight,
that this process is not what we would have wanted, those of us who are
trying to reform campaign finance.
Let me just also say that both parties have had problems. I am not
saying whether it is equal or not. Who knows what the circumstances are
with respect to campaign finance. I think the whole country knows that.
I also am a supporter of Shays-Meehan. I like the freshman bill. I
think there is a lot of good things that have happened over in the
Senate as well. Unfortunately, we are not going to be able to get to
all of those.
This is what we have before us, and we have to make a decision
tonight on whether or not we are going to vote for this, because this
may be the only vote we are going to get. So I did something unusual. I
read the bill, and I decided to make up a list of reasons as to why we
should support it. And after David Letterman, I did this. This is the
top 10 reasons to support it.
Let me start with Number 10. This bill removes soft money from the
Federal election process. That is extraordinarily important. We have
already heard about all the soft money problems. It removes it from the
Federal election process.
Number 9, the bill contains the core elements of campaign finance
reform that Republican and Democratic reformers have agreed upon.
Number 8, it keeps foreign money outside of the United States
elections.
Number 7, it helps States maintain accurate voter registration rolls.
Number 6, it adjusts hard money contributions for inflation.
Number 5, it strengthens FEC reporting requirements.
Number 4, it levels the playing field for candidates running against
millionaires.
Number 3, it ensures voluntary contributions for members of
corporations and unions.
And Number 2, it strengthens disclosure requirements for interest
groups to prevent them from anonymously financing expensive advertising
campaigns.
And Number 1, first, a bill that offends Republicans, Democrats, and
interest groups alike is worth considering. This bill will cause
everyone in the election process some pain, but it is the first step to
achieve real campaign finance reform.
Madam Speaker, that is what it truly is all about. Most of the public
believes that we will never be able to do this. The bottom line is, if
we are going to be able to do it, we are going to have to take on our
own political parties, all the outside interest groups, and we are
going to have to make it tell.
The way to do that tonight is to cast a ``yes'' vote on this, start
the process, get it over to the Senate, debate this in every way we
possibly can; hopefully
[[Page H1737]]
finish the process so that we, indeed, can be proud at some point with
the fact that we have campaign finance reform.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the courageous
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, there are people of good faith, both
Democrats and Republicans, who have some good idea about how to clean
up the corrupting influence of big money in our campaign system. But
every one of our Republican friends will have to admit that the only
reason that those ideas are not being considered tonight is because the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Armey) do not want them considered. They know if we had a full and
fair debate, as some of us have been demanding since January of 1995,
that we would approve real reform and respond to the needs of the
American people.
So this year, the Republican leadership, unlike 1996 when they were
satisfied with a mere knife in the back of campaign finance, this year
they prefer an axe murder. They have chopped this bill up. They want
the blood to splatter across this Chamber and let everyone share a
little bit of the blame.
The blame is clearly placed in one and only one place: Those who have
chosen to deny a fair debate on Republican and Democratic proposals
alike. They are the people who said they came here as revolutionaries.
But when it comes to campaign finance, there they are only revolting.
Some of us say they delayed too long on this, but I think we were
wrong. They should have brought this bill up a day later, on April
Fool's Day.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, we have one remaining speaker, and I
believe it is our right to close.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman is correct.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Miller), a senior Member of Congress who has fought for
campaign finance reform for many years.
Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, this weekend, Speaker
Gingrich went home to his district, and he was giving a speech in his
district, and he talked about how, under our system, the power rests
with the people, and we as elected officials can only borrow that
power, because, eventually, we have to do what the people want.
With this rule tonight or with this suspension vote tonight, Speaker
Gingrich has ripped the power away from the people who are represented
by the freshman coalition. Millions of Americans who are represented by
the freshman bipartisan coalition who had a campaign finance bill they
wanted to present, debate, and vote on, they cannot do it under this
measure.
With this procedure, Speaker Gingrich and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Armey) have ripped the power out of the hands of hundreds of
millions of Americans who are represented by a majority of this House
who want to vote on Shays-Meehan. Those people do not get to exercise
their power because their elected officials are silenced by the
suspension process.
As we just heard, there are no amendments in order. There is no way
to spread, to broaden the debate. There is no way to bring up those
provisions that are supported by people throughout the country. Why?
Because Republicans found out last week, if they let it happen, it
would pass. So they had to go back to trickery. They had to go to the
suspension of the rules. They had to protect their Members and protect
themselves from amendments, from democracy, from free and open debate.
