[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 66 (Thursday, May 21, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3722-H3733]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 119, PROPOSING 
 AMENDMENT TO CONSTITUTION TO LIMIT CAMPAIGN SPENDING, AND H.R. 2183, 
               BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN INTEGRITY ACT OF 1997

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 442 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 442

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 119) proposing an amendment 
     to the Constitution of the United States to limit campaign 
     spending. The first reading of the joint resolution shall be 
     dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the joint 
     resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by Representative DeLay of Texas or his designee 
     and a Member in favor of the joint resolution. After general 
     debate the joint resolution shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read. During consideration of the joint 
     resolution for amendment, the Chairman of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 6 or rule XXIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. The chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of

[[Page H3723]]

     questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the joint resolution for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the joint resolution to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2. At any time after the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 2183) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 to reform the financing of campaigns for elections for 
     Federal office, and for other purposes. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and the amendments made in order by this 
     resolution and shall not exceed two hours equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on House Oversight. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     The bill shall be considered as read. Before consideration of 
     any other amendment it shall be in order to consider the 
     amendments in the nature of a substitute specified in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order specified, may be offered only by the Member who caused 
     it to be printed in the Congressional Record or his designee, 
     shall be considered as read, and shall not be subject to a 
     substitute amendment or to a perfecting amendment carrying a 
     tax or tariff measure. During consideration of the bill in 
     the Committee of the Whole, all points of order against each 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute specified in the 
     report are waived. Consideration of each amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute specified in the report shall begin 
     with an additional period of general debate, which shall be 
     confined to the subject of the amendment and shall not exceed 
     one hour equally divided and controlled by the Member who 
     caused the amendment to be printed in the Congressional 
     Record or his designee and an opponent. During consideration 
     of amendments to an amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
     or of other amendments to the bill, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. If more 
     than one amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted, 
     then only the one receiving the greater number of affirmative 
     votes shall be considered as finally adopted and reported to 
     the House. In the case of a tie for the greater number of 
     affirmative votes, then only the last amendment to receive 
     that number of affirmative votes shall be considered as 
     finally adopted and reported to the House. The chairman of 
     the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time 
     during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a 
     request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce 
     to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that allows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment to the bill reported from the Committee of 
     the Whole or to an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     finally adopted and reported to the House. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

                              {time}  2200

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  I would like to begin by saying it is my understanding that the only 
debate tonight will be on the rule with a prospective vote perhaps on 
the rule, and all general debate will be tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 442 provides for the consideration of 
H. J. Res. 119 under an open amending process with one hour of general 
debate equally divided between the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and 
a Member in favor of the joint resolution. The rule authorizes the 
Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted 
their amendments in the Congressional Record and allows the chairman to 
postpone votes and reduce the voting time to 5 minutes if the postponed 
vote follows a 15-minute vote.
  On the joint resolution, the rule provides for one motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.
  The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 2183 under a 
modified open amendment process any time after the adoption of the 
rule.
  H. Res. 442 provides for two hours of general debate equally divided 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
House Oversight. Following the two hours of general debate, the rule 
provides for consideration of the 11 amendments in the nature of a 
substitute specified in the Committee on Rules report. In order to 
allow for consideration of as many alternatives as possible, the 
Committee on Rules has waived all points of order against each of the 
amendments in the nature of a substitute. Under this very fair, open 
rule, each amendment in the nature of a substitute may be offered only 
in the order specified, may be offered only by the Member who caused it 
to be printed in the Congressional Record or his designee, shall be 
considered as read, and shall not be subject to a substitute amendment 
or perfecting amendment carrying a tariff or tax provision.
  Mr. Speaker, we have provided one hour of general debate at the 
beginning of consideration of each of the 11 substitutes, which shall 
be equally divided and controlled by the Member who caused the 
amendment to be printed in the Record or his designee and an opponent. 
The rule permits the Chair to accord priority in recognition to 
preprinted amendments and allows the Chair to postpone votes during the 
bill's consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not allow the King of the Hill rule that the 
Democrats instituted for 40 years in an effort to subvert popular 
legislation and undermine free and open debate. Under H. Res. 442, the 
substitute that receives the most votes will be reported to the House. 
If more than one amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted, 
then only the one receiving the greater number of affirmative votes 
shall be considered as finally adopted and reported to the House.
  I am certain that I did not see this kind of process on campaign 
finance reform when the Democrats controlled the House. In fact, in my 
first year in this House, former Speaker Foley and the Democrat 
Committee on Rules muzzled the minority and forced a closed rule upon 
us. Not only were we allowed to offer only one amendment to the entire 
bill, but the Democrats refused to allow us a basic right to offer a 
motion to recommit with instructions.
  A quick glance back in history shows that this was not simply an 
isolated incident but a pattern of suppressed debate on this issue in 
Democrat Congresses.
  In the 102nd Congress, for example, the Democrats again stifled open 
and free debate with a similarly closed gag rule. I expect that the 
calls today will again be for a return to the days of closed rules and 
limited debate. The opponents of this open debate want us to close down 
the process, allow consideration of only one bill, and foreclose all 
other opinions on this subject.
  Mr. Speaker, it is only fair that we present the House with a wide 
open amending process that allows each Representative the ability to 
amend and perfect each of the 11 campaign finance reform bills. This 
rule will create the most open debate process in the history of 
campaign reform, as was promised by the Speaker.
  Although I am not as cynical as some on the subject of campaign 
finance reform, I agree that the system can be improved. However, the 
first amendment guarantees our right to express ourselves, and that 
right extends to political expression as well. Therefore, the right of 
Americans to contribute to political campaigns should not be infringed. 
Clearly, it is important for voters to know which individuals and which 
groups are financing a candidate. I have cosponsored legislation that 
ensures that voters know where that money is coming from and can act 
accordingly.
  On the subject of free speech, the rule allows for consideration of a 
constitutional amendment that was originally introduced by the minority 
leader, the

