Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 38 (Monday, March 30, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 38 (Monday, March 30, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1739-H1748]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ILLEGAL FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS ACT OF 1998

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 34) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to
prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the United States from
making contributions or expenditures in connection with an election for
Federal office, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 34

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Illegal Foreign
Contributions Act of 1998''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING NON-CITIZEN INDIVIDUALS FROM MAKING
CONTRIBUTIONS OR EXPENDITURES IN CONNECTION
WITH FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

(a) Prohibition Applicable to All Non-Citizens.--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) Prohibition Applicable to Expenditures.--
(1) In general.--Section 319(a) of such Act (2 U.S.C.
441e(a)) is amended by inserting ``or expenditure'' after
``contribution'' each place it appears.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 319 of such Act (2
U.S.C. 441e) is amended in the heading by inserting ``and
expenditures'' after ``contributions''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to
contributions or expenditures made on or after the date of
the enactment of this Act.

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, this is a bill by our colleague from Nebraska (Mr.
Bereuter). It was introduced on January 7, 1997, and in yielding myself
such time as I may consume, let me read what the bill does in sum and
substance:
It is to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit
individuals who are not citizens of the United States from making
contributions or expenditures in connection with an election for
Federal office.
Rarely have we had a bill in front of us that is so plain, simple to
understand, and so necessary.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I would just like to say, having taken this
opportunity to yield myself as much time as I may consume, the
gentleman from California, who I believe in my heart would have not
moved forward with a process like this that denied Members a real
opportunity to debate and discuss these issues, his point argues for an
end to this insane process. Yes, amendments are needed; yes, changes
are needed, and Members ought not be able to be restricted in the
manner they are as we deal with this legislation on the floor.
It is his party that chose to set up a process that sets a standard
that we need two-thirds to move forward. They waited until after the
Senate had already filibustered campaign finance reform to death. Our
party has a record of moving forward on campaign finance reform, and
today the Republican Party again paints itself with a brush against
reform.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs.
Mink).
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 34,
cynically misnamed the Illegal Foreign Contributions Act. The title of
this bill is there to lure Members into thinking that it deals with
illegal foreign contributions. That is simply not the case.
What this bill does is to prohibit legal residents who are living
here in the United States legally, working, paying their taxes,
fighting in the military, giving up their lives, denying them the right
to participate in the political process in this country. That is
absolutely unconstitutional; it is a denial of the First Amendment
rights of free speech. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said political
voice can be done in many ways, and contributions of money constitutes
free speech.
Madam Speaker, therefore I concur with the 100 law professors who
have submitted a letter to all the Members of this body decrying this
bill, denouncing it as unconstitutional, and certainly if this Congress
should pass it and it should become law, it will be contested and it
will be found unconstitutional.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) who also had legislation dealing with this
area as well.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding

[[Page H1740]]

this time to me. I rise today in strong support of the Illegal Foreign
Contributions Act of 1998. As everyone knows, during the 1996 election
cycle the Democratic National Committee was forced to return over $2.8
million in illegal or improper donations. I join the American people in
shock to realize the frustration over the ability of foreign nationals
to wield such power, such influence over our election process without
casting a single vote.
That is why I introduced H.R. 767, called the Common Sense Campaign
Finance Reform Act. This bill provided a common sense three-step
approach to address the problems inherent in the current system. One
step would prohibit individuals who are not eligible to vote from
contributing to candidates for Federal office or political parties.
I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter),
for incorporating into his bill the spirit of H.R. 767 and, of course,
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for his work. Banning
contributions from non-U.S. citizens reinforces the important message
that American citizens and only American citizens elect their
representatives in government, not foreigners.
Madam Speaker, foreign influence on our elections has eroded the
American people's confidence in our democratic process and left far too
many voters feeling demoralized and disenfranchised. While this bill is
no sweeping reform effort, it does address one of the system's most
glaring problems, the influx of foreign money in our political process.
I urge my colleagues to support this vital piece of legislation.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I would like to know if the gentleman's
measure, where he says noncitizens, does that include foreign-
controlled corporations?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Knollenberg) has expired.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on this bill,
since this is the subject I have been working on for over a decade and
have tried to get a bill on this floor. I am very curious that the
gentleman merely, as I read the bill which we only got a few minutes
ago, essentially says noncitizens. Does this include foreign-controlled
corporations and foreign-controlled trade associations as well as
noncitizens, those who are not citizens of this country?
I think the gentleman's bill is seriously lacking in covering where
most of the money comes from, which is from legally incorporated
foreign corporations which are back-dooring money into our elections. I
do not believe the gentleman's bill covers that.
Am I correct?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield for a
moment?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, this bill, and by the way my
colleague may have just seen it, but it has been there for a year. It
was a part of a larger bill that I introduced. But let me just say that
I am talking about the individual that writes a check must be a
citizen. It is that simple.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I would like to reclaim my time and say
that I have been working on this for 10 years, and I know the
difference between foreign corporate money and money that should not be
coming in here from noncitizens in the first place, and this bill is an
absolute sham. I cannot believe it, after all the efforts that we have
made and all the agreements.
I am glad there is a Ross Perot, and I hope that that particular
party runs candidates across this country because this bill is a sham.
It does not close a loophole that the American people have known, they
have known this has existed for years. This is a sham.
This entire debate, cynically orchestrated by Newt Gingrich, is a
sham--why? Because just a few days ago, the Republican Campaign
Committee leader in the Senate [the other body] called him Mr. Money
Bags from Kentucky, killed campaign reform for this year. Even if this
chamber passed the finest reform in the country, nothing is going to
happen. It takes both chambers to tango.
This House bill is particularly cynical because the suspension
procedure under which we are considering it is a gag rule. No
amendments are allowed; it allows only 20 minutes debate on each side
in this serious debate. What a travesty! And then to gain passage, it
requires \2/3\ of the Members to achieve passage, not a majority.
These bills have no spending limits; in fact, these bills allow
wealthy individuals to triple the amount of money they can contribute.
Yet, they cut off the legs of ordinary working men and women by
demeaning their participation in our political life by requiring them
to get written permission. What an insult.
I urge the American people to call their Members of the House to urge
them to sign on the discharge petition on the Shays-Meehan bill to get
a real reform debate on the Floor of this House.
And I wish to enter into the Record the editorial in the New York
Times today that strikes the heart of the deceitful process underway
here tonight--``The Plot to Bury Reform.''