That is why we are here tonight. We are here because the Republicans,
for the last 15 months, could not stand to trust the people and their
elected representatives. So tonight they decided to suspend the rules
and give us 20 minutes to debate these measures that are so complicated
and so important to the continuation of our democratic institutions,
democratic institutions that are being corroded, that are being
corrupted by the huge amount of money, tonight the Republicans think
the answer is to let wealthy people give more money to campaigns rather
than to give the American people a voice in the reform of this system.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member
very much for this time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition. This is campaign finance sham.
It increases the amount of money the wealthy can give to candidates.
Madam Speaker, I rise this evening in strong opposition to H.R. 3581,
the so-called ``Campaign Finance Act of 1998.'' I am here today to
express my commitment to reform of our current campaign finance system
and to urge my colleagues to support meaningful and comprehensive
campaign finance reform. H.R. 3581, however, is neither. Instead, this
bill is a sham--it is the antithesis of genuine campaign finance
reform.
Genuine campaign finance reform would empower America's working
families--our average citizens--and decrease the disproportionate
influence that wealthy special interests now command in our political
system. H.R. 3485 acts in exactly the opposite manner to further
amplify the already loud political voice of the wealthy. If adopted,
this legislation would: inject as much as 3 times more money into
federal campaigns and elections than current law permits; impose
onerous requirements on groups that have a legitimate right to engage
in political activities on behalf of their dues-paying members; and
single-out for scrutiny citizens who have a right to vote in this
nation's elections.
Let's begin with a discussion of the so-called ``Paycheck
Protection'' provision--more accurately named the ``Worker Gag Rule.''
This provision will prohibit unions from making political expenditures
without prior written consent from their members. Proponents of this
legislation have dishonestly agreed that it is intended to protect the
rights of union members. In reality, it is intended to effectively
silence the ability of America's working families to have a voice in
the political process by singling out American workers for burdensome
restrictions on their right to have their voices heard here in
Washington. Although cleverly disguised as campaign finance reform,
this legislation is clearly a coordinated effort to silence workers and
their families and remove them from the political playing field.
H.R. 3485 also sets up a ``pilot'' program to verify the citizenship
of voters in the five states that contain the majority of our nation's
Hispanic and minority voters. Does that sound familiar? It should. This
provision is very similar to H.R. 1428, the Voter Eligibility
Verification Act, legislation that was overwhelmingly defeated by the
House just this past February. This provision will allow local election
officials to submit voter's names to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service and the Social Security Administration for citizenship
verification. However, according to testimony from both the INS and
SSA, this is utterly unworkable because neither agency can confirm the
citizenship of a majority of Americans. Like the bill, that preceded
it, this provision purports to eliminate voter fraud by requiring proof
of citizenship for registered voters and applicants for voter
registration. In fact, it is nothing more than a thinly veiled tool for
suppressing the minority vote.
Finally, H.R. 3485 doubles the contributions for individuals to $2000
and triples the amount that wealthy special interests can give to
political parties to $60,000. This will quite obviously result in more
money in politics and greater influence by wealthy special interests.
I am honored to have been chosen by the people of the 18th
Congressional District of Houston to serve as their representative in
this Congress. And I never lose sight of the fact that this body in
which I serve is a body of the people. It is the People's house. It
belongs to the people of the 18th Congressional District and to all the
citizens of this nation. As the People's Congress, the doors of this
Congress must be open to all the People. It must be accessible to every
man and woman, not just the powerful and wealthy.
It is clear that the American people are disgusted with our current
campaign finance system. They believe it to be inaccessible and
corrupt. During the 1996 election cycle, an unprecedented amount of
money was spent, further heightening public cynicism of how our
democracy works.
The American people have voiced their concern and it is our duty to
answer those concerns. The American people are calling out to all of us
in Congress to restore their confidence in Congress's ability to act
for the good of the nation. I believe that we can enact campaign
finance reform. We can work together to find a balance between
protecting the first amendment rights of individuals and fostering a
positive role in reducing the influence of special interests. H.R.
3581, however, is not the right answer and I urge my colleagues to
signal their disgust with the partisanship gamesmanship that this
legislation represents with a ``no'' vote.
[[Page H1738]]
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the eloquent
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) to close on our side.
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, this is a 52-page bill. We got it at 4
o'clock this afternoon. Debate started shortly after 6:00. This is a
sham.
Now, I could hopefully try to follow the introduction of my friend,
the gentleman from Connecticut, of being eloquent, but let me read from
the New York Times.
I tell my friend, the gentleman from Delaware, the bills that the
gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Gingrich) are sponsoring are either
anemic, irrelevant, or tied to an antiunion provision repugnant to most
Democrats. With a two-thirds approval requirement, they cannot pass.
