[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 38 (Monday, March 30, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1754-H1764]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CAMPAIGN REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1998
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3582) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to
expedite the reporting of information to the Federal Election
Commission, to expand the type of information required to be reported
to the Commission, to promote the effective enforcement of campaign
laws by the Commission, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3582
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 ``Campaign Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1998''.
SEC. 2. EXPEDITING REPORTING OF INFORMATION.
(a) Requiring Reports for Contributions and Expenditures
Made Within 90 Days of Election to be Filed Within 24 Hours
and Posted on Internet.--
(1) In general.--Section 304(a)(6) of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(6)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(6)(A) Each political committee shall notify the
Secretary or the Commission, and the Secretary of State, as
appropriate, in writing, of any contribution received and
expenditure made by the committee during the period which
begins on the 90th day before an election and ends at the
time the polls close for such election. This notification
shall be made within 24 hours (or, if earlier, by midnight of
the day on which the contribution is deposited) after the
receipt of such contribution or the making of such
expenditure and shall include the name of the candidate
involved (as appropriate) and the office sought by the
candidate, the identification of the contributor or the
person to whom the expenditure is made, and the date of
receipt and amount of the contribution or the date of
disbursement and amount of the expenditure.
``(B) The notification required under this paragraph shall
be in addition to all other reporting requirements under this
Act.
``(C) The Commission shall make the information filed under
this paragraph available on the Internet immediately upon
receipt.''.
(2) Internet defined.--Section 301(19) of such Act (2
U.S.C. 431(19)) is amended to read as follows:
``(19) The term `Internet' means the international computer
network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet-
switched data networks.''.
(b) Requiring Reports of Certain Filers to be Transmitted
Electronically; Certification of Private Sector Software.--
Section 304(a)(11)(A) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(11)(A)) is
amended by striking the period at the end and inserting the
following: ``, except that in the case of a report submitted
by a person who reports an aggregate amount of contributions
or expenditures (as the case may be) in all reports filed
with respect to the election involved (taking into account
the period covered by the report) in an amount equal to or
greater than $50,000, the Commission shall require the report
to be filed and preserved by such means, format, or method.
The Commission shall certify (on an ongoing basis) private
sector computer software which may be used for filing reports
by such means, format, or method.''.
(c) Change in Certain Reporting From a Calendar Year Basis
to an Election Cycle Basis.--Section 304(b) of such Act (2
U.S.C. 434(b)) is amended by inserting ``(or election cycle,
in the case of an authorized committee of a candidate for
Federal office)'' after ``calendar year'' each place it
appears in paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (6), and (7).
SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF TYPE OF INFORMATION REPORTED.
(a) Requiring Record Keeping and Report of Secondary
Payments by Campaign Committees.--
(1) Reporting.--Section 304(b)(5)(A) of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(b)(5)(A)) is
amended by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting
the following: ``, and, if such person in turn makes
expenditures which aggregate $500 or more in an election
cycle to other persons (not including employees) who provide
goods or services to the candidate or the candidate's
authorized committees, the name and address of such other
persons, together with the date, amount, and purpose of such
expenditures;''.
(2) Record keeping.--Section 302 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 432)
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(j) A person described in section 304(b)(5)(A) who makes
expenditures which aggregate $500 or more in an election
cycle to other persons (not including employees) who provide
goods or services to a candidate or a candidate's authorized
committees shall provide to a political committee the
information necessary to enable the committee to report the
information described in such section.''.
(3) No effect on other reports.--Nothing in the amendments
made by this subsection may be construed to affect the terms
of any other recordkeeping or reporting requirements
applicable to candidates or political committees under title
III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
(b) Including Report on Cumulative Contributions and
Expenditures in Post Election Reports.--Section 304(a)(7) of
such Act (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(7)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(7)'' and inserting ``(7)(A)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) In the case of any report required to be filed by
this subsection which is the first report required to be
filed after the date of an election, the report shall include
a statement of the total contributions received and
expenditures made as of the date of the election.''.
(c) Including Information on Aggregate Contributions in
Report on Itemized Contributions.--Section 304(b)(3) of such
Act (2 U.S.C. 434(b)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting after ``such
contribution'' the following: ``and the
[[Page H1755]]
total amount of all such contributions made by such person
with respect to the election involved''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting after ``such
contribution'' the following: ``and the total amount of all
such contributions made by such committee with respect to the
election involved''.
SEC. 4. PROMOTING EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT BY FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION.
(a) Requiring FEC to Provide Written Responses to
Questions.--
(1) In general.--Title III of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by inserting
after section 308 the following new section:
``other written responses to questions
``Sec. 308A. (a) Permitting Responses.--In addition to
issuing advisory opinions under section 308, the Commission
shall issue written responses pursuant to this section with
respect to a written request concerning the application of
this Act, chapter 95 or chapter 96 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, a rule or regulation prescribed by the
Commission, or an advisory opinion issued by the Commission
under section 308, with respect to a specific transaction or
activity by the person, if the Commission finds the
application of the Act, chapter, rule, regulation, or
advisory opinion to the transaction or activity to be clear
and unambiguous.
``(b) Procedure for Response.--
``(1) Analysis by staff.--The staff of the Commission shall
analyze each request submitted under this section. If the
staff believes that the standard described in subsection (a)
is met with respect to the request, the staff shall circulate
a statement to that effect together with a draft response to
the request to the members of the Commission.
``(2) Issuance of response.--Upon the expiration of the 3-
day period beginning on the date the statement and draft
response is circulated (excluding weekends or holidays), the
Commission shall issue the response, unless during such
period any member of the Commission objects to issuing the
response.
``(c) Effect of Response.--
``(1) Safe harbor.--Notwithstanding any other provisions of
law, any person who relies upon any provision or finding of a
written response issued under this section and who acts in
good faith in accordance with the provisions and findings of
such response shall not, as a result of any such act, be
subject to any sanction provided by this Act or by chapter 95
or chapter 96 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(2) No reliance by other parties.--Any written response
issued by the Commission under this section may only be
relied upon by the person involved in the specific
transaction or activity with respect to which such response
is issued, and may not be applied by the Commission with
respect to any other person or used by the Commission for
enforcement or regulatory purposes.
``(d) Publication of Requests and Responses.--The
Commission shall make public any request for a written
response made, and the responses issued, under this section.
In carrying out this subsection, the Commission may not make
public the identity of any person submitting a request for a
written response unless the person specifically authorizes to
Commission to do so.
``(e) Compilation of Index.--The Commission shall compile,
publish, and regularly update a complete and detailed index
of the responses issued under this section through which
responses may be found on the basis of the subjects included
in the responses.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 307(a)(7) of such Act (2
U.S.C. 437d(a)(7)) is amended by striking ``of this Act'' and
inserting ``and other written responses under section 308A''.
(b) Standard for Initiation of Actions by FEC.--Section
309(a)(2) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(2)) is amended by
striking ``it has reason to believe'' and all that follows
through ``of 1954,'' and inserting the following: ``it has a
reason to investigate a possible violation of this Act or of
chapter 95 or chapter 96 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
that has occurred or is about to occur (based on the same
criteria applicable under this paragraph prior to the
enactment of the Campaign Reform and Election Integrity Act
of 1998),''.
(c) Standard Form for Complaints; Stronger Disclaimer
Language.--
(1) Standard form.--Section 309(a)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C.
437g(a)(1)) is amended by inserting after ``shall be
notarized,'' the following: ``shall be in a standard form
prescribed by the Commission, shall not include (but may
refer to) extraneous materials,''.
(2) Disclaimer language.--Section 309(a)(1) of such Act (2
U.S.C. 437g(a)(1)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``(a)(1)'' and inserting ``(a)(1)(A)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) The written notice of a complaint provided by the
Commission under subparagraph (A) to a person alleged to have
committed a violation referred to in the complaint shall
include a cover letter (in a form prescribed by the
Commission) and the following statement: `The enclosed
complaint has been filed against you with the Federal
Election Commission. The Commission has not verified or given
official sanction to the complaint. The Commission will make
no decision to pursue the complaint for a period of at least
15 days from your receipt of this complaint. You may, if you
wish, submit a written statement to the Commission explaining
why the Commission should take no action against you based on
this complaint. If the Commission should decide to
investigate, you will be notified and be given further
opportunity to respond.'''.