[[Page H3724]]

gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), that would give Congress new 
power to regulate campaign expenditures. The Member offering that 
amendment, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), opposes it because it 
basically gives the Congress the authority to enact any legislation 
that may abridge an array of free speech and free association rights 
under the First Amendment. Nevertheless, under this open amendment 
process, the Committee on Rules wanted to allow a full debate on the 
measure.
  I also think it should be noted that we need to deal with the problem 
of union money being funneled into races across the country. Despite 
their calls for reform, the $400 million in union money that was dumped 
into the 1996 elections has been protected by Democrats against the 
will of hard-working American union members. If we are truly going to 
talk about reform, then we need to address how unions are using, for 
partisan political purposes, the paychecks of the union workers.
  While I do not believe that major changes are necessary to the 
existing campaign finance laws, I do, however, believe that these 
existing campaign finance laws have been under assault since early 
1996.
  We have now found that two major Democrat donors benefited from an 
administration policy change that improved the accuracy of missiles 
pointed at American cities. Even some in the administration believe 
that the decision to provide American technology to China has put 
American national security at risk. Personally, I believe it would be 
more useful if we could get some kind of assurance that the current 
laws we have on the books are going to be honored. Nonetheless, the 
administration is calling for new reforms.
  However, it should be noted that it is already illegal to funnel 
millions of dollars in foreign money into the United States electoral 
system as the Chinese did. It is already illegal to make fund-raising 
calls from Federal property. It is already improper to use
the Lincoln bedroom and Air Force One for fund-raising activities, and 
it is also already illegal under current law to go a Buddhist temple 
and accept illegal campaign funds.
  These actions are already against the law, and they were shamelessly 
violated in 1996. Mr. Speaker, nothing in this new campaign reform 
legislation will matter if one party or the other simply decides that 
the law does not apply to them.
  That is why our focus today should be on how current campaign finance 
law was so flagrantly violated. Unfortunately, we cannot get to the 
bottom of the 1996 campaign finance scandal because 91 witnesses who 
know the truth about campaign violations have either fled the country, 
refused to testify, or have taken the Fifth Amendment.
  Amidst this enormous left wing coverup come the artificial calls for 
campaign finance reform. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to consider 
campaign finance reform, this majority is committed to a process that 
allows for a full debate on the pertinent issues. This rule provides 
for that kind of open debate.
  The rule for the campaign finance bill was favorably reported out of 
the Committee on Rules. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so 
that we may proceed with the general debate and consideration of each 
of the substitute campaign finance reform bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule proves once and for all that the Republican 
majority has no real interest in actually pursuing real campaign 
finance reform. Under the guise of full and free debate, the Republican 
majority has brought to the House a process which could in all 
probability take up weeks of the time we have left in this session of 
Congress and in the end might produce nothing.
  Mr. Speaker, there are many points of view on this subject, but it 
does not serve the institution well, nor does it serve the American 
people well, to debate those views in a cynical process which is little 
more than a charade. The process the Republican majority has brought to 
the floor ensures that the House will not have the opportunity to have 
an up or down vote on either the bipartisan freshman proposal or the 
Shays-Meehan proposal.
