[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.

                          ____________________