SEC. 5. BANNING ACCEPTANCE OF CASH CONTRIBUTIONS GREATER THAN
$100.
Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(i) No candidate or political committee may accept any
contributions of currency of the United States or currency of
any foreign country from any person which, in the aggregate,
exceed $100.''.
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Except as otherwise specifically provided, this Act and the
amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to
elections occurring after January 1999.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Gejdenson) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is the fourth item before us tonight. A little bit of math will
tell us that, when we are finished with this particular measure, we
will have been debating campaign reform for 2 hours and 40 minutes. The
phrase ``this is a sham'' has been repeated, I believe, a world record
number of times on this floor, perhaps for a want of a different term.
This particular measure, if anyone bothers to look at it, has 10
specific provisions. Seven of them are FEC, Federal Election
Commission, recommendations. They were contained in the Republican
campaign reform bill of the 104th Congress. They are, by anyone's
examination, absolutely appropriate, indeed, long overdue and necessary
reforms.
Of the other three, one especially, the electronic reporting on the
Internet, I will leave to my colleague to explain in more detail, as
one of the younger, more astute, computer knowledgeable Members of the
House.
The other two provisions, are not FEC recommendations, but I believe
any Member would have a very difficult time not agreeing that they are
also appropriate and indeed overdue.
One of the provisions provide that, when a standard FEC complaint
form is filled out, that such complaint indicates that it has not been
verified by the FEC. In too many campaigns, someone files a complaint
form. It is accepted by the FEC, and the statement is made: The FEC has
accepted my complaint. In fact, on the form itself, it will say the
complaint has not been verified.
{time} 2115
The final provision was in a bill by our colleague from California
(Mr. Dreier). It says that the Federal Election Commission, when a
question is submitted in writing, can submit a written response to the
individual. It just seems to me that if the Federal Government is going
to control the election process, someone ought to be able to get an
answer from the government when they ask a question. If the question is
in writing, then the answer ought to be in writing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. White) and I ask unanimous consent that he manage the
balance of the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for
his work and leadership on this issue. This certainly is a contentious
issue, one that we sometimes have some hard times dealing with, but he
has exercised some leadership and we appreciate it very much.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is a small bill, but it is a good bill, and I
like to take some time and go through it point by point. But before I
do that I want to say and make one point that I think may be of more
importance than really the details of what is in this bill.
The fact is, as we have heard today from many Members on the other
side of the aisle and probably some Members on our side of the aisle,
too, there
[[Page H1756]]
is some disappointment in this Chamber about some of the bills that we
are going to go voting on today; and I have to tell my colleagues very
frankly I am disappointed, too, because I had a bill with 118
cosponsors, a commission bill that is not going to be voted on today,
and I see the gentlewoman from New York and others on the other side
who have cosponsored this bill, and there is certainly disappointment
in my heart, too, that we have not been able to vote on all the bills
we would like to vote on. But I would ask us all not to let our
disappointment prevent us from doing some good things, and that is
essentially what this bill is about.
The measures in this bill are all bipartisan, they are common to
almost every single campaign finance bill that we have seen in the
Congress this year, whether proposed by a Republican or by a Democrat,
and it would be a shame to let ourselves miss this opportunity to do
something important just because we are upset with one part of the
process or another.
I will take just a couple minutes to go through some of the specifics
of what we are doing in this bill.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITE. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, has the gentleman signed the discharge
petition?
Mr. WHITE. I have not signed the discharge petition.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Will the gentleman sign it?
Mr. WHITE. There are several good reasons for why I will not, and I
will explain those during the course of this process.
Mr. Speaker, the gist of this bill, the main thing this bill does and
the thing I wager that even the gentleman from Connecticut really would
not be able to defend voting against is the idea that we put FEC
reports on the Internet. Really very hard to disagree that that would
not be good for his constituents, for my constituents, for everybody in
the country, rather than doing it on microfiche, which was wonderful
technology in the 1970s. Let us put it on the Internet so everything
can be seen. That is really the heart of what this bill does.
It also does a couple other good things. It says that the gentleman
from Connecticut would have to file his campaign finance reform reports
electronically so that they can be put on the Internet in a much
shorter period of time. It says that within 24 hours after he receives
a nickel of contribution in the last 90 days of the campaign he would
have to put that information on the Internet.
So the gist of what this bill does is to use this technology to make
sure that the American citizens do have the ability to see in a very
short period of time what sort of contributions their Members of
Congress and their candidate are accepting. I think it is very hard for
any of us in this House to suggest that that is something we should
vote against.
In addition, this bill does some other good things. It goes through a
list of five or six more or less technical changes that have been
requested by the FEC.
This is a good government bill, it is bipartisan, does not have
anything to do really with either party. It just increases disclosure
and lets the American people see what is going on.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully urge all my colleagues to vote
for it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Fazio), who has led an effort through this Congress
trying to coordinate campaign finance reform efforts, and we are going
to miss him as well.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) for yielding me this time.
As the gentleman from Washington said, this legislation has been
included in most of the campaign finance reform bills that have been
introduced on both sides of the aisle, and certainly I do not believe
there is any reason to oppose it. But it is rather ironic that this is
presented as additional responsibilities for the Federal Election
Commission when in fact, if my colleagues read the bill, there is no
new authorization for what the report that accompanies the bill says
would cost another $2 million simply to perform.
That is not unusual when we look at the history of how Republicans
have handled the FEC. Year after year after year the commission charged
with responsibility for compliance under current law comes to the
Congress and asks for a budget that would increase their ability to
enforce the law, only to be rebuffed by the appropriations process
dominated in the last 3 cycles by the Republican Party, cutting 8-10
percent from the requests, always cutting in the area of compliance,
therefore requiring in 1996 hundreds of complaints to be thrown out, so
that we cannot even finish requiring people under existing law to live
up to their responsibilities as candidates.
Now last year they did not make a very deep cut. A change was made,
but it is pointed out in report after report that Republicans have only
allowed the fund to go for computer modernization, never for the kinds
of activity that would allow the American people to know who is not
living up to the requirements of our campaign law.
So there is no reason to oppose this legislation except to say we
would hope that this Republican Congress would fund the FEC adequately
so that we could see the laws currently on the books, let alone these
that would be enacted in this bill, enforced.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have never been so ashamed as I
am tonight of the tactic that is being deployed to deprive both
Democrats and Republicans from having a serious debate in taking up
campaign finance reform. Relegating this issue to a series of very
limited debates is depriving both Republicans and Democrats the
opportunity to take up and pass the McCain-Feingold bill which closes
one of the gaping loopholes in our system today, soft money, and forces
outside third party groups to put their names on their ads. Those who
have taken control of this process tonight are standing up for the
obscene amount of moneys that are flooding into our campaigns today,
that really a stop ought to be brought to.
Let me give my colleagues an example about the freshman campaign
finance reform bill we brought up. These outside third party groups
objected to our bill, similarly the McCain-Feingold bill. They said,
``If you force us to put our names on these ads, we won't run these
ads.'' Well, that is exactly what the bill was all about, and by
adopting this masquerade tonight when we are supposed to be debating
campaign finance reform but we are really not, we are depriving the
American public of the chance to make sure those ads have their names
on them and to ban soft money.
The American people are watching, they care deeply about this issue.
We need take up and debate campaign finance reform.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, for over 15 months this Congress has spent
thousand of hours and billions of dollars investigating campaign
finance abuses, and this is what it has all come down to: a package of
four partisan bills brought to this floor on a calendar that offers no
opportunity for amendment and little debate.