  This rule makes in order 11 substitutes to the freshman reform 
proposal, as well as the consideration of any germane amendment to each 
and every one of those substitutes. In essence, as each substitute is 
considered, the rule will allow multiple amendments to that substitute. 
In addition, it is anticipated that the Committee on Rules will meet 
again after the Memorial Day recess to report another rule which will 
make in order a number of nongermane amendments to the substitutes. 
Included in those nongermane amendments are a number of proposals which 
many Members in this House consider to be poison pill amendments.
  After each substitute has been considered, whichever has received the 
most number of votes will be judged the winner. This may be an open 
process, Mr. Speaker, but I beg to differ with those who might 
characterize it as allowing the House to reach a decision when in fact 
it may be designed to do the very opposite.
  To further compound the complication, the rule allows the House to 
bring up a constitutional amendment introduced but not supported by the 
majority whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). The majority whip 
has called this proposal a ``big brother'' remedy, yet he came to the 
Committee on Rules yesterday to ask that it be made in order. 
Consideration of this constitutional amendment is just more of the same 
attempt to divert the attention of the House and the American public 
from the real question: Do we want real campaign finance reform or do 
we not?
  The Shays-Meehan proposal is considered by many outside good 
government groups to be true campaign finance reform. The bill bans 
soft money at the Federal and State level if those funds are used to 
influence Federal elections. The bill redefines express advocacy to 
include radio and television communications that refer to a clearly 
defined Federal candidate within 60 days of an election or that include 
unambiguous support or opposition to a Federal candidate outside the 
60-day period.
  All ads falling under this definition could only be run by using 
legal hard dollars. The bill clarifies the Pendleton Act restrictions 
on fund-raising on Federal property and bars political parties from 
making coordinated expenditures on behalf of candidates who do not 
limit spending their own money to $50,000.
  Finally, the Shays-Meehan proposal codifies the Beck decision that 
ensures that nonunion employees who pay union agency fees do not have 
to pay for union political activities.
  Unfortunately, this bill does not contain a nonseverability clause. 
Should the Supreme Court find any essential part of this proposal to be 
unconstitutional, the remainder, however unbalanced or unwise because 
of the loss of that element, would remain the law of the land. Losing 
an essential element of Shays-Meehan would lead us right back to the 
situation in which we now find ourselves.

                              {time}  2215

  After the Supreme Court struck down one of the four essential pillars 
in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, what was left was an unbalanced and 
unstable hodgepodge that gave us the quagmire we are trying to work our 
way out of today. If we are to consider amendments to these proposals, 
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that prominent among them should be one which 
provides for nonseverability.
  The Shays-Meehan proposal represents a sea change in how Federal 
elections are conducted today, Mr. Speaker, and it deserves the 
opportunity to be fully and freely debated. Unfortunately, this rule 
does not provide that opportunity.
  The freshman bipartisan bill, sponsored by the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), is 
also a proposal which would make significant changes in the way Federal 
election campaigns are conducted. The freshman proposal also bans 
national parties from accepting or raising soft money on behalf of the 
national committee or on behalf of State political parties. However, 
the freshman proposal does permit State political parties to continue 
to raise and spend soft money and use those funds for activities 
intended to affect Federal elections. These are significant changes,

[[Page H3725]]