The Plot to Bury Reform

Newt Gingrich has selected today as the moment to line up
his firing squad and kill campaign finance reform in Congress
this year. Yet the House Speaker may be surprised.
Republicans and Democrats who favor reform are so outraged
over Mr. Gingrich's broken promises and heavy-handed tactics
that they could seize the moment and force him to back down.
Whether the reformers succeed depends on their ability to
hold together and find ways to get genuine reform to the
floor, where a majority of members appear ready to vote for
it.
Just how desperate Mr. Gingrich is to thwart reform is
clear from the parliamentary tactics he is preparing to use.
Last week, the Speaker broke his promise to debate the issue
of a campaign cleanup and pulled all relevant legislation
from the House agenda. In doing so, he virtually acknowledged
that he and his wrecking crew lacked enough support from
fellow Republicans to prevent passage of genuine reform. Then
the Republican leadership abruptly announced it would bring
four watered down reform bills up today, but under rules
preventing amendments or substitutions and requiring a two-
thirds vote for approval of anything. Clearly, the Speaker's
goal is to insure that nothing gets passed, and hope someone
else can be blamed.
Republicans are ready to defy the Speaker by joining with
most Democrats to vote for legislation sponsored by
Representatives Christopher Shays of Connecticut and Marty
Meehan of Massachusetts. The Shays-Meehan bill would ban the
unregulated and unlimited donations to political parties that
are known as ``soft money'' and were at the heart of the
recent scandals. It would also establish exacting disclosure
requirements and apply fund-raising limits to independent
groups running attack ads on television.
The bills that Mr. Gingrich is sponsoring are either
anemic, irrelevant or tied to an anti-union provision
repugnant to most Democrats. With a two-thirds approval
requirement, they cannot pass. Of course Mr. Gingrich does
not care if his own fraudulent legislations wins or loses.
All he seeks is the chance to say the House considered
campaign finance reform and was unable to pass a bill. It is
a cynical maneuver that will come back to haunt Mr. Gingrich
and any House member who supports it.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I am actually having a little difficulty understanding
the last exchange, since under Federal law all corporate money, whether
it is foreign or domestic, is not allowed to be in campaigns.
This bill deals with individual contributions which are legal under
the Federal Election Act, and the gentleman from Nebraska wishes to say
that there is an additional criteria on individuals to contribute, and
that is that they must be citizens.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Now I want to say to the gentleman I have testified
before his committee. We have defined foreign interests. Those include
not only foreign citizens but foreign-controlled corporations and trade
associations through which the majority of these dollars flow.
When the gentleman defines noncitizens, does that include foreign-
controlled corporations and foreign-controlled trade associations?
Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I tell the gentlewoman that I still do not
fully appreciate or understand her question, since it is the individual
in that structure and not the association or the corporation that makes
the contribution. Corporate contributions are illegal whether the
corporation is a domestic corporation or a foreign corporation.

[[Page H1741]]

Ms. KAPTUR. So the gentleman would define foreign interests or
foreign citizens as including foreign corporations in which over half
the stock is owned by foreign interests, as well as foreign trade
associations in which over half of the money comes from foreign
individuals or foreign interests, so this bill does cover that?
Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I tell the gentlewoman that in a bill she
has an opportunity to vote on, H.R. 3581, we ban all soft money. So if
the gentlewoman is talking about soft money in the system----
Ms. KAPTUR. How about hard money that comes through foreign
corporation and foreign trade associations?
Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I will tell the gentlewoman one more time,
and I do not know how to explain it to her any other way but to say
that there is no corporate money that is legally allowed under the so-
called hard money definition. It is not allowed, either domestic or
foreign.
When individuals contribute today under the Federal Election Act,
individuals who are not citizens can contribute, as we saw paraded over
and over again in terms of the individuals that participated in the
presidential election in 1996, some of whom have now come forward and
admitted guilt in carrying on the raising of illegal contributions.
Those are individuals; those are not corporations.
Could I ask the gentlewoman a question to respond to her?
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is not answering my
question. More than foreign individuals contribute, and they do so
illegally. That is the very point.
Mr. THOMAS. And the law says it is illegal.
Ms. KAPTUR. That is correct.
Mr. THOMAS. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I tell the gentlewoman
that if she is interested and if her point is that we ought to enforce
the laws that are on the books, then I wholeheartedly agree with her,
we should enforce the laws that are on the books. We just think that
one more ought to be added, and that is the one before us.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, it is an outrage that wealthy individuals
can contribute huge sums of money to both political parties and that
so-called independent expenditures, under which there are no
regulations, can attack candidates all over this country in ugly 30
second ads.
Madam Speaker, this bill would close the door even further on working
people's participation in the electoral process by making it harder for
union members to participate. Apparently our Republican friends are not
content that during the 1995-1996 election cycle corporations, groups
and individuals representing business interests outspent organized
labor 12 to 1.

{time} 1945

Twelve to one, and apparently that gap is not wide enough. Our
Republican friends wanted to make it even wider.
The legislation before us would increase, not decrease, the influence
of wealthy contributors, by tripling the amount of money individuals
can donate to Federal candidates and political parties.
Madam Speaker, currently the wealthiest one-quarter of 1 percent of
Americans contribute 80 percent of all political contributions. That is
an outrage. We have got to end it.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
(Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition of H.R. 34,
cynically misnamed the Illegal Foreign Contributions Act. Instead of
standing here having a full and fair debate on campaign finance reform,
we are here debating whether legal permanent residents have a right to
free speech.
The title of this bill is there to lure the Member into thinking that
it deals with illegal foreign contributions. That is simply not the
case. Legal permanent residents play by the rules in this country. They
are legal residents. We have acknowledged their contribution to our
society. They must have the right to express their political views. I
am mortified that this Congress is about to deny legal residents First
Amendment rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has
ruled that making contributions is the exercise of free speech.
Legal permanent residents have a stake in the future of America, and
should be allowed to voice their support for candidates and be assured
a part in the political process. If we enact this bill, we will be
telling thousands of individuals that you can contribute to our
economy, register for the draft, serve in the military, and lose your
life as a result, but you cannot exercise your freedom of speech.
Who are these individuals? Most are in the United States to join
close family members; or to escape persecution based on political
opinion, race, religion, national origin or membership in a particular
social group. Twenty thousand legal permanent residents serve in the
armed forces. They have pledged their life to defend and protect our
country, and we respond by silencing their participation in the
political activities that help to choose our leaders and decide our
policies.
Banning legal permanent residents from contributing to political
campaigns is not only scape goating, it is a violation of our
Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that campaign contributions
are considered ``political speech'' and therefore protected under the
First Amendment. Moreover, unless the Constitution specifically
designates otherwise, legal permanent residents share many of the same
constitutional protections as citizens. Where does it say in the United
States Constitution that Congress shall make no law abridging the
freedom of speech of U.S. citizens only? Nowhere does it say the First
Amendment shall apply only to U.S. Citizens.
Don't take my world for it, take the word of almost 100 law
professors who have contacted Congress on this issue. I would like to
submit the Law Professor's Letter on Campaign Finance Reform and the
Rights of Legal Permanent Residents for the Record. This letter clearly
states that prohibiting Legal Permanent Residents from making
contributions in support of candidates would violate their
constitutional free speech rights.
Look at the language of H.R. 34. What campaign abuses are we
curtailing by this provision? It says nothing about foreign governments
``buying influence'' in the United States. After H.R. 34 becomes law,
foreign governments seeking influence need only use citizens. We
already have laws that bar these actions. Instead of silencing
permanent residents, we should enforce current laws.
Legal permanent residents are an ever increasingly important segment
of our population. Not withstanding, this bill makes them scapegoats
for our current campaign finance scandals. We attack legal residents
who are unable to defend themselves.
This unconstitutional denial of the protections of First Amendment
rights of free speech to legal residents must be rejected. Vote `no' on
H.R. 34.