Those who work for genuine reform on both sides of the aisle are
outraged by this thinly disguised charade. I call on every American to
send a message to this Congress that they too are outraged, that they
deserve and rightly expect a system of democracy where their voice and
their vote determine the outcome of elections, not the hundreds of
thousands of dollars poured into campaigns by special interests,
dollars hidden in so-called soft money.
Every American understands that true campaign reform must be
accomplished in a bipartisan effort. No such bill was allowed on this
floor tonight. Instead we were given the illusion of reform. I am
confident that the American people know the difference and that they
will demand government in the public interest, not the special
interests.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to point out to the
gentleman from California, who may have left the Chamber, that it is
absolutely
[[Page H1757]]
our intention to fund the FEC separately to accomplish all the goals
that are at issue on this bill. So I think he can rest assured that
that will actually happen.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for
yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue.
I too have introduced legislation to require electronic filing of
Federal Election Commission reports, and I would hope that our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have complained about the
lack of opportunities to support real campaign finance reform will join
us in supporting this important measure, because who could possibly be
opposed to this common sense reform? It ensures accountability and
provides access to essential information regarding our political
system.
Right now when we file a campaign finance report with the FEC, we
have to file it by the deadline imposed by the FEC. But that filing
simply means putting it in the mail, the U.S. Postal Service, and
sometimes it can take a week to get that report to the FEC. They then
might take another several days or more to get it up and available to
the public, so the news media, campaigns, the general public have a
delay of sometimes 10 days or even 2 weeks between when a contribution
is made and when they can learn about who contributed to whom in this
situation.
I think it is critically important that we adopt this legislation
with electronic filing. We can still file on the deadline, but they
will receive it on the deadline as well. And if we require them to
immediately put it up on the Internet, everyone in the country with
access to a computer in their home and libraries and schools can have
access to this information instantaneously, and that is a critical
reform, letting people decide for themselves what the purpose of
campaign contributions are, who is receiving what for what purpose. The
best way to deal with campaign finance is to lay it out on the table
and let the public know exactly who has received what.
Who could possibly oppose requiring campaign committees that raise or
spend more than $50,000 to file their reports electronically with the
FEC? Who could possibly oppose a requirement that Federal committees
immediately report contributions and expenditures made within 90 days
of an election?
I urge adoption of this legislation.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer), an excellent legislator, an
orator and someone who has fought for reform for decades in this
Congress.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I hope the introduction did not count
against my time. In any case, I thank the gentleman and my friend for
yielding this time to me, and I would like to make 2 points.
One, the desperate need for campaign finance reform. It hit me about
7-8 years ago. My best friend came down and worked in the Congress for
3 months, one of my best friends, and he is a smart and sensitive
person. I asked him at the end of the three months, we went out to
dinner and I said, ``Well, Mark, what do you think of the Congress?''
He said there was good news and bad news. He said the good news was
that the quality of the people was much better than he ever imagined.
He thought the staffs were better than anything he had seen in business
or law or anything else. He said the bad news what it all did not
matter because the way we finance campaigns vitiated the entire system.
Mr. Speaker, tonight does not do justice to that problem. Four quick
bills put on suspension, calculated, carefully crafted to simply get
the issue off their back; it is not right, it is not fair. Sooner or
later, I do not know if it will be sooner or whether it will be later,
but they will pay the price for trying to play a game with a very
serious issue.
The second point I would like to make is the one also made by my
colleague from New York (Mr. Owens), this idea that there should be
choice applies to labor unions but not to corporations. What hypocrisy.
Do shareholders get the right to determine whether a big company makes
a contribution or cascades soft money into a campaign? Not under this
logic. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If my
colleagues believe it for one, they believe it for the other. But if my
colleagues want the American people to think they really care about the
issue, and are not engaged in just a cheap political trick to go after
their opponents but not those who support them, they would never put
such a bill on the floor.
{time} 2130
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton).
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, we need full and immediate disclosure, and
that is what H.R. 3582 does. At the end of next month, most of us will
file our FEC report for the first time since 1997. I cannot imagine a
Member here or a challenger that does not have a fax machine, a
telephone, e-mail, the ability to get on the Internet.
This bill will require reports by all committees that raise or spend
$50,000 to be filed electronically so that we can see an immediate
reporting of contributions and expenditures within 24 hours. What is
wrong with that? Nothing, and that is why every Member here should
support it. This bill is an important first step as we look for full
disclosure and the need to enforce the law.
Last year, there was a report in the magazine, The Hill, that all of
us receive here in Washington in our offices, and it said that most
Members do not comply fully with the laws that are already on the
books.
Well, I have a fourth grader at home, and I know that when she does
not fully comply with her homework assignment, that her dad, myself, or
her mom, makes sure that in fact that work is done before she goes to
school the next day.
I would say that both this bill and other measures will seek full
compliance with the law so that every constituent can see how we raise
and spend money which is very important as we look forward to the days
when we receive the full confidence that our constituents should have
in the Members that run for office.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney), who has worked on campaign finance reform from
the day she got here.
(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has
spent in this Congress $8 million investigating alleged campaign
finance abuses, yet the same Republican majority failed to fund the
Federal Elections Commission at the level they requested and said they
needed to do the job. It was $6 million short.
I am pleased my colleague says he will get the funding for this bill,
but we have to get the funding they said they need in order to
investigate the cases before them, the only group charged to
investigate in a bipartisan way.
The Speaker earlier said we would have a vote on campaign finance
reform in this Congress, but what we have tonight is a campaign finance
reform kill. Everyone knows that true reform has to be comprehensive. A
little small approach, although worthy, will not get the job done.
We have a comprehensive bill, Shays-Meehan. We should allow a vote on
this bill before we go home and ask our constituents to vote for us.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the able gentleman
from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, what is going on this evening is really a cruel hoax on
the American people. I would like to say to the Republican leadership,
what are you afraid of? Why can we not have an open debate and real
campaign finance law?
Today's Roll Call has it right. It says, ``Angry Gingrich scheduled
doomed reform votes.'' It says, ``Angry Gingrich scheduled doomed
reform votes,'' and it says that ``Gingrich scheduled four reform votes
under the suspension calendar, requiring a virtually impossible two-
thirds majority to pass.''
The fact is the Republican leadership does not want campaign finance
reform, so they will not give us real reform. Of all these bills, the
anti-union
[[Page H1758]]
bill is the worst bill. It is nothing more than a cheap political trick
to try to punish labor unions for supporting Democratic candidates. It
is a sham, and it ought to be exposed for what it is.
The fact of the matter is that we need to have a discharge petition
signed so that this Congress can vote on McCain-Feingold and Shays-
Meehan and have a real debate on campaign finance reform.
Let the majority of this Congress prevail. Let us have an up or down
vote on campaign finance reform, not the sham being perpetrated this
evening.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Salmon).
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, when I came here 3 years ago, I came, I
think, full of fire in the belly ready to make some major changes in
this place.
I, too, am very disappointed tonight. There are a lot of reformers on
both sides. The gentleman that just spoke is a true hero of mine, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel). I think he is a great guy and
somebody that stands for the right thing time and time again.
Hopefully, he sees there are some of us on the other side that try to
do the same thing.
We get a little tired of the games between the leadership on both
sides. Frankly, we stand here tonight, and I am ashamed, I really am
ashamed to see how this is coming up tonight, that it is in the same
manner as that of the leadership who ran the House for 40 years under
the Democrats. It is wrong. It is wrong when they did it, and it is
wrong if we do it, and I don't think this is a service to the American
people.
Let me say something. We are here to talk about a very sensitive
issue, special interest influence on Washington. I come from a State
that passed the most comprehensive campaign finance reform in the
Nation. You can only give $300 to a candidate in the State of Arizona,
yet scandals still persist, problems still occur, because people do
break the law.
Let us stop telling lies to the American people. Everybody knows that
the Republicans want to preserve the ability for big corporations to
give bucks on the side through soft money to the ones in charge.