Mr. Speaker, and deserve to be debated by this House.
  The freshman proposal indexes for inflation the allowable amount of 
PAC and individual contributions into $100 increments beginning in 1999 
and increases the aggregate annual contribution limit from $25,000 to 
$50,000 each year, instead of election cycle, with a maximum of $25,000 
in donations to candidates and PACs, and a maximum of $25,000 to 
political parties. This bill also raises PAC contributions to national 
parties from $15,000 each election cycle to $20,000 each calendar year 
and removes party candidate coordination limits.
  Finally, the bill requires third-party advocacy groups who run issue 
ads on either television or radio to report expenditures of more than 
$25,000 on a single candidate, or more than $100,000 on multiple 
candidates. Failure to comply with the requirements set out in the bill 
could result in fines up to $50,000. These changes, Mr. Speaker, are 
quite significant and do deserve to be fully and freely debated.
  So, Mr. Speaker, some Democratic Members, in an effort to provide for 
debate on campaign finance reform that is not designed to derail the 
process, will vote against the previous question. They hope to amend 
this rule to provide for the kind of process that was set out in the 
discharge petition that came so close to reaching the requisite 218 
signatures. They hope to allow the House to consider each substitute, 
and when the House has agreed to the substitute it wishes to work from, 
then consider amendments to that proposal. The Democratic rule is a 
much more reasonable process and one which will allow the House to 
choose within a reasonable period of time whether it wishes to pursue 
campaign finance or not.
  Mr. Speaker, we just heard Mr. Linder expound about things that are 
currently in the press related to China rather than talking about 
campaign finance reform. It is obvious that the Republicans do not want 
to deal with campaign finance reform. All they want to deal with is 
things that are in newspapers and on TV, whether they are substantiated 
or not.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to point out that 
the reason I raise the issue of Chinese money is it was a precise 
violation of current finance laws with respect to campaigning, and if 
they are not going to obey the current laws, how can we expect them to 
obey any future ones?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson).
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise in support of the rule.
  I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his excellent work on the 
Committee on Rules and his efforts in regard to this rule and this 
legislation. And I also want to express my appreciation to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, for his commitment to a fair and open debate on campaign finance 
reform.
  I am one of the lead sponsors of the bipartisan Campaign Integrity 
Act, also known as the freshman bill, and I just want to congratulate 
my cosponsor, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Tom Allen), for his work, 
and the other Democrat freshmen that have worked so hard; as well as 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Ken Hulshof), the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Kevin Brady), the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rick Hill), and so 
many other freshmen Republicans that have worked hard for over a year 
in developing a proposal that is bipartisan in formation and bipartisan 
in nature and it continues in a bipartisan fashion today. We have 
worked well together on this. So this is the base bill that is under 
consideration.
  The rule before us allows for the consideration of 11 substitute 
amendments to the base bill. Those substitutes range from the 
commission bill, sponsored by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Rick 
White), to the Paycheck Protection bill, offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Bob Schaffer). It allows votes on the vast range of 
reform bills, even the extremes, from the Doolittle bill, which removes 
all limits on contributions, to the Shays-Meehan bill, which is massive 
in terms of its regulatory control over issue advocacy groups. In other 
words, the rule is fair to all and will provide ample opportunity for 
debate on this critical issue.
  What will the result be? Certainly it is unknown, and the amendment 
process is still up in the air. But I am hopeful that we can go through 
this process in a bipartisan fashion; that we will not be slamming each 
other throughout this but that we work to get the job done.
  I believe the freshmen who came here believe that we are here to 
accomplish something and not get sidetracked on a multitude of issues. 
We need to start this and we need to finish it. I ask colleagues to 
support this rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate all of the Members 
who signed the discharge petition, which has brought about this rule 
tonight and brought about the consideration of campaign reform. And in 
particular I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) for all the work that he has done, and I want to commend the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for all of the work and effort 
that he has put forth.
  I want to thank the members of our Blue Dog coalition here in the 
Democratic Caucus and all the work that they have done. And I want to 
commend the freshmen on both sides who have worked so hard to see that 
this issue comes up.
  In truth, this issue should have come up some months ago, when we had 
this tortured procedure of having a suspension. It is time for campaign 
reform. The reason the discharge petition got signed by so many 
Members, and the reason that so many Members in this body are for 
campaign reform is that its time has come. The American people want us 
to enact campaign reform. The perception in the country, right or 
wrong, is that money is the dominant feature of America's campaigns. 
People are sick of that. They want to have a control on the money.
  I would simply say to the Members that I hope all of the Members will 
vote for the Shays-Meehan bill. The Shays-Meehan bill is, in my view, 
of all the bills, and I have worked on many of the bills that are going 
to be up, is the best bill. It is the first step that we can take. It 
gets rid of soft money, the large contributions which have been so 
dominant in this system. We need to take this first step.
  It does something about outside expenditures, of outside independent 
groups coming in and spending thousands and thousands of dollars at the 
end of campaigns.
  It does not do everything that should be done in campaign reform, but 
it is a solid first step. And I hope that every Democratic Member on my 
side of the aisle will support this legislation with their vote, and I 
hope Republicans will support it as well.
  We should be able to get 218 votes on the floor of this House next 
month and we will make a blow for what the American people want to 
clean up this system and move it in the right direction.
  Vote for the rule, vote for Shays-Meehan when we get that chance.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me this time.
  My colleagues, I too rise in support of this rule, and I listened 
with great interest to the minority leader decry the current state and 
the perception of running for political office and raising funds.
  Mr. Speaker, I think there are three words that sum up the essence of 
what is transpiring in the body politic today, and that is: Obey 
existing laws. That is what should be done. Sadly, because of an 
association with foreigners and foreign money, we now have serious 
allegations.
  Rather than changing the rules, although I think we are all happy to 
do so under an open fashion, in stark contrast to what went on for some 
40 years here before the new majority took control, we will have a 
chance to openly debate this, but make no mistake, my