Law Professors' Letter on Campaign Finance Reform and the Rights of
Legal Permanent Residents

March 20, 1998.
Dear Member of Congress, Recently, several bills have been
introduced which would impose new restrictions on the
political activities of Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs) by
prohibiting them from making campaign contributions. Two
other bills--H.R. 34 and S. 11 (the Daschle bill)--would
prohibit LPRs from making both contributions and independent
expenditures in support of candidates. We, the under-signed
law school professors, believe that if enacted into law,
these proposals would violate the free speech rights of LPRs.
Further, these proposals offer no additional protection from
the flow of money from foreign governments into political
campaigns. We therefore urge you to vote to strike these
proposals from any campaign finance bill you are asked to
consider.
In 1976, the Supreme Court established in Buckley v. Valeo,
424 U.S. 1 (1976), that campaign contributions and
independent expenditures are forms of ``political speech''
entitled to full First Amendment protection. Political
contributions are one of the ways that like-minded
individuals associate in furtherance of common objectives.
Under Buckley and subsequent cases, any law which limits
expenditures or completely prohibits campaign contributions
from particular natural persons presumptively violates the
First Amendment.
Regardless of one's views on the Buckley decision, the
Court's constitutional analysis applies whether the person
making the expenditure or contribution is a citizen or an
LPR. Courts have consistently held that LPRs enjoy the same
First Amendment rights as do United States citizens. To bar
legal immigrants from showing support for the candidate of
their choice would be like requiring them to sit out during a
demonstration, or denying them the right to hold a rally in a
park, or banning them from running a political ad in a
newspaper.
Proponents of this legislation have suggested that, as LPRs
do not enjoy the right to vote, Congress may prohibit them
from contributing. We disagree. The right to vote and the
right to speak on political matters are, for constitutional
purposes, distinct.

[[Page H1742]]

For example, persons under age 18, certain corporations, and
in many states, even convicted felons, do not enjoy the right
to vote, but nonetheless enjoy the right to engage in
``political speech'' by making campaign contributions or
expenditures as do others. The right to speak is not limited
to those who have the right to vote. Everybody can
participate in the marketplace of ideas regardless of whether
they can vote, and the voices of LPRs, like those of the
members of every segment of our society, only contribute to
the variety that marketplace has to offer.
Legal permanent residents have a substantial stake in our
society and are entitled to be heard in the political
process. They have been invited by the U.S. government to
live permanently within our borders. They pay taxes on their
world-wide income as citizens do, are subject to the draft,
and serve in the military. It is in our national interest
that public policy reflect their needs and their views. It
would be ironic, indeed, to deny to LPRs the inherently
American right to engage in political speech when so many
questions of public policy directly affect them.
Aside from being unconstitutional, these proposals are also
unnecessary and unlikely to be effective. 2 U.S.C. Sec.
441(f) already prohibits anyone, whether a citizen or an LPR,
from laundering money from foreign entities and governments
into political campaigns in the U.S. Even if LPR political
contributions are banned, foreign governments seeking to
circumvent this prohibition would simply use U.S. citizens as
fronts.
Because prohibitions on LPR political contributions and
independent expenditures would violate the First Amendment,
we urge you to ensure that campaign finance legislation
excludes such proposals.
Sincerely,
Lillian R. BeVier, Henry and Grace Doherty Charitable
Professor and Class of 1948, Professor of Scholarly
Research, University of Virginia School of Law; Joel M.
Gora, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School; Harold
Hongju Koh, Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith
Professor of International Law, Yale Law School;
Stephen H. Legomsky, Charles F. Nagel Professor of
International and Comparative Law, Washington
University School of Law; Roy A. Schotland, Professor
of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Peter H.
Schuck, Simeon E. Baldwin Professor of Law, Yale Law
School; T. Alexander Aleinikoff, Professor of Law,
Georgetown University Law Center; Larry Alexander,
Warren Distinguished Professor of Law, University of
San Diego School of Law; Albert W. Alschuler, Wilson
Dickenson Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law
School; Alberto Manuel Benitez, Associate Professor of
Clinical Law and Director of the Immigration Clinic,
George Washington University Law School; Lenni Benson,
Associate Professor of Law, New York Law School; Maria
Blanco, Associate Professor of Law, Golden Gate
University School of Law; Carolyn Patty Blum, Lecturer
in Law, University of California at Berkeley, School of
Law.
Linda Bosniak, Associate Professor of Law, Rutgers,
University School of Law; Richard A. Boswell, Professor
of Law, University of California, Hastings College of
the Law; Alexander J. Bott, Professor of Law,
University of North Dakota School of Law; Francis A.
Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Illinois College
of Law; Daan Braveman, Dean and Professor of Law,
Syracuse University College of Law; Mark R. Brown,
Professor of Law, Stetson University College of Law;
Penelope Bryan, Associate Professor of Law, University
of Denver College of Law; Gilbert Paul Carrasco,
Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law;
Ronald A. Cass, Dean and Melville Madison Bigelow
Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law;
Howard F. Chang, Professor of Law, University of
Southern California Law School; Erwin Chemerinsky,
Legion Lex Professor of Law, University of Southern
California Law School; Gabriel J. Chin, Assistant
Professor of Law, Western New England College, School
of Law.
Margaret Chon, Professor of Law, Seattle University
School of Law; Leroy D. Clark, Professor of Law,
Catholic University of America School of Law; David
Cole, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law
Center; Perry Dane, Professor of Law, Rutgers
University School of Law; Edward DeGrazia, Professor of
Law, Cardozo Law School; Nora V. Demleitner, Associate
Professor of Law, St. Mary's University School of Law;
Peter Edelman, Professor of Law, Georgetown University
law Center; Deborah Epstein, Visiting Associate
Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center;
James M. Fischer, Professor of Law, Southwestern
University School of Law; Joan Fitzpatrick, Professor
of Law, University of Washington School of Law; Niels
W. Frenzen, Lecturer in Law, UCLA School of Law; Diane
Geraghty, Professor of Law, Loyola University Chicago
School of Law; David Goldberger, Professor of Law, Ohio
State University College of Law; Frank P. Grad,
Chamberlain Professor Emeritus of Legislation, Columbia
University School of Law.
Jack Greenberg, Professor of Law, Columbia University
School of Law; Susan Gzesh, Lecturer in Law, University
of Chicago Law School; Phoebe A. Haddon, Charles Klein
Professor of Law and Government, Temple University
School of Law; Emily Fowler Hartigan, Associate
Professor of Law, St. Mary's University School of Law;
Jeffrey A. Heller, Adjunct Assistant Clinical
Professor, Brooklyn Law School; Arthur C. Helton,
Adjunct Professor of Law, New York University School of
Law; Louis Henkin, University Professor Emeritus,
Columbia University School of Law; David M. Hudson,
Professor of Law, University of Florida College of Law;
Marsha Cope Huie, Professor of Law, St. Mary's
University School of Law; Carol L. Izumi, Professor of
Clinical Law, George Washington University Law School;
Kevin R. Johnson, Professor of Law, University of
California at Davis School of Law; Jerry Kang, Acting
Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law; Daniel Kanstroom,
Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Boston College Law
School; Daniel M. Kowalski, Adjunct Professor of Law,
University of Washington School of Law; William P.
LaPiana, Professor of Law, New York Law School; Stephen
R. Lazarus, Associate Professor of Law, Cleveland-
Marshall Coll. of Law, Cleveland State Univ.
Arthur S. Leonard, Associate Professor of Law, New York
Law School; Martin L. Levine, Professor of Law,
University of Southern California Law School; Sanford
Levinson, Professor of Law, University of Texas School
of Law; Lance Liebman, Professor of Law, Columbia
University School of Law; Gerard E. Lynch, Paul J.
Kellner Professor of Law, Columbia University School of
Law; Pedro A. Malavet, Assistant Professor of Law,
University of Florida College of Law; Michael M.
Martin, Associate Dean and Professor, Fordham Law
School; M. Isabel Medina, Associate Professor of Law,
Loyola University School of Law, New Orleans; Carlin
Meyer, Professor of Law, New York Law School; Eben
Moglen, Profesor of Law and Legal History, Columbia
University School of Law; Hiroshi Motomura, Professor
of Law, University of Colorado School of Law; Rev.
Craig B. Mousin, Adjunct Professor of Law, DePaul
University College of Law; Subha Narasimhan, Professor
of Law, Columbia University School of Law; Lori Nessel,
Clinical Assistant Professor of Law, Seton Hall Law
School; Gerald L. Neuman, Professor of Law, Columbia
University School of Law; Marcia O'Kelly, Professor of
Law, University of North Dakota School of Law; Robert
M. O'Neil, Professor of Law, University of Virginia
School of Law.
Juan F. Perea, Professor of Law, University of Florida
College of Law; Bill Piatt, J. Hadley Edgar Professor
of Law, Texas Tech University School of Law; William
Quigley, Associate Professor of Law, Loyola University
School of Law, New Orleans; Jonathan Romberg, Associate
Director, Center for Social Justice, Assistant Clinical
Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law;
Theodore Ruthizer, Lecturer in Law, Columbia University
School of Law; Irene Scharf, Associate Professor of
Law, Southern New England School of Law; Philip G.
Schrag, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law
Center; Herman Schwartz, Professor of Law, American
Univ., Washington College of Law; Andrew Silverman,
Professor and Director, Clinical Studies, University of
Arizona College of Law; Girardeau A. Spann, Professor
of Law, Georgetown University Law Center.
Peter J. Spiro, Associate Professor of Law, Hofstra
University Law School; Irwin P. Stotzky, Professor of
Law, University of Miami School of Law; Peter Strauss,
Professor of Law, Columbia University School of Law;
Nadine Strossen, Professor of Law, New York Law School;
Lee J. Teran, Clinical Professor of Law, St. Mary's
University School of Law; Chantal Thomas, Associate
Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law;
Eugene Volokh, Acting Professor of Law, UCLA Law
School; Charles D. Weisselberg, Professor of law,
University of Southern California Law School; Harry
Wellington, Dean, New York Law School; Peter Winship,
Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University School
of Law; Mark E. Wojcik, Assistant Professor of Law,
John Marshall Law School; Stephen Yale-Loehr, Adjunct
Professor of Law, Cornell Law School; Alfred C. Yen,
Associate Professor of Law, Boston College Law School;
Mary Marsh Zulack, Clinical Professor of Law, Columbia
University School of Law.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder.)
Mr. SNYDER. Madam Speaker, those of us on this side were admonished a
few minutes ago to read the bill and pointed out that perhaps moral
outrage