By the way, if the Democrats were in charge, they would be giving to
you, because, frankly, I do not think they have a soul. They give to
whoever is in charge of the place so they can get what they need.
But the Democrats do not want the unions to be restricted in any way.
They do not want union employees to know where their money is going. So
there is this perpetration on both sides. I think it is wrong.
Frankly, I think that until we have a real debate, and I hope we do,
we are never going to get this resolved. Let us finally realize what
will really make a difference. It is not about stopping PACs or
stopping this or that. What is going to stop it is full disclosure.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the articulate
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I thank the gentleman for his previous comments a moment ago,
and I applaud his common sense in approaching this. I join him, Mr.
Speaker, in the idea that having come here to Congress and knowing
before I got here, obviously, there is a great deal of cynicism about
our process, speaking to any number of students that come to Washington
or going throughout the district and speaking to students, trying to
address them and tell them they ought not to be caught up in the
cynicism, it is very hard to watch what has been going on here tonight.
Although this particular portion of the bill may indeed be well-
intended, and what you intend to do with this may, in fact, have some
merits that could be supported, the whole process by which you have
gone about doing this tonight, the whole idea of not even addressing
any of the bills that have been filed for some period of time now, not
giving them the period of time for debate and discussion, putting it
forward tonight in a late-drafted bill, broken down into four parts,
very cynically, looking to get people on record for campaign purposes,
but never really dealing with any details of campaign finance reform.
We do not talk about getting money out of campaigns, we do not talk
about shortening campaigns.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the able gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I am a freshman, and one of
the things that we first did when we first got here, freshmen
Republicans and Democrats, we tried to work together on campaign
finance reform. We wanted to make a difference.
Tonight what is going on is wrong, only because there are a lot of
good bills out there that could make a difference.
We have to go home and face the people and they do not understand. To
be very honest with you, when I am working with people and they are
thinking that because someone comes in to lobby me I am getting money
out of this, I do not like it.
I have a campaign coming up. I do not want to have to raise the
amount of money I have to raise. I think it is obscene. I would rather
see it go to education and health care. I think our businesses and
people would rather see the money go there also.
I hope tonight does not end the debate. I am hoping we will truly get
finance campaign reform before I retire from this place.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Slaughter), who has fought for this issue year after
year.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, Congress desperately needs to reform our
campaign finance laws. The Federal campaigns are becoming little more
than a money chase to pay for increasingly expensive elections, and
voter turnout is at an all time low. The most recent election cycle
spent on the Federal election an estimated $1.6 billion, but less than
half of the eligible Americans exercised their right to vote.
The cost of political campaigns has simply become too high,
threatening the integrity of our system of representative government.
The American people are discouraged by a system in which money seems
more important than issues, and the interests of money seems more
important than the concerns of working families.
But the legislation the House will vote on today actually increases
the amount of money that can be contributed by wealthy individuals and
special interests, and it includes a gag rule that makes it even more
difficult for working Americans to get information on issues that
matter to their families.
To add insult to injury, this misguided legislation has been brought
to the House under suspension of the rules.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), another gentleman deprived of the
opportunity to offer his legislation.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, not that long ago I listened to my friend,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), state all kinds of reasons
as to what was wrong with the Shays-Meehan-McCain-Feingold bill, and he
went on and on and on about all these problems with this bipartisan
approach to campaign finance reform.
It kind of made me wonder why the Republican leadership has gone to
great lengths, such great lengths, to prevent a vote on this bill, if
it is such a bad bill. It is incredible how far the Republican
leadership has come to try to stop this debate.
We were promised a debate; a full, fair debate, with integrity and
honesty on the floor of this House, and we have not gotten it.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) knows full well that every
public interest group in America who has been fighting for campaign
finance reform supports the bipartisan approach, and he knows as well
that every major editorial board in America favors the bipartisan
approach. He also knows that Members on both sides of the aisle have
been working for 3 years to get a debate and get a vote on meaningful
bipartisan campaign finance reform, and he also knows that the other
body just voted 53 votes for the same bill in the United States Senate.
Well, we are going to get this bill sooner or later, because the
American people will respond and newer Members will respond. All I have
to do is look at the newest Member of this body, the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps), who walked into my office with the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr.
[[Page H1759]]
Shays), and made this legislation the first bill that she signed on to
as a new Member, and the people of the 22nd District of California are
proud of the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), and Walter is as
well, and there will be more Members that will be elected in the
November elections, and campaign finance reform will be an issue. There
will be a price to be paid for this disgusting maneuver.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, my interest in campaign finance reform goes back to 1972
when I became very angry at a fellow Republican, Mr. Nixon, for the
manner in which he raised and disbursed money in his Presidential
campaign, and that, in fact, is one of the reasons that I ran for
public office the following year.
Today, we have decided that those laws which were passed after
Watergate simply no longer do the job, and I speak particularly in
favor of the bill that is before us, the one introduced by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. White). It is something we should do. I
am sorry we are not debating it more. But in this electronic age we
clearly should do precisely what this bill requires, and that is to
have instantaneous disclosure, instantaneous reporting of contributions
received. The money contributed will be known to the entire world and
to the opponents of the person involved.
Now a few general comments about the debate. Several speakers have
said we need comprehensive campaign finance reform. Those are the bills
that do not pass.
I think what we are doing here tonight is right. I am hopeful that at
least one, perhaps two, maybe even three, and, if a miracle occurs, all
four will pass. But I am convinced that the only way we are going to
get campaign finance reform passed in this House is to take it bit by
little bit, put it up for a vote, up or down, and some will pass and
some will fail, and we will keep plugging away.
{time} 2145
Parkinson's law, for those of us who are old enough to remember
Parkinson's law, tells us that the difficulty in getting something
passed in a decision-making body is inversely related to the experience
that body has with the issue.
We all know and understand campaign finance reform, and we can find
something wrong with every bill. The more comprehensive the bill is,
the harder it is to get it passed. So I think doing what we are doing
tonight, breaking it into little pieces and saying we will pass each
individually, is the right way to go. We have to continue doing that.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the articulate
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, even in the perpetration of a sham, a little
light comes through. There is nothing wrong with this bill. It is the
right thing to do.
I would hope everybody would support this bill, even in their
disappointment about this process, even in their disappointment that
this bill is a sliver of what we ought to be doing, even though this
bill, introduced by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White), does not
cover soft money. There is no disclosure of soft money in the bill
offered by the gentleman; and, furthermore, there is no disclosure of
independent expenditures: who come into your districts and spend all
sorts of money.
Both candidates, both the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Lois
Capps) and her opponent, said that that kind of expenditure undermined
the integrity of their election.
So even though the bill of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White)
goes only a little bit, it is a proper bill, so it would be foolish to
oppose this bill.
I suggest to my colleagues that this bill was put last in this group
of four because, number one, it is such a small facet, a correct one
but a small facet, that it would perhaps clean up what has been an
otherwise desultory representation of campaign finance reform.
Let me again repeat to all the editorial referencing this process,
Newt Gingrich has selected today as the moment to line up
his firing squad and kill campaign finance reform in this
Congress. Just how desperate Mr. Gingrich is to thwart reform
is clear from the parliamentary tactics he is preparing and
is using this night. It is a cynical maneuver that will come
back to haunt Mr. Gingrich and any House Member who supports
it.
Yes, this facet is an acceptable small but appropriate facet. But the
package that has been presented is a sham and a shame.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said it
would be foolish to oppose this bill, and that it was a bright light
shining in an otherwise dark universe, I realized how very articulate
he really is. I appreciate that very much.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the equally articulate
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my good friend, the other
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Steny Hoyer) that the part of this
legislation that is by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) is a
good piece of the puzzle.
I would also add, however, that I think the package that we are
voting on tonight, the fundamental issue here is that the package that
we have an opportunity to vote on tonight pushes the whole campaign
finance funding problem into a better situation. Basically what we are
voting on is a package that will put the whole campaign funding
situation in a much better light for the American public.