[[Page H3726]]

colleagues, the most radical reform would be for my liberal friends and 
those at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue to obey existing laws.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the Democratic whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, every 2 years America's airwaves are flooded 
with political attack ads. These negative ads leave voters feeling 
cynical, disenchanted, and with little faith in politicians or in the 
political process.
  These attack ads are also the main reason why we spend so much time 
fund-raising, defending ourselves against vicious 30-second spots, 
often now funded by outside groups, and have become more and more 
costly every single year and every single election. Free TV time for 
credible candidates could drastically lower the cost of campaigns and 
eliminate the need for excessive fund-raising.
  The broadcasters and the radio folks and the TV folks and the cable 
folks, they do not own those airwaves. They belong to the American 
people, not the media corporations.
  Under the current system, many people feel they have no political 
voice. No political voice at all unless they contribute $50,000 or 
$70,000 or $100,000 to the major parties. And many public officials 
feel they have no choice but to court such contributions. This ends up 
excluding all but the wealthiest Americans from the political process, 
spawns investigation after investigation, and really eats away at the 
very heart of our democracy.
  One of the reasons we are seeing the decline of people participating 
at the polls is because of this very system that we are forced to 
operate under. Look at what is happening in California where 
millionaires are duking it out to be governor, and the poor man in the 
race is spending $8 million in the primary.
  This Congress has the capacity to change that. We can dismantle the 
current system that, I daresay, very few of us like. We can restore the 
integrity of our elections. We can renew the faith of the voters. And 
the first important step on that path, the first important step in this 
process is passing a bipartisan bill, the Meehan-Shays bill.
  This bill, as the leader said, would ban soft money, the huge 
contributions to political parties that really are just an end run 
around Federal contribution limits. This bill would require outside 
groups that run so-called issue advertisements to play by the same 
funding rules as the actual candidates. This bill would force timely 
disclosure of who is really funding campaigns so that the voters can 
make informed decisions about the information that they are getting.