Of course, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) does not care if
his own fraudulent legislation wins or loses. All he seeks is the
chance to say the House considered campaign finance reform and was
unable to pass a bill.
They end their editorial with this, ``It is a cynical maneuver that
will come back to haunt Mr. Gingrich and any House Member who supports
it.'' I tell my friend, the gentleman from Delaware, for whom I have
great respect, he intones that this is the last opportunity.
Why, my friend, is this the last opportunity? Why would the power of
the majority that has been exercised so effectively to push through
what it wants, why I ask my friend, the gentleman from Delaware, can
the Speaker of the House not say to the American public I am going to
allow a bill on this floor to be fully debated, to be amended, and to
be discussed in the presence of the American public, perhaps I might
even suggest for 2 hours. A significant, most significant issue such as
this surely deserves at least that much time.
But, no, my colleagues, this bill has been brought to the floor, as
the New York times said, as a cynical maneuver to claim that they are
doing something to reform campaign finance when they most assuredly
know it will inevitably fail.
My friends, campaign finance reform is a critically important issue.
We have twiddled our thumbs for the first 3 months of this session,
largely at home, not here doing the people's business. But in the last
minute, this legislation is brought to us. Let us reject it and demand
that real reform be brought to this floor for full and honest debate.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Madam Speaker, apparently moral outrage is alive and well on the
floor. The argument is that reform is owned by only one group. It
really is not owned by anyone.
It has been said that only one side plays politics. The other side,
as I said, claims the moral high ground. But what is the moral high
ground in campaign reform? Quite frankly, if we examine Shays-Meehan,
McCain-Feingold, earlier versions, we really come to the conclusion
that it is for sure a title that will remain, but the contents will
change.
It is kind of interesting that the moral outrage today is that we
have to ban soft money. When McCain-Feingold started, it was to ban
political action committees. But nowhere in the current bill do they
find banning political action committees. Does that mean that they were
wrong earlier, and they are right now? Or were they right earlier and
they are wrong now?
It seems to me that, if we will examine those earlier bills, we will
find that they banned leadership PACs. Members will find no provision
in the current bill banning leadership PACs. At one time, they banned
leadership PACs. Was it wrong earlier to ban leadership PACs and right
now to exclude them?
So I think, when we are talking about looking for the moral high
ground, one of the things we ought to do is what the gentleman from
Delaware did, and that is read the bills. Because I think,
notwithstanding the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle, Members
will be surprised, indeed some Members might be shocked, to find out
what H.R. 3581 holds and what Shays-Meehan does not hold.
I mentioned earlier, at the beginning of the debate, millionaire
candidates. Although the court has said, constitutionally, that
candidates are allowed to spend their money, we are trying to create a
level playing field. Guess what? When we read Shays-Meehan, they
exclude the primary. When we read H.R. 3581, the primary is included.
On their moral high ground bill, millionaires can still buy primaries.
In our bill, they cannot.
They say the bane of this system is soft money. What would we do to a
Presidential candidate who promised to take only public financing but
went ahead and raised soft money? What H.R. 3581 does is ban the
ability of candidates taking public money if they take soft money. What
does Shays-Meehan do? It is silent.
Let us go to the heart of banning money both at the Federal and the
State level. Guess what? H.R. 3581 is a hard ban on soft money both at
the Federal and the State level. If Members actually read Shays-Meehan,
they will find that, in fact, there are a number of loopholes on soft
money at the State level. It is not a hard ban on soft money. We can
use it for a number of overhead costs. We can use it for staff if it is
less than the majority of the time.
Of course one of the glaring neglects in Shays-Meehan is the whole
question of voter fraud that has gained the headlines all across the
country, it contains not one provision to guarantee that only people
who are supposed to vote can actually participate in the election.
{time} 1930
Let me indicate another area where, if my colleagues are honestly for
reform, they might be somewhat shocked. Today one of the dirtiest
campaign tricks is what we call push polling. It is where they poll but
then they say, ``If candidate X had done 1, 2 or 3, what would you
think about that candidate?" Guess what? We require disclosure if it is
not in the public domain. What does Shays-Meehan do? Absolutely
nothing, no addressing of push polling.
And then of course when we take a look at the way in which the
Federal Election Commission requires us to report, we can put down
$10,000 to campaign committee X, and we do not have to itemize. Shays-
Meehan allows this block registration of money; it is wrong. We require
that campaigns break down to secondary givers.
It is amazing that when we look at real reform, we find far more
specific real reforms in H.R. 3581 than we do in the bill that will be
changed tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, just as it was changed
yesterday and the day before yesterday, but they retain moral outrage.