I would like to say one other thing, that each succeeding Member that
speaks to the House tonight, Mr. Speaker, should also tell the American
people that we as individuals have an opportunity every single day,
every day we have the option, we have the choice, to reject all out-of-
State money, all PAC money, all out-of-district money. Each of us can
just say, I will only accept money from those people who vote and live
in my district.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Becerra), a fighter for campaign finance reform.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, because we have not been given enough time to truly and
meaningfully debate this, let me tell a story about a meeting I had
with some constituents on Friday night. I met with folks from the
Citizens Committee to save Legion Park on Friday night, and I had a
chance to briefly speak to them.
I said this morning, meaning today, we are going to be debating
campaign finance reform, but I said, do not hold your breath. Chances
are we are going to do it in the dead of night, and it is going to be a
stacked deck against the passage of any bill. Sure enough, that is what
we have.
But perhaps the worst thing and saddest thing about this is that none
of my constituents were surprised. They all knew that we were not going
to head toward any type of meaningful reform. So for me to stand here
and tell why this legislation we have before us is bad for the average
citizen who is fed up with money-driven elections, or bad for working
men and women who simply want to keep their meager voice in society
heard, or it is bad for long-term legal residents who are always asked
to pay their taxes, but the little chance they have to express their
voice in this democracy is now going to be stifled through this
legislation. It is also bad for new citizens, whose new voice through
their vote will be stifled, as well.
That is okay with this bill, but we will not pass it because we know
it is being done in the dead of night, stacked against us. It will go
nowhere. Vote against this legislation.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I probably will not take the 2 minutes, because I want
to say that we have heard some harsh rhetoric in the last few minutes,
but it is actually harsh rhetoric that hides a relatively pleasant
fact: That there probably is one piece of legislation that just about
everybody in this Chamber can agree on.
I will grant that it does not do everything that any of us would like
it to do,
[[Page H1760]]
but it is a small step in the right direction. It may be all that we
are able to do this year, but by golly, let us at least do something.
Let us not miss this opportunity to take a step, small though it may
be, to move in the direction of real campaign finance reform.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Gejdenson) is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, it is time for a little review. We have
been here going over four proposals, all authored by the Republicans. I
have been in this Congress for 18 years. I have spoken to Members in
this Chamber who have been here longer. I have never, ever in my life
been on the floor debating campaign finance reform where the other
party was not given an opportunity to put forth a proposal.
My parents fled Hitler and Stalin. In those countries there was no
debate. We have just done that here on the floor of the House. Unless
you are an R, unless you are a Republican, you do not get to offer
something.
That is not bad enough. Even on the proposals they have put forth
here, they have chosen a procedure that guarantees failure on the
Thomas proposal, because they choose a procedure that guarantees a
necessity of two-thirds of the House of Representatives.
Let me get this straight: They get to set up the rules for their own
proposal, and rather than half, they choose two-thirds. Why? Because
they do not want to succeed.
We look at this institution we serve in, and we look back to our
Founding Fathers. There have been references here to Jefferson. I would
venture to say, none of us can speak for Jefferson, none of us can
match his imagination, but I would be shocked to find Jefferson being
for a system that did not allow the other party in the Congress to
offer even one alternative proposal.
I can read from Madison. Madison, in questioning who the electors
are, who should control the great fate of this country, he said, ``Not
the rich,'' ``Not the rich, more than the poor; not the learned, more
than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of the distinguished names
more than the humble sons of obscure and unpropitious fortune. The
electors are the great body of the people of the United States.''
We have come a distance from democracy's beginnings in England and
elsewhere: A Magna Carta that gave rights to wealthy lords, so they
could protect their property against the nobility of the King. Along
came the revolutionaries on this continent, and they gave the power of
the vote to white men who owned property, even though without title. It
was a step forward.
Through years and struggles, we extended that vote to blacks and
Indian males, and finally, yes, we included women. But there is still
one great divide. If you have money, you get to speak and you get to be
heard. If we get the Republican proposal of the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas), money speaks louder than it ever has in this
Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to tell me, is what is wrong with the
American political system that rich people cannot find their voice? Do
we need to triple the amount of money that wealthy individuals can
give? I do not believe there is a nonpartisan American in this country
that believes it.
Give us a chance to vote on real reform. Reject this fundamental
proposal that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has put before
us. Vote for American clean government. Reject that proposal.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas)
is recognized for the 4 minutes remaining in the debate.
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, if some are looking for the definition of
``cynical,'' I would suggest they go back to the 103rd Congress. The
current minority party controlled the House of Representatives,
controlled the United States Senate, controlled the office of the
presidency. The Democratic Party could pass in the House or in the
Senate and sign by their President campaign reform. Guess what
happened? Guess what happened? Nothing. Nothing went to the President.
So what I find about these fervent reformers is simply this: They are
fervent. The problem is, if we look at the previous legislation,
McCain-Feingold or Shays-Meehan, what they are fervent about changes.
Go back to the original McCain: This country is being undermined by
Political Action Committees. We have to ban PACs. We have to ban
leadership PACs. Take a look at their bill. It is not in there.
Now, does it mean that what was fundamentally important to Americans
has changed, or are they in search of a political answer that they can
use under the guise of real reform? If we want to ban soft money, take
a look at H.R. 3581. This bill tonight bans soft money at the Federal
and the State level tougher than they do. Yet they are going to
complain and moan about soft money.
Take a look at what we are doing in terms of non-citizens. The
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) has a bill that agrees with
that, but he has been coming to the floor and berating what we are
doing. It seems to me that at some point cynicism has to stop, and it
stops now.
They have had 2 hours and 40 minutes more time than we have had
previously to debate reform. It seems to me that the key to good
legislation, the key to following the process, is to see if any of
these measures pass. I believe campaign reform tonight will pass.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Majority is again bringing to
the floor of this House legislation designed to discourage voter
registration and participation and our electoral process.
H.R. 3582 is but another attack on the rights of thousands of
citizens to vote, aimed primarily at our nation's Hispanic citizens.
Earlier in this Congress, Republicans targeted Hispanic voters in the
46th Congressional District of California during their outrageous
investigation of Loretta Sanchez's victory in 1996. What happened there
was simply an effort to deny a Hispanic candidate a legitimately won
seat in Congress, while attempting to intimidate lawful citizens and
discourage them from voting.
But that's not all. The Republicans are also attempting to limit the
impact of Hispanics in the political process by setting up a Census
procedure that will severely undercount Hispanic and other minority
populations. They are promoting a method that by all accounts will
prevent an accurate Census count, with Hispanics in particular being
harmed by their proposal.
Now this troubling trend is continuing with this unwarranted
provision of H.R. 3582, a provision which could allow state and local
officials to drop thousands of American citizens from the voter rolls,
solely on the basis of race or an ``ethnic-sounding'' name. I find it
incredible and intolerable that the Republicans would so blatantly go
after Hispanic Americans and attempt to deny them their rights at the
voting booth.
Mr. Speaker, Hispanic Americans are watching, and they understand
that they are being targeted by the Republican Majority for
discriminatory treatment. It is absolutely critical that we stand up to
this attack against Hispanic citizens, and defeat this and other
provisions promoted by the Republicans that would erect substantial
barriers to voter participation and undermine the right to vote.
The priority under our Constitution is on citizens' rights to
participate in democratic elections. This proposal undermines that
right, and it must be soundly rejected.
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to register my strong
opposition to H.R. 3582, the majority's embarrassing attempt to bring
campaign finance reform to the House floor. As a member who has worked
for meaningful campaign reform for many years, who refuses PAC money
and voluntarily limits individual campaign contributions, I find it
offensive that the leadership would try to fool the American people
into believing that they have kept their promise to allow debate and a
vote on real reform. However, I am confident that the people will not
be fooled, and I trust that my colleagues will join me in my opposition
if they truly believe in our duty to reduce the overwhelming influence
of money and return our campaign system to its roots of citizen
legislators who challenged each other on the issues and their vision of
the future.