                              {time}  2230

  Meehan/Shays will not solve our problems entirely, but it is a good 
first step. It will demonstrate that this Congress is committed to 
genuine reform; and that is no small commitment for the Speaker, who, 
as the leader has said, has blocked reform at every step, who said that 
the problem with our political system is that we spend too little 
money.
  It does not have to be that way. Raising more money to clean up 
politics would be like using a bucket of kerosene to put out a fire. 
But we can work together this week, next month in fixing the system.
  Mr. Speaker, schedule a full and a fair debate on campaign finance 
reform. Americans will not accept any more political games, any more 
false delays, any more poison pills, any more sham reforms, any more 
gaming of the system. Give the Members of this House, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, a clean up-or-down vote on Meehan/Shays. It is a 
fair, bipartisan approach; and it should be judged on its merits, 
nothing else.
  The American people are watching. The Meehan/Shays is the one vote 
that will tell them everything. I urge my colleagues when we get to 
this debate to be vigilant and to stand with those who stand for 
reform.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, is soft money constitutionally protected? No, not 
exactly.
  Are the political parties and others constitutionally protected to 
raise money in any amount from any sources? No, not exactly.
  Many of those who will be arguing about soft money bans are going to 
claim that soft money is constitutionally protected, and they will be 
using an illusionist's sleight of tongue when they make that argument.
  Some will refer to the Supreme Court decision in Colorado v. FEC. In 
that case, the Colorado Republican Party sued the FEC, saying that the 
Federal agency had no authority to regulate soft money issue advocacy 
campaigns.
  Did the court sanction soft money in that decision? Well, no, not 
exactly. What it said was that the Federal Election Campaign Act 
permits unregulated soft money for some uses. It did not say it was a 
constitutional right. It simply said the Federal Election Campaign Act 
did not encompass soft money.
  So what does the freshman bill do about soft money in Colorado? It 
says this. It says that the National Republican and Democratic Parties 
cannot give soft money to the Colorado State parties. It says that 
federal officeholders cannot raise soft money for those State parties. 
It says that Colorado cannot get soft money from another State party. 
And it ends money laundering.
  But if the people of Colorado want the State parties to be able to 
raise and spend soft money, they can; and if they do not, they can stop 
it. That is what the tenth amendment is about, letting States make 
decisions that impact the States.
  The Supreme Court has said that limits on spending have serious 
constitutional problems because they restrict free speech. This bill 
does not limit spending. It places limits on contributions, which the 
Supreme Court has ruled is constitutional.
  This freshman bill limits contributions by saying ``no more soft 
money'' to our national parties. No more corporate money. No more big 
labor money. No more laundering of money. And no limits on free speech.
  I say, support the rule; defend the freshman rule. It is fair to both 
political parties. It meets constitutional muster, and it will restore 
integrity to campaigns.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Fazio), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, I would like 
to be here in the well tonight to congratulate the Republican 
leadership for finally relenting and allowing a fair debate on genuine 
campaign finance reform. Unfortunately, I cannot do it.
  The Republican leadership want no part of campaign finance reform. 
The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) repeatedly has said that not 
enough money is spent on political campaigns. He does not think that 
billions of dollars spent each year on 30-second negative TV spots is 
enough.
  But this is the Speaker who made a promise in Claremont, New 
Hampshire, 3 years ago. He looked President Clinton straight in the 
eye, shook his hand, and promised to commit himself to campaign finance 
reform. We know the old phrase ``a promise made, a promise broken.''
  Last winter, the Speaker made another promise. After the Senate began 
debate on campaign finance reform, he committed to have a vote on real 
campaign finance reform by the end of March. Well, instead, we got a 
rigged process and a phoney bill and a lot of bad press. Another 
promise made, another promise broken.
  It brings us to today, after House Democrats from across the spectrum 
and a handful of Republicans forced the Speaker to promise a vote on 
real campaign reform by May 15. Well, check the calendar. It is May 21. 
And we are just beginning a debate 1 day before a 2-week recess, with 
no sign of a simple vote on campaign finance reform on the horizon. We 
are destined to be filler for the next several months. Another promise 
made, another promise broken.
  What is the Republican leadership afraid of? Well, it is pretty 
obvious. They are afraid that campaign finance reform will pass. So 
they bottled it up, put it off and now, in their latest attempt to kill 
it, have made it complicated and cumbersome.
  I think it is time we send the final message. Let us tell them that 
we want a straight up-or-down vote now on the

[[Page H3727]]

Meehan/Shays campaign reform bill. No more delay. No more technical 
mumbo-jumbo. No more broken promises.
  I want my colleagues to know that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt); our Whip, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior); all of 
those who have worked on our side are asking for a no vote on the 
previous question as a way of explaining our frustration with a process 
that has not served not only this body but the American people well. 
Then perhaps should we prevail. We could have that vote up or down, as 
the American people deserve it.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) the representative of the Committee 
on Rules here, the gentleman who yielded to me. Because I think they 
did the right thing, and they have done something which I think all of 
us in this House should embrace who believe that we should have an open 
rule process for this in.
  I have heard that there are supposed to be 500 amendments on this, 
and it is going to be a very difficult task to straighten out what we 
should be voting on and what we should not be voting on. But the bottom 
line is that the leadership and the Committee on Rules in particular 
heard the message here, and they have done a wonderful job, and I think 
they deserve the heartfelt thanks of all of us who have been 
campaigning for campaign finance reform in some way or another here in 
the last couple of years.
  There are a lot of good bills which are here. I think the Freshman 
bill is a particularly good bill. I also happen to favor Meehan/Shays. 
I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has done a much more 
exceptional job on campaign finance reform than anyone has given him 