[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.

                          ____________________