It is incredible to me that one of the most complex, contentious and
critical issues facing this Congress could be brought up under
suspension of the rules, but it is no more than a
[[Page H1761]]
thinly veiled attempt by the Republican leadership to stifle debate and
disallow amendments, thereby locking out Democrats and Republicans who
would embrace the challenge of implementing true reform. H.R. 3582
ignores the most pressing issues in campaign financing and focuses
instead on intimidating working men and women and attempting to shut
them out of the political process. The Republican bill delivers yet
another unwarranted and mean-spirited attack on the labor movement by
erecting barriers to the political participation of working families
and making it more difficult for them to exercise their fundamental
right to join together to protect their interests. Furthermore, this
legislation seeks to silence minority populations by establishing a
``ballot integrity'' pilot program in, certainly not by coincidence,
the five states with the largest Hispanic populations.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I were promised the opportunity to
debate and vote on meaningful campaign finance reform during the 105th
Congress. Instead, all we have seen are delays, stalling tactics and
tricks designed to place the blame for failing to enact campaign reform
on those who have gone to the line to press for its passage. I am
confident that my constituents, and the American public, will see this
sham for what it is and will instead reward the efforts of those who
have continued to work against the odds in the hopes that someday this
tainted system can again be a source of pride for all of us.
Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of
campaign finance reform. I firmly believe that we must work to end the
money chase and put power back in the hands of voters, not special
interests. The political process should be a competition of ideas, not
of checkbooks.
To this end, I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 493, the Shays-Meehan
legislation which is the companion bill to the McCain-Feingold
legislation introduced in the Senate, and also a cosponsor of the
Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act of 1997, legislation introduced by
both Democratic and Republican members of the current freshman class of
Congress. In addition, I am one of 187 signatories to the discharge
petition to force comprehensive campaign finance legislation to the
floor for a vote.
Along with many of my Democratic colleagues, I have also signed two
letters to Speaker Gingrich and Chairman Solomon of the House Rules
Committee to urge a fair and open bipartisan debate on campaign finance
reform. Our Republican reform colleagues have also submitted similar
letters to Speaker Gingrich and Chairman Solomon.
Unfortunately, Republican Leadership has ignored our plea with its
decision to bring bills today to the House floor under suspension of
the rules, seriously jeopardizing their passage and tabling open
discussion of campaign finance reform for the remainder of this
Congress. For example, Republican Leadership is recommending passage of
H.R. 3485 which would triple the amount of money individuals may
contribute to federal candidates and political parties.
Placing these bills on the suspension calendar effectively precludes
free and open debate on these bills from occurring on the House floor,
which would include the option of considering the Shays-Meehan/McCain-
Feingold bills, comprehensive legislation which is supported by
legislators on both sides of the aisle as well as by citizens groups
serious about campaign finance reform.
This move on the part of the Republican Leadership reflects their
desire to block the House from enacting true campaign finance reform
and cheapens bipartisan efforts to address the concerns of American
voters across the country who feel politics are unduly influenced by
checkbooks. To restore voter confidence in the American electoral
process, we need authentic, comprehensive campaign finance reform.
Reform-minded Republicans and Democrats alike have worked very hard
to craft legislation that deals with the real issues behind campaign
finance reform, such as banning soft money contributions and tightening
up disclosure requirements. Partisan Republican Leadership should not
be allowed to defeat our efforts with transparent political posturing
such as bringing disingenuous legislation to the floor in the name of
campaign finance reform.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the four bills on
the floor to reform our campaign finance system. While I am a cosponsor
of H.R. 2183, The Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act of 1997, the
legislation on the floor today would make many needed improvements. The
campaign finance system needs to be reformed in order to improve public
confidence and accountability in the system. The investigations of
campaign finance abuses during the 1996 presidential campaign only
serves to further the public's distrust and cynicism of our election
system. However, new laws would not have prevented many of these abuses
from occurring--the abuses occurred despite the laws already on the
books. We need to ensure that the opportunity to violate the law is as
limited as possible, and that when the law is broken, the responsible
parties are swiftly punished. Today's debate is an important step in
strengthening our democracy, and ensuring that continued violations of
campaign finance laws are stopped.
While reform measures can benefit our political process, we must be
careful not to compromise the free speech constitutional rights of
voters, candidates and other participants in the system. I am concerned
that some of the reform proposals seek to adopt public financing of
congressional campaigns. Some measures advocate free television
advertising for candidates, an unwarranted provision that is inevitably
intended to lead to eventual taxpayer-funding of national elections.
Further, legislation has been introduced which prohibits any PAC
contributions to federal candidates, a very likely unconstitutional
provision which would remove citizen's constitutionally guaranteed
rights to fee speech and to support groups that participate in public
advocacy.
The campaign finance abuses that we have witnessed over the last few
years could be all but eliminated by adopting two reform measures, and
Congress has the opportunity to do just that today. The first is to ban
the use of soft money by state and national political parties and
federal candidates, and to ban the transfer of soft money between state
and political parties. Unlike hard money (which can legally be accepted
by a candidate or used by a party for political advocacy), soft money
is raised outside the federal limits on campaign contributions, and can
be used for such events like party building and voter registration
drives, which were abused during the last election cycle. The current
controversies over illegal fundraising activities by the administration
focus almost entirely on abuses in raising soft money. Soft money is
not subject to any donation limits, meaning corporations, labor unions,
and wealthy individuals can donate massive amounts of money to
political parties, completely unregulated by the Federal Election
Commission.
We also need to adopt measures requiring complete and immediate
disclosure of campaign donations. Implementing a full disclosure policy
will ensure that the public has quick access to candidates' campaign
activities, which would also have greatly curbed the fundraising abuses
of the last presidential campaign. The Campaign Reform and Election
Integrity Act we are considering requires all contributions that a
campaign receives within the last 20 days of an election to be reported
within 24 hours, requires mandatory electronic filing for campaign
committees which raise or spend more than $50,000, and prohibits a
candidate from accepting cash contributions greater than $100. Further,
the bill takes steps to curb the use of ``push polls'' by requiring a
disclaimer on who is paying the expenses of a federal election poll and
requires that the contributions and expenditures for non-publicized
polls of more than 1,200 people and conducted within 90 days of the
election to be reported to the FEC.
Congress has the opportunity to adopt rules that will require a
corporation or labor union to obtain the written and voluntary consent
of their employees or union members before removing from their pay any
portion of their wages for political purposes. These reform measures
also prohibit campaign contributions from individuals who are not
United States citizens. Also, ``issue advocacy'' is a practice that has
been prone to abuse, and the Campaign Reform and Election Integrity Act
requires disclosure of all contributions and expenditures for
communications that identify a federal candidate or political party
within 90 days of the election.
We have the opportunity today to ban soft money, mandate full
disclosure of campaign spending, require workers' consent to use their
dues for political purposes, and ban non-citizen contributions to
political campaigns. While we will never be able to eliminate the
possibility of campaign abuses occurring, today's legislation would put
in place campaign finance reforms that will greatly reduce the chance
of future abuses, and that will make it extremely difficult to hide
abuses of campaign law. Congress is faced with the task of reforming
our campaign funding system so that public confidence in our democratic
system is strengthened, but that at the same time protects citizens'
basic constitutional free speech rights.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering legislation which
addresses in part other issue of union dues being taken from workers
without their consent and spent on activities which have nothing to do
with legitimate collective bargaining activities.
I rise to point out that H.R. 1625, the Worker Paycheck Fairness Act,
which the Committee on Education and the Workforce favorably reported
to the House November 8, 1997, after six hearings the past two years in
my Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee, addresses the issue of
compulsory union dues from a different perspective.