[[Page H1743]]

does not belong just on this side. The problem I have is not moral
outrage over any one bill. I think a lot of good bills have been
considered here. The problem is the process.
Madam Speaker, we were told to read the bill. I could not get a copy
of the bill until a quarter to 6 this evening. The computer program of
the House did not have this bill. When you punch in H.R. 3581, I got
nothing. It is difficult to read something that does not exist until an
hour or so before the debate begins for a topic this important.
This bill is the only option out on this floor. There are no
amendments. It has to have a two-thirds vote. This process was designed
to fail, even if we read and understand the bill.
So my only question is what is the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Gingrich) afraid of? What is the Speaker afraid of? Is he afraid of a
true, open and fair debate? Is he afraid that this House may actually
exert the will of the American people?
Madam Speaker, say it is not time to be afraid of campaign finance
reform; do not be afraid of the will of the American people; but let us
have a fair and truly open debate on the House floor on this issue.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my assumption is that that was a speech addressing the
bill that is no longer in front of us. The bill in front of us is H.R.
34. It was introduced on January 7, 1997, and that is the bill that is
before us.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Mica), a member of the Committee on House Oversight and a member of the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, who is extremely
knowledgeable on the question of noncitizens contributing to American
campaigns.
(Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I have the unique responsibility of serving on the
Committee on House Oversight. In addition, I serve on the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight and have been on that committee
actually since I came to Congress. What has been stunning to me as a
member of that committee is dealing with the scandal that we have seen
dealing with campaign finance contributions.
Madam Speaker, this measure before us does not in fact address all
the problems, but I venture to say that if you ask the American people
what would you consider one of the greatest abuses that you saw in the
last election, they would say it was undoubtedly foreign money coming
in to our Federal political elections process.
I sat on that committee and I saw an unprecedented trail of money. We
have a chart here that just shows a little bit of that money, money
that came from China, from Indonesia, from Thailand, from various
countries around the world, to influence our elections.
Madam Speaker, again, I know that this amendment does not address all
the problems, but what it does do is very clearly say that if you are
not a citizen of the United States, you cannot contribute. It clearly
spells out that foreign contributions from a noncitizen are prohibited.
So, again, we cannot change all of the provisions in our election
law, and I might say that 99 percent of those who serve in this body or
who run for Federal office obey the law and the law does work. But what
we have seen, again, is an unprecedented trail of money.
Just the money that we have seen in foreign and illegal contributions
returned by the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, is over $2.8
million.
Again, we cannot address every single wrong that we have seen in the
election process, but we can make a beginning. We can get some of our
campaign finance election laws in order and address the real problem,
the real concerns that the American people have seen.
Madam Speaker, I urge Members to support both this measure and also
the bill that our committee has brought before the House. It is not
everything that everyone would like to see, but in fact it is a
beginning, and it does address the major concerns that the American
people have brought to the Congress.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say Members of my side out of
frustration are going to be discussing the whole issue of campaign
finance reform because of the limited amount of time. I would say on
the desire to keep corruption out of campaigns, this side is ready to
have an open debate and actually offer amendments on that.
Mr. Speaker, we have had a member of the gentleman's own party
indicted and convicted on campaign violations, a member of the
Republican caucus. He still sits here. The head of the Republican
Party, Mr. Barbour, Haley Barbour, got millions of dollars from a Hong
Kong bank. Let us get those things on the floor.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman believe that that
gentleman intends to vote on this campaign reform bill?
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I certainly hope that
he uses better judgment than he has used to date.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
(Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to find myself rising today in
opposition to this campaign finance legislation. However, given the
unfair process which has brought this legislation to the House floor, I
find that I have no other choice.
Since I took office in 1993, I have been hearing from my constituents
that campaign finance reform is an important issue to them. I have been
told--and all of us who have run campaigns have seen first-hand--that
our current system is broken. It is awash in money and without
meaningful controls. Individual voters feel increasingly out of touch
with their government, and believe that unless they can make
significant contributions, they cannot access their elected officials.
Since 1993, I have been committed to changing the way our election
system works. Unfortunately, at every step along the way, the efforts
of a thoughtful and bipartisan group of legislators have been stymied.
The Majority leadership has spoken eloquently of the need for reform.
Speaker Gingrich shook hands with President Clinton, promising to move
campaign finance reform forward by establishing a Commission to make
recommendations. That never happened. Earlier this year, Speaker
Gingrich indicated that he believed the House should debate campaign
finance reform in a ``fair and bipartisan'' manner. The situation we
find ourselves in today shows that will not happen.
Today, the House leadership has brought up a disingenuous bill. This
is no more ``campaign finance reform'' than the moon is made of green
cheese. To make matters worse, the bill is being considered under
suspension of the rules, a procedure that is generally reserved for
non-controversial legislation. It allows only 40 minutes of debate and
requiring a 2/3rds majority for passage. No amendments can be offered
that might turn this counterfeit legislation into real reform.
The Majority leadership is so threatened at the prospect of true
reform, that they refused to give a single bipartisan bill the
opportunity to beat the same difficult odds: passage by a 2/3rds
majority of members. The Shays-Meehan legislation, of which I am a co-
sponsor, will not be allowed on the floor for fear that it just might
pass.
This is not in the public interest. Failure is guaranteed. The
Majority Leadership's legislation, HR 3485, deserves to fail; but
bipartisan campaign finance reform as a whole does not. The Leadership
will now claim that it kept its promise to bring campaign finance
reform legislation before the House by the end of March. What a hollow
promise that has proven to be.
The Shays-Meehan legislation, like the McCain-Feingold bill in the
Senate, would bring an end to the soft money chase; would reform issue
advocacy; would increase disclosure of contributions and spending; and
strengthen FEC enforcement.
An overwhelming majority of Americans support real campaign finance
reform. How disappointed they will be to learn that their Congress has
let them down once again. I renew my call on the Majority Leadership to
stop playing partisan games with such an important issue. Let's have a
``fair and bipartisan'' debate on real campaign finance reform. The
American people deserve no less.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman

[[Page H1744]]

from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), who has been fighting for campaign finance
reform since the day he got here.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the so-called reform bill has silenced the
voice of working people. It would stop them from using the organized
power of their representatives, to use the political system for better
wages, to obtain more benefits, to achieve better working conditions.
This bill is an abridgement of free speech of workers and a violation
of their freedom of association. It puts onerous conditions on when
unions can represent workers in political matters, all in the name of
greater political freedom for workers, saying that they should have the
additional consent, that workers should be able to give their consent
to their leaders.
We know the essence of a union is that people declare an identity of
interests right from the very beginning. This bill attacks that
principle. It is an attack on unions. It is an attack on workers'
rights. It is an attack on workers and the very thing that they labor
for.
You cannot put the house of labor outside this political process in a
democracy. Working people will be watching to see who would dare to
take the fruits of their labor, the very taxes which they pay our
salaries with, and use that process to silence them and to try to shut
them out of the political process.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let us remember the rules we have for voting is only
people who are citizens are supposed to vote as well. My assumption is
there may be some moral outrage somewhere about the fact that only
citizens are allowed to vote.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I hear what the gentleman is saying. A number
of you have indicated ``not voting.'' Would a 17-year-old under your
bill be able to contribute to a campaign?
Mr. THOMAS. Is the gentleman indicating that that 17-year-old is a
citizen or a noncitizen?
Mr. HOYER. A citizen.
Mr. THOMAS. It is not my bill, it is the bill of the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), and if in fact they are a citizen, they can
contribute.
Mr. HOYER. But not vote.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann), a Member who has lived
firsthand, both at the State and Federal level, a meaningful, quote-
unquote, campaign reform.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address what is a very important
issue and has been uniquely addressed in the great State of Wisconsin.
In a Senate race developing out there, of course, campaign finance
reform came up, and the debate really is about whether the people here
in Washington know best how to draw up the campaign finance laws and
whether or not what we think here in Washington should be mandated and
dictated to every State all over the Nation, or whether it would be
more appropriate to do as we have done in the great State of Wisconsin
and reach some voluntary agreements in limiting various parts of the
campaign finance reform in compliance with what the people in the State
of Wisconsin want us to do.
This very quickly becomes a debate about whether the people in
Washington know what is best for every State all across the United
States, for California, for New York, for Wisconsin, or whether it
would be better in fact to have the people out there in those States
make voluntary agreements amongst themselves as to how best to apply
some campaign finance restrictions.
In Wisconsin, we have reached voluntary agreements to limit the
overall spending. We have reached voluntary agreements to limit the
percent of money coming from PACs and special interests. We have
reached voluntary agreements to limit the amount of money coming from
out-of-State.
We have accomplished in about a 2-week period of time out in
Wisconsin voluntarily what has been attempted out in this city for a
long sustained period of time. The reason for that is very simple and
very clear: Out here in Washington, we somehow think that we are best
able to dictate to everyone all over the country what is best for them.
But the reality of this situation is that the people in each one of
these States, in compliance with what their people want and what their
citizens and constituents want, have every possibility and capability
in the world of reforming campaign finance reform by simply sitting
down and reaching a voluntary agreement amongst themselves to supply
their constituents with what it is that they are asking for.
Again, in Wisconsin we have been very successful with this, and I
think voluntary agreements between competing candidates in races,
whether it be Congressional or Senate, any of the Federal races, is
certainly the appropriate way to go when it comes to campaign finance
reform.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope the gentleman's commitment would extend to
signing the discharge petition to get a real debate on campaign finance
reform on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill because it has really
nothing to do with the real needs of campaign finance reform. What it
is is the continuation of a mean-spirited attack on immigrants who have
come to this country, who are now permanent legal residents, seeking a
voice, an opportunity to participate. They work hard every day, pay
taxes, contribute their money to other causes, and now we tell them
that they cannot contribute to campaigns in America?
What kind of country is this? We need real campaign reform, not a
sham, not a shack. Let us get with it and do it the real way.
Mr. Speaker, I rise against the Illegal Foreign Contributions Act
because it is not really a vehicle for true campaign finance reform.
Rather, it is a mean-spirited bill that simply bans legal permanent
residents from exercising their first amendment right, their civil
right that guarantees them freedom of expression. The 1st amendment
protects everybody in the U.S., not just ``eligible voters.'' Isn't one
of the most valued and time-cherished acts of expression the right to
participate in our great political process? I believe that a society
can only be a true democracy when even the weakest of all individuals
has a voice.
Banning legal permanent residents from contributing is not the
solution to the alleged abuses of the 1996 campaign. The problem was
the alleged illegal contributions that are already covered under
existing law. A fundamental requirement of direct contributions under
the current law--is that the source of money must not be a foreign
corporation or a foreign national. Legal permanent residents (valid
green card holders) were not included in this prohibition and currently
are allowed to make campaign contributions. Thus, this proposal does
not effectively prevent the flow of foreign money into the American
political system.
Legal permanent residents are hard working people who earn their
money in the U.S., they pay taxes in the U.S. and contribute to the
U.S. economy by buying products in the U.S. Legal permanent residents
are even required to register for the draft. Like U.S. citizens, legal
permanent residents are stakeholders in America who care about the
status of our country. They should be afforded the right to support
candidates whom they believe will make it a better place to live.
I reiterate the fact that court cases have found that legal permanent
residents are afforded the protections contained in the first
amendment. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled that campaign
contributions are a form of speech protected under the first amendment.
Thus, I believe that the prohibition to deny legal permanent
residents the right to make campaign contributions would be a
continuation of the attacks on immigrants that we have seen take place
during the last several years. This troubling pattern of anti-immigrant
actions fosters the malicious notion that legal permanent residents
somehow do not share an interest in the well-being of this nation and
do not deserve basic rights and benefits. However, I submit that legal
permanent residents are our ``citizens in training.''
Illinois just had their primary elections--voter turn out was at an
all-time low. I think we need to be thinking of ways to encourage
people to participate in the political process rather than hindering
them.

[[Page H1745]]

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps), our newest Member.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I am truly sorry that I must rise today and
oppose campaign finance reform bills. These bills do not represent true
reform and the hasty process by which they were brought to the floor
does not honor the bipartisan approach which must characterize any
serious debate on campaign finance reform.
Mr. Speaker, I know I have only served in this House for 2 weeks, but
it is really difficult for me to understand why we will not have the
opportunity to debate, much less vote on, the Shays-Meehan bill, which
is a bipartisan bill.
In contrast to the bills being considered tonight, the Shays-Meehan
bill will end what I consider the most egregious abuse of the current
system, the so-called issue advocacy ads.
In my recently completed campaign, my conservative Republican
opponent and I both agreed that in our campaigns these ads flooded the
airwaves with misleading information. Although the ads clearly targeted
us for election or defeat, there was no disclosure and no limits on how
they were being funded.

{time} 2000

But this issue is not even being debated today. We should not pass
legislation in the dead of night and in such a fiercely partisan
manner.
We cannot lose sight of the dramatic shift that, even as we speak, is
occurring out there in our campaigns. Voters are becoming just pawns in
the battle between special, powerful, outside interest groups. We must
pass the bipartisan Shays-Meehan bill and bring the political process
back to the people. The dignity of our democratic institution and
tradition deserves nothing less.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for a second about the process of the
multiple bills we have facing us today. The debate we are having
tonight is long overdue. The political process is in need of reform,
yet for almost a year and a half we in Congress have never been given
the chance to debate campaign finance reform. Now, here we are, with a
very divisive, partisan bill which is, to quote the New York Times,
``Sham legislation dressed up to look like reform, with no chance for
Members to vote on the real thing.''
This process could have been done a lot better and a lot differently.
I have been a member of a bipartisan freshman group who, for the past
year and a half, have been crafting a bipartisan form of finance
reform. The bill we drafted represented an honest effort to seek middle
ground that eliminates the poison pills that we are facing here
tonight. It was a real effort at reform, not a sham bill designed to
offer cover to those who oppose real reform.
But, ultimately, this debate is about whether we believe there is too
much money in the political process or not enough money in the
political process. Those who believe in the need for more campaign
spending and more special interest influence on the process will
support many of these bills we face tonight. But those who want to put
elections back into the hands of the people will see through this
charade, will see through this sham and will support real campaign
finance reform.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I find it really, really difficult to argue that the
bill in front of us, offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Bereuter), which very plainly says that only citizens should be able to
participate in the financial aspects of a campaign, just as only
citizens are supposed to be able to participate in the voting part of
the campaign, is in fact meaningless and a charade.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Illegal Foreign
Contributions Act of 1998 and the Campaign Reform and Election
Integrity Act. These bills represent a good-faith effort to begin to
address the problems in our campaign finance system. They merit
support.
Do they solve every problem? No. But that is no reason to oppose
these bills. Campaign finance is a complicated issue. We have not even
reached consensus on the problems, let alone the solutions.
When I was first elected, I led an effort in our freshman class to
develop a campaign finance package. We came up with several commonsense
reforms like the ones in the bills before us today. Since that time, a
number of new problems have developed that these bills attempt to
address. It is an incremental approach, but it is a good start.
Among other things, the bills create a pilot program in five States,
including my State of Florida, to crack down on voting by non-citizens.
They toughen the ban on contributions from non-citizens and increase
the penalties. They also include the Paycheck Protection Act.
Let us pass these bills today and begin the effort to clean up our
campaign finance systems. I urge my colleagues to vote yes for reform.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price), someone who has again for many years made a
great effort in campaign finance.
(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, colleagues know that
``outrage'' is not a word I use with great frequency, but I can think
of few words that better describe the insult to this House and to our
constituents represented by the procedure the leadership has chosen for
debating reform of our election laws.
I have been involved in this debate for the many months of the 105th
Congress. I have cosponsored the Shays-Meehan proposal for campaign
finance reform. I have authored my own stand-by-your-ad bill, which
would require candidates and groups to assume responsibility for the
ads they air. Last week I asked the Rules Committee to make this
bipartisan proposal, sponsored by Representative Horn, myself, and 12
other colleagues, in order on the floor.
To have this and all other amendments barred, to have a motion to
recommit barred, to have any substantive discussion of this issue
barred by this procedure is an outrage that should be rejected by this
House.
We have a responsibility to our democracy to end the abuses of our
present campaign system. The Republican leadership has promised Members
a vote on campaign reform in this session of the 105th Congress, and
the charade we witness on the floor tonight represents a mockery of
that promise.
I, for one, am willing to postpone our recess schedule. Let us do
that. Let us stay here and devote the time necessary to complete our
job. I have signed the discharge petition to bring a real reform debate
to the floor. I urge any colleagues who have not signed to do so.
Mr. Speaker, the House and our country deserve better than this
scheme devised to foreclose debate and to deny a simple majority vote
for serious reform proposals. It is an outrage, and this House must not
stand for it.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad occasion for taking up
this piece of legislation. I wish it could have been done on a
bipartisan basis; but, unfortunately, this is not the case.
Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the status of legal permanent
resident aliens who pay Federal income taxes on their income, wherever
earned around the world. Legal permanent residents have always been
given the privilege of contributing to campaign elections, but why are
my Republican friends now putting on such a prohibition? I suspect, Mr.
Speaker, perhaps the vast majority of the permanent resident aliens are
Hispanic Americans and Asian Pacific Americans. I would like to look
into this to examine what exactly is the basis for this.
Legal permanent residents are also required to register for the
military

