[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.

                          ____________________