While H.R. 3485 would amend federal election campaign law to require
written consent of
[[Page H1762]]
employees before funds could be taken from their paychecks to fund
political activities, H.R. 1625 is a free-standing federal statute,
also requiring written consent, but which focuses on the union security
agreement, contains tough enforcement measures, provides for notice and
disclosure to workers, and prohibits unions from retaliating against
those exercising their rights under the statute. It is my hope that the
House will consider H.R. 1625 later this year, perhaps in June, when
the State of California will be voting on a similar initiative in its
drive for fairness.
Indeed, decades ago Congress granted unions as extraordinary power--
the power to require employees to give financial support to unions as a
condition of employment. This mandate is called a union security
agreement, and such agreements are currently legal in 29 states. Simply
put, a union security agreement forces a worker to pay an agency fee to
the union, or the worker has no right to work. The reason I introduced
H.R. 1625 is because unions are diverting wages from employees working
under such security agreements and spending it on activities having
nothing to do with a union's legitimate activities.
In the six hearings I chaired on this issue during the past two
Congresses, we heard from worker after worker telling us one thing they
wanted from their union: ``Give me the respect,' they all said, `of
asking me for my permission before you spend my money for purposes
unrelated to your union obligations.' Yes, most of these employees were
upset over finding out their hard-earned dollars were being funneled
into political causes or candidates they did not support. However,
these employees supported their union and still overwhelmingly believe
in the value of organized labor. A number of them were stewards in
their union. All they want is to be able to give their consent before
their union spends their money on activities which fall outside
collective bargaining activities and which subvert their deeply held
ideas and convictions.
At its simple core, H.R. 1625 is about common sense and basic
fairness. It is not about trying to silence unions or interfere with
the role they play in the political process. In fact, nothing in H.R.
1625 keeps unions from spending their money exactly as they currently
do.
What H.R. 1625 does is grant to workers, union members and non-
members alike, the ability to give their consent to unions before they
direct workers' funds into activities that are not ``core'' union
functions. H.R. 1625 is about implementing the spirit of the Supreme
Court's Beck decision nearly a decade ago, which held that workers
cannot be required to pay for activities beyond legitimate union
functions. It is about the freedom of all men and women to make
individual and informed choices about the political, social or
charitable causes they support.
H.R. 1625 also requires employers whose employees are represented by
a union to post a notice telling workers of their right under this
legislation to give their prior consent. It also amends the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 to ensure that workers
will know what their money is being spent on. Under this change, unions
will have to report expenses by ``functional classification'' on the
LM-forms they are currently required to file annually with the
Department of Labor. This change was proposed by the Bush
administration in 1992 but was done away with by the Clinton
administration. H.R. 1625 also puts real enforcement into place, as
those whose rights are violated would be entitled to double damages and
attorney's fees and costs--similar to relief available under the Family
and Medical Leave Act.
Finally, H.R. 1625 includes a common employment law provision making
it illegal for a union to retaliate against or coerce anyone exercising
their consent rights. This provision is intended to overrule the Fourth
Circuit's 1991 Kidwell decision, a case arising under the Railway Labor
Act, which has been interpreted by some to hold that a union can kick a
member out of the union for exercising his or her Beck rights. H.R.
1625 applies to all employees--union members and non-members alike--and
under it unions may not discriminate against any worker for giving, or
not giving, their consent.
Some say the current system is working fine and no changes are needed
because workers already have the right under the Supreme Court's Beck
decision to opt-out of paying non-collective bargaining fees under a
union security agreement. To them I say two things. First, the current
system absolutely is not working. As my six hearings have shown,
individuals attempting to exercise their rights under current law often
face incredible burdens, including harassment, coercion, and
intimidation. Second, no one would argue that just because the Supreme
Court has issued decisions regarding racial or gender discrimination,
or on the rights of handicapped children to a quality public education,
that Congress was somehow precluded from passing legislation addressing
due process concerns guaranteeing such rights. The current system is
badly broken, and it is our responsibility to fix it.
It is my strong belief that equity and fairness in the area of
compulsory union dues would become a reality under H.R. 1625, and it is
my hope that the House of Representatives will consider this
legislation this June.
Mr. HINOJOSA, today we are scheduled to debate what is purported to
be campaign finance reform. If only that were the case. Sadly, it is
not.
When I ran for this office I said I wanted to see substantive change.
I, in fact, co-sponsored a bipartisan bill to bring about such change.
It is a measure which would ban soft money and take the biggest of the
big money out of the political system. It would replace unregulated,
million dollar contributions with limited, hard money contributions. It
also would require advocacy groups to disclose their identify and
expenditures when they run advertisements to affect a political race.
Tough new candidate disclosure provisions are also part of the bill.
But what is before us today does not bear any semblance to this solid
package. What is before us is a bill that locks average citizens out of
the political process, and gives even greater influence to big money
contributors. Americans want less money in politics, not more.
Simply put, this bill is not genuine campaign finance reform. And
what is even more onerous is that this bill has been placed on the
suspension calendar, a procedural tactic effectively blocking the House
from having a free and open debate that allows consideration of
alternative measures. I have brought with me an article printed in this
past Saturday's New York Times which I would like to have inserted into
the Congressional Record elaborating on this sham, and which I find to
be nothing less than a total disregard for public interest.
The opportunity that should be before us today is one to make the
system better. That is what the public wants and that is what we need
to do. However, the legislation before us will do nothing more than
preserve the status quo. It is egregious, to say the least. That is why
I cannot vote for this package. The status quo must be changed and I
will continue to fight instead for real campaign reform, so that
Congress responds to the needs of all Americans, not just those who are
able to contribute the most money.
House G.O.P. Shifts on Campaign Bills Vote Set for Next Week, but Not
on the Main Bipartisan Proposal
(By Steven A. Holmes)
Washington, March 27.--Abruptly shifting gears, the House
Republican leadership announced today that it would take up
four campaign finance bills on Monday--but not the main
bipartisan bill, which would not be allowed to the floor.
The four measures would be considered on a special calendar
under which they could not be amended and would require a
nearly insurmountable two-thirds vote to pass. These rules
are usually reserved for noncontroversial legislative items
like resolutions honoring a group or an individual.
The announcement was made by Representative Dick Armey, the
Texas Republican and majority leader, and was the latest
twist in efforts to overhaul campaign finance. Democrats and
some moderate Republicans responded with indignation.
Among them was Representative Martin T. Meehan, the
Massachusetts Democrat who is co-sponsoring the bipartisan
bill with Representative Christopher Shays, Republican of
Connecticut.
``I cannot believe the total disregard for the public
interest that we have seen this afternoon,'' Mr. Meehan said,
``It's an absolute outrage. I have never seen it this bad
before.''
In November, Speaker Newt Gingrich, hoping to secure enough
votes from Republican centrists to adjourn the House,
promised a vote on campaign finance legislation by the end of
March. In announcing plans to vote on the four bills, Mr.
Armey said the Republican leadership was fulfilling the
commitment made by Mr. Gingrich, a Georgia Republican.
Christina Martin, his press secretary, explained the
decision this way: ``Today, in an elected leadership meeting,
it became clear that there were a number of members who had
informed their constituents that there would be a vote on
campaign finance before Easter, regardless of their stance on
the issue. Therefore, they wanted the promise fulfilled.''
House Republican leadership is fiercely opposed to the
Shays-Meehan proposal, which is similar to one sponsored in
the Senate by John McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Russell
D. Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat. The House bipartisan
proposal would restrict so-called issue ads, which often
skirt campaign rules by focusing on candidates, and ban the
unlimited and unregulated donations that corporations, unions
and individuals give to political parties for general
activities, not for specific candidate elections.
The Shays-Meehan bill would not have gained the two-thirds
vote to pass if it had been included on the special calendar.
But the Republican decision to exclude the bill in the
package to be voted on next week eliminated not only the
possibility of a test vote
[[Page H1763]]
showing that it could obtain a majority but also campaign
television commercials singling out Republicans who voted
against the Shays-Meehan proposal.
The Republican leadership's maneuver provoked the unusual
scene on the House floor today as Democrats stepped back to
allow some Republicans to direct sharp questions at their own
leaders.