[[Page H1746]]

draft, and nearly 20,000 serve voluntarily in America's Armed Forces.
The record reveals that none have fought harder to protect America's
freedoms. In fact, one out of every five Congressional Medal of Honor
recipients has been a legal resident permanent alien or a naturalized
American citizen.
The Supreme Court has already recognized that the first amendment of
our Constitution protects the rights of legal immigrants as well as
citizens. Mr. Speaker, I cannot even introduce an amendment concerning
the rights and privileges of a U.S. national. It is a sad day, Mr.
Speaker. It is a sad day.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before Members get too carried away, I would like
someone to look at the CRS report for Congress on campaign finance
legislation in the 105th Congress. I was just perusing it in terms of
the numbers of bills that were introduced.
I would call my colleagues' attention to H.R. 140, introduced by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). One of the provisions of H.R.
140 is that it would prohibit contributions from non-citizens in U.S.
elections.
There is another bill I would call my colleagues' attention to in the
105th Congress. It is H.R. 1777. It is sponsored by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan). Among the provisions in that bill is a
section on foreign contributions, which says that it would prohibit
contributions in Federal elections by non-citizens and others not
qualified to vote.
So I would appreciate, Mr. Speaker, if those on the other side, when
they make their comments, not get too carried away when, in fact,
Members on both sides of the aisle have introduced worthwhile
legislation which would ban contributions from individuals who are not
citizens.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic this evening that some of our
Democratic friends, certainly not all of them but some of them, have
expressed such moral outrage at the lack of action in the 105th
Congress in bringing meaningful campaign finance legislation to the
floor. Prior to 1995, the Democrats controlled the United States
Congress for 40 uninterrupted years. I do not recall in the last 10
years the Democrats making much of an effort to bring this type of
legislation to the floor.
I remember in 1992, when then candidate Bill Clinton listed it as one
of his priorities if he were elected president, that he would strive to
bring meaningful campaign finance reform to the floor of this House.
After he was elected, when the Democrats controlled the Congress in the
103rd Congress in 1994 and 1993, they did not bring meaningful campaign
finance reform to this floor. Yet now they express such outrage.
President Clinton did not live up to his commitment. The Democratic
leadership did not live up to their commitment. But the Republican
leadership this evening are bringing four bills to the floor. They made
a commitment to do so by the end of March of this year. They are living
up to that commitment.
Everyone in this House will have the opportunity to vote on four
bills. So I think if we just think about this, we will see which party
is delivering on its promise.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is completely, factually
incorrect.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman's party did not control the House for 40
years? They did not control the House for 40 years?
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the gentleman is earnest; but the gentleman is
just factually wrong. I will tell the gentleman why. I will tell the
gentleman in what way.
We passed campaign finance reform as Democrats in 1971 and had to
override Nixon's veto. We passed campaign finance reform in 1974, and
it got signed into law. We passed campaign finance reform in the 1992,
and George Bush vetoed it. We passed campaign finance reform when Bill
Clinton got to town. It passed the House, it passed the Senate, and the
Republicans in the Senate filibustered it to death.
We had a real debate. We gave people a chance to offer an amendment.
That is the difference here.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation which
would ban political contributions by legal permanent residents of the
United States.
Mr. Speaker, the measure before us is tremendously unjust, clearly
unfair, and an insult to the millions of people, over 4% of this
country's population, who are legal permanent residents of our great
nation.
Legal permanent residents have worked diligently within the law to
legitimize their immigration status in America. They are hard-working,
law-abiding individuals who are fulfilling their requirements to become
citizens of this great country.
As with U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents are stakeholders who
hold responsibilities for the well-being and future of this great
nation; and, they have fulfilled their obligations magnificently.
Legal permanent residents pay U.S. Federal income tax on their income
from wherever derived around the world.
Legal permanent residents are also required to register for the
military draft, and nearly 20,000 serve voluntarily in America's Armed
Forces. The record reveals none have fought harder to protect America's
freedom. In fact, one out of every five Congressional Medal of Honor
recipients has been a legal permanent resident or naturalized American.
The Supreme Court has already recognized that the first amendment of
our constitution protects the rights of legal immigrants as well as
citizens. Clearly, the right to financially support one's candidate or
political party of choice is a form of speech and association that is
protected by the first amendment.
Already, U.S. legal permanent residents cannot vote in electing the
democratic government that they support with taxes and fight overseas
to preserve and protect.
Now, the measure before us seeks to silence the political voice of
legal permanent residents and take away their first amendment rights to
express their viewpoint through political support of those they
believe.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is the ugly antithesis of what
America and her democratic ideals have always stood for.
Legal permanent residents of the U.S., like citizens, have an
important stake in the well-being of America and they have earned the
right to voice their support for candidates whom they believe will
contribute to a better America for them and their children tomorrow.
I strongly urge our colleagues to oppose the dangerous measure before
us.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would say, we set a bar that we needed 51 percent to
pass the bill, not two-thirds.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
(Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, the current Members of Congress can be
broken into two groups, those who think that there is too much money in
politics in an election and those who think there is not enough. That
goes across party lines.
Mr. Speaker, whether we want to admit it or not, the fact is that our
campaign finance system is jeopardizing our credibility. We should not
fool ourselves into believing that the problem is only the illegal
activities that occur during campaigns. Quite to the contrary, the real
problems stem from what is legal. It is the abuse of soft money time
and time again. We heard it from both sides of the aisle in the
campaign finance bill submitted by the freshman bipartisan committee.
Instead of bringing up our bill, instead of bringing up McCain-
Feingold II, for which there is also widespread bipartisan support, the
leadership on the other side of the aisle has decided to hide behind
some parliamentary tactics. This is a low point in the 14 months that I
have been in here. In fact, it may be the lowest point.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the eloquent
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

[[Page H1747]]

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, let me read again the New York Times editorial: ``Newt
Gingrich has selected today as the moment to line up his firing squad
and kill campaign finance reform.'' It concludes by saying, ``It is a
cynical maneuver.''
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is another one of those cynical
maneuvers. Let me tell the Members why. The gentleman from Florida got
up and talked about all those campaign contributions. They were, in
fact, illegal, should not have been accepted. They were returned. The
Republican party has returned over $1 million, as well. They should not
have been received. This bill will not affect any of those
contributions. They were illegal at that time and are now.
What is this bill about? It was introduced some time ago. Then it was
changed. Let me tell the Members what it was changed to. It added one
line. It added the title: Illegal Foreign Contributions Act of 1998.