I would ask for an ``aye'' vote on 3581.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3485.
Although this legislation addresses some important reform components,
it is flawed in many ways. The biggest travesty, however, is the
process by which this legislation is being considered. There is no
opportunity to debate or vote on real campaign finance reform. The
American people deserve better than what we are offering today.
Regrettably, we are considering four pieces of legislation to change
our campaign financing system under the suspension calendar, a process
that is reserved for non-controversial legislation, precluding an
honest debate over one of the most complicated, pressing national
issues before us. I am deeply troubled that this process does not allow
any Member to offer amendments to this legislation, and we do not even
have the opportunity to consider H.R. 3526, Congressmen Shays and
Meehan's companion bill to McCain-Feingold.
Through my service on the Government Reform and Oversight Committee,
it has become obvious that we need real reform. Clearly, the Federal
Election Campaign Act prohibits contributions by foreign nationals in
connection with any election. But, it has become increasingly difficult
to distinguish which campaign practices are legal and which are not--
and most important, which campaign practices should be illegal.
Soft money began to fill campaign coffers following the Federal
Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1979, which allowed a greater role
for state and local parties by exempting certain grassroots and generic
party-building activities from FECA coverage. Although they are legal,
soft money contributions have led to questionable fundraising practices
and to the escalating costs of elections. Shays-Meehan truly closes the
soft money loophole. It is not clear that the soft-money ban in H.R.
3485 would prevent unlimited and unregulated soft money to be laundered
through state parties to influance federal elections.
Title I of H.R. 3485 would unduly burden unions and the nonprofit
community. H.R.
[[Page H1739]]
3485 requires unions to get ``prior, written, separate permission'' to
use dues for political activities. This goes beyond the Beck decision,
which applies only to mandatory union dues-paying, non-members. It also
requires corporations to annually notify shareholders of its intended
political spending, and the shareholder's pro rata share of such
spending. However, the burden of proof is inconsistent. Union members'
consent is not presumed and unions must affirmatively obtain members'
consent. For corporations, shareholders' consent is presumed unless
they affirmatively object. Furthermore, the definition of political
activity goes far beyond electioneering and would hinder the ability of
unions and nonprofits to communicate directly with federal agencies and
the Congress to discuss public policy issues.
H.R. 3485 also contains provisions that would allow states to
disciminate against voters. Mr. Speaker, all Americans are concerned
with maintaining and improving the integrity of our nation's elections.
We know that, in some recent cases, illegal immigrants and others not
legally qualified to vote have registered and cast ballots. A number of
bills have been introduced in this Congress to deal with this problem.
Another bill to be considered under suspension, H.R. 1428, while
attempting to restore electoral integrity, actually threatens to return
us to a darker era in our nation's history, when people's voting rights
were frequently challenger or harrassed and their rights to cast
ballots shall.
H.R. 1428 would allow local officials to check the eligiblility of
registered voters by submitting names from the voting rolls to the
Immigration and Nationalization Service or the Social Security
Administration. But how will the names be chosen? Will the Smiths, the
Johnsons, and the Andersons be scrutinized, or will the effort of local
officals be more focused on the Singhs, the Martinezes, and the
Nguyens? Unfortunately, the historical record would indicate the
latter.
In addition, the bill presumes that the INS and the SSA will have
their records available and updated for use by local officials, which
we know is not likely to be the case. And should local election
officials not be able to confirm citizenship, they can drop voters from
the rolls without having proven that they are not qualified to vote.
Mr. Speaker, rightly or wrongly, Hispanic-Americans and other
immigrants to our country feel a growing bias against them. U.S.
citizens living in my district who were born in Latin America have
expressed their growing frustration and fear with harassing INS raids
which treat all immigrants as suspects; they are being denied the
presumption of innocence. A Salvadoran-American woman living in my
district, who have been a resident and a citizen for more than 20
years, never leaves her house without her U.S. passport, for fear that
she may be harassed or detained by immigration or other law enforcement
authorities.
H.R. 1428 threatens to intensify the growing feeling of alienation
among immigrants U.S. citizens, without assuring that it can easily,
reasonably, or fairly accomplish its objective of ballot integrity. For
these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 1428
Mr. Speaker, it's not too late to bring real reforms to the floor.
After the defeat of today's measures under suspension, let's work to
bring about an honest debate and real campaign reform--what the
American people deserve.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The time of the gentleman
from California (Mr. Thomas) has expired.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) that the House suspend the rules and pass the
bill, H.R. 3581.
The question was taken.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________