For several minutes, Mr. Shays mordantly questioned Mr.
Armey on how he could call the new approach a fair and open
debate. To question Mr. Armey, Mr. Shays had to ask the
opposition Democrats to yield some of their speaking time.
Each time he made the request, the Democrats complied,
producing the legislative version of holding Mr. Shays's coat
while he did the fighting.
``I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut,''
Representative Vic Fazio, Democrat of California, said
eagerly as Mr. Shays pressed the majority leader. ``I'm more
than happy to yield.''
The House leadership's maneuver came just a day after the
Republicans abandoned their plans to vote this week on
campaign legislation. The vote was put off because enough
Republicans were leaning toward the Shays-Meehan bill that it
threatened to pass on a procedural motion. The Republican
rebellion showed that the bill could very likely have
achieved a majority.
But the decision to kill any vote on campaign finance until
after the House recess, which begins next mid-week, did not
sit well with some members of the Republican leadership, said
senior aides. Some Republicans did not want to be left
vulnerable to criticism from Democrats and some moderate
Republicans.
Thursday's decision provoked a group of conservative
Democrats to press a petition that would allow a number of
campaign finance bills, including the Shays-Meehan proposal,
to be considered. The petition is about 30 signatures short
of the necessary 188 needed to bring it to the floor.
One of the Democrats, Scotty Baesler of Kentucky, said he
wanted ``to challenge those who say they are for campaign
reform to fish or cut bait.''
Although Mr. Shays and Mr. Meehan cannot block the
leadership's plans for Monday, they signaled that it would
bolster the efforts by Mr. Baesler and others to collect
enough signatures for the petition.
Mr. Shays offered this assessment: ``I think every Democrat
and every reform-minded Republican would want to sign a
discharge petition that allows for a free and open debate on
campaign.''
Of the four bills to be considered on Monday, one would ban
the national political parties from receiving the unlimited
donations to the national political parties, known as soft
money, but would still allow state parties to use such
contributions for Federal candidates. The bill includes a
number of other elements that are certain to provoke
opposition from Democrats.
The second bill would prohibit noncitizens from
contributing to political campaigns. The third bill, which is
opposed by Democrats but embraced by many Republicans, would
require labor unions to seek permission from members to spend
their dues on political activity. The fourth bill, which
might receive a two-thirds majority, would expand reporting
and disclosure requirements for campaign contributions.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker the campaign finance reform legislation we are
considering today, and the process by which we reached this point is a
complete sham and a fraud. The Republican leadership of the House of
Representatives is engaged in a purely partisan attempt to kill
campaign finance reform. As was illustrated by the debate last Friday,
the scheduling of this bill took place without any consultation with
the Democrats or even with moderate Republicans who are committed to
reform. With the scheduling of reform under ``Suspension of the
Rules'', which requires the support of 2/3 of Congress to pass, it is
guaranteed that campaign reform will fail.
It is clear that a bipartisan majority of this House supports
campaign finance reform. The delay of the vote from last week, and now
the parliamentary tricks the leadership is using today, show the
lengths the Republican leadership will go to kill campaign finance
reform.
For the past year I have worked with my fellow freshman members on
the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform task force. Our group came up
with a strong, bipartisan bill that had no poison pills. No one from
our group was consulted in scheduling this vote. Representatives Chris
Shays and Marty Meehan have been working in a bipartisan manner for
more than three years to craft a campaign finance reform bill. They
were not consulted in scheduling this vote. The members who are
committed to changing the status quo have been shut out by the
leadership in favor of those who want to increase the amount of money
in the campaign system.
For the second time this year, the will of the majority to pass
meaningful campaign finance reform has been denied. In the U.S. Senate,
a majority of Senators supported the McCain-Feingold reform bill, but
because of a Senate rule, 60 votes were needed to pass the bill. Now in
the House, through the creative use of legislative tactics, the
leadership is on its way to defeating reform legislation.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to end this deception and allow an honest
vote on campaign finance reform. The House Republican leadership's
attempts to deny the will of the majority and kill campaign finance
reform is a black mark on this House. The only way to restore the faith
of the public in their elected officials is by reforming our broken
system. This is a sad day for our democratic process.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my outrage at the manner
in which the Republican leadership has decided to bring campaign reform
to the House floor and my opposition to the bills we are considering
tonight.
Mr. Speaker, despite the well-remembered handshake with the President
in New Hampshire, despite promises last fall that the House would have
a full, fair debate this spring on reforming the way political
campaigns are financed, the process your side has contrived goes in the
opposite direction. Procedures that were designed to speed passage of
non-controversial legislation are being bent to prevent passage of any
meaningful reform.
Under the suspension procedures the Republicans have decided to use,
each of the four bills being presented today will receive only twenty
minutes of debate on each side. None can be amended unless by the
bill's manager. To pass, each must gain two-thirds of the votes, not
the usual majority, making passage virtually impossible.
Moreover, even though there is visible bipartisan interest in
campaign finance reform, and even though several bipartisan bills have
been introduced, the content of the four bills comes entirely from the
Republican side. Democrats were simply not part of the process.
H.R. 3582, the so-called ``Campaign Reform and Election Integrity
Act'', is far and away the worst bill of the bunch because it contains
so many outrages. It is appropriate that the Republicans call this
``Campaign Reform'' instead of ``Campaign Finance Reform'', because it
would vastly increase--double or even triple--the amounts of money that
wealthy special interests could pour into political campaigns and
political parties.
At the same time, its Worker Gag Rule provisions would silence
working men and women by making union political activity subject to an
expensive and cumbersome approval process. And political activity is
defined so broadly that it would even keep unions from educating their
members about legislation that could directly affect their health,
safety, pensions, or bargaining rights.
It would continue the Republicans' recent string of immigrant-bashing
measures in two ways:
It would prohibit non-citizen legal residents from contributing to
federal campaigns--which, since they cannot vote, is the only way they
can exercise their First Amendment rights and participate in the
political system. I'm not aware of any legal barrier to felons
contributing to candidates, although a candidate might think twice
about accepting such a contribution. But legal permanent residents, who
work, pay taxes, serve in the military, and spend their lives under our
laws, would be silenced by this bill.
Moreover, the bill would establish a voter citizenship verification
pilot program in the five states with the largest immigrant
populations--a provision explicitly designed to harass and intimidate
Hispanic and other ethnic voters by threatening would-be voters who
look or sound ``foreign'' with investigation. It certainly can't be
intended to actually verify anyone's citizenship, because the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Social Security
Administration (SSA) have said their records and databases are not
complete or up-to-date enough to be used for that purpose. it can only
be meant to intimidate and suppress minority voters.
Mr. Speaker, these are only a couple of the flaws in this bill, but
the bottom line is that the process is outrageous. Members of this
House, and the people we represent, have the right to full and open
debate and votes on the range of proposals for reforming the campaign
finance system. This is not that debate and the major reform proposals
are left entirely out.
I intend to vote against all of these bills tonight and I will work
to win the 218 signatures needed to free the discharge petition that
would bring the various campaign finance reform proposals to the floor.
I urge my colleagues to vote against these bills and to sign the
discharge petition so we can finally engage in fair and open debate,
with votes, on meaningful campaign finance reform.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, in one of the most outrageous, cynical, and
arrogant displays I have seen in my long service in the Congress the
Republican leadership put the bill H.R. 3485, the Campaign Reform
Election Integrity Act, on the floor today under suspension of the
rules.
This procedure allows no amendments, and only forty minutes of
debate.
This is one of the most important issues in the Nation today.
[[Page H1764]]
Americans are being alienated by the deluge of money entering our
political system and being alienated from their government and our
political system by practices they believe are corrupting our entire
political system.
I cannot and will not vote for bad legislation protected by a gag
rule and outrageous procedure, without opportunity for either debate or
amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). All time has expired.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) that the House suspend the rules and pass the
bill, H.R. 3582.
The question was taken.
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.
____________________