{time} 2015

This is a 30-second ad. That is all it is. It is a 30-second cynical
ad to pretend that this bill affects that poster. It does not, I say to
the gentleman from Florida, because they were illegal from the
beginning and should not have been accepted.
Soft money is made illegal by this bill. There is much support for
that. Not for this bill, but much support for that objective. But the
fact of the matter is, this bill is for one purpose only: For a press
release that the Republicans can say they were against illegal foreign
contributions, which of course they accepted and it was wrong. It was
wrong. We did the same. It was wrong. But this bill is simply a PR
effort. It has no substance to it.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the
eloquent gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) who has led the effort on
campaign finance reform for Congress after Congress.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, just a moment ago it was said
that we were getting too carried away. Let us look at the record of who
is getting a little carried away. According to Congressional Quarterly,
the Republican leadership has had the most expensive congressional
investigation in the history of the House. Their investigator, they
spend over $10,000 a month on his own salary. They sent five
investigators to Taiwan to look at bank records. They came back and my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle introduced this bill.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Does the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr) yield for the purpose of a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. FARR of California. No, Mr. Speaker, I will not yield.
Mr. Speaker, I will answer the gentleman's question. Nothing that
they have investigated was brought for campaign finance reform. This
has nothing to do with the investigation. They have not limited foreign
corporations from contributing to campaigns. It has cost this House $5
million so far.
What this bill says is that 1-day-old babies can participate in
contributing to campaigns through their parents, but if someone is a
Congressional Medal of Honor winner, if they won the Gold Medal in the
Olympics, if they won the Nobel prize and they happened to be born
somewhere else, they cannot contribute a dime, not even if they are a
military retiree.
Mr. Speaker, this is a sham. This bill does nothing to reform
campaigns, and the investigation that they spent $5 million on is not
even seen in this bill. This is outrageous.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the bill of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter)
is a very simple bill. It says if someone is a citizen, they can
contribute. If they are not a citizen, they cannot.
The gentleman from Nebraska was not able to be with us tonight, but
if he were here I am quite sure he would say, ``Please join me and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) who sponsored the same measure in
H.R. 140, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) who
sponsored the same measure in H.R. 1777, and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) who cosponsored H.R. 1777, and the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Moran) who cosponsored H.R. 1777.''
So, apparently, there are a number of Members of this House on both
sides of the aisle who believe that banning foreigners from
contributing in elections is something that should be done. And all I
have heard from the other side of the aisle is that none of this is
bipartisan.
Mr. Speaker, I believe if it is supported by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank),
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), that this clearly
indicates that this measure is bipartisan, and I would ask for an
``aye'' vote.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today in support of H.R.
34 to prohibit foreign individual campaign contributions or
expenditures, which this Member sponsored as one aspect of necessary
campaign finance reform legislation. This Member would also like to
thank the gentleman form California [Representative Bill Thomas] the
Chairman of the Committee on House Oversight and the gentleman from
Connecticut [Representative Sam Gejdenson] the ranking member of the
Committee on House Oversight for their support in bringing H.R. 34 to
the House Floor. Chairman Thomas also independently introduced similar
legislation on the first day of this 105th Congress.
As many of this Member's colleagues know, this Member has long been a
supporter of campaign finance reform. It is clear to this Member that
effective campaign finance reform is of fundamental, even crucial,
importance to our political system. Our failure to reduce the
disproportionate impact of money in elective politics is having a
corrosive influence on the American political process contributing to
suspicion and cynicism in the American people. Furthermore, there is
more than enough blame to go around, as this Member believes it is
deplorable that the two political parties have been unwilling to come
together to reform this process by relinquishing the elements of our
current campaign finance system that favor each particular party.
However, this Member has not given up the fight and remains committed
to such reform and will continue to be active in pursuing it.
In the past, this Member introduced legislation that included a
number of campaign finance reform provisions including a provision
requiring that a majority of campaign funds raised by Congressional
candidates must come from residents in their own state or district.
However, while this Member has always been concerned regarding the
influence of out-of-state money in congressional elections, it is
apparent that a serious problem that really for the first came to the
attention of the American public during the 1996 presidential election
season--campaign contributions from foreign sources.
On December 16, 1996, during a meeting with the Lincoln Chamber of
Commerce, this Member announced his intention to introduce specific
campaign finance reform legislation which would prohibit foreign
individual campaign contributions when the 105th Congress convened in
January of 1997. This Member kept his promise as on the very first day
of the 105th Congress this Member introduced H.R. 34 (i.e., January 7,
1997).
Many Americans believe that it is already illegal for foreigners to
make Federal campaign contributions. The problem is that they are both
right and wrong under our current Federal election laws. The fact of
the matter is that under our current Federal election laws, you do not
have to be a U.S. citizen to make campaign contributions to Federal
candidates. Under our current Federal elections laws, you can make a
campaign contribution to a candidate running for Federal office if you
are a permanent legal resident alien--a permanent legal resident alien
and you, in fact, reside in the United States.

This Member believes that this situation is wrong, this Member
believes that most Americans would agree it is wrong, and this Member
believes that it is a problem begging for correction.
Therefore, this Member introduced H.R. 34 on the very first day of
the 105th Congress to change our current Federal election laws so that
only U.S. citizens are permitted to make an individual contribution to
a candidate running for Federal office.
To this Member it's very simple--if you want to be fully involved in
our political process, then you must become a citizen of the U.S. If
you don't make the full commitment to our country by becoming a U.S.
citizen, then you shouldn't have the right to participate in our
political system by making a campaign contribution and affecting the
lives of American citizens--you shouldn't have a role in electing
American officials. This Member believes it is a very obvious
conclusion that the process of

[[Page H1748]]

electing our officials should be a right reserved for citizens. It is
wrong and dangerous to allow even the potential to exist for undue
foreign influence in electing our government, and H.R. 34 is one of the
numerous important steps to do so.
The abuse that allegedly resulted from foreign campaign contributions
in the recent presidential campaign is a terrible indictment of our
current campaign finance system.
Indeed, the Congress must be concerned about the issue of legal and
illegal foreign campaign contributions. Everyone here today should be
concerned about this recent insidious development in our presidential
election process, and should understand that these statutory and
procedural changes like the passage of H.R. 34 are necessary to protect
the integrity of the American electoral process. We must insure that it
is Americans who choose our President and Congress.
We simply cannot allow foreign corporations and foreign individuals
to decide who is elected to public office at any level of our
government. Therefore, my legislation (H.R. 34) to require that only
U.S. citizens be allowed to make contributions to candidates for
Federal office is one of my priorities for the 105th Congress. This
issue must be addressed and this Member intends to push for this change
until successful.
With regard to soft money from American subsidiaries of foreign
corporations, we must, as a minimum, enforce the current law that such
contributions can only come from the profits of their U.S. subsidiaries
until greater and appropriate changes can be made.
This Member would ask his colleagues to support H.R. 34 as an
important step toward campaign finance reform.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. 34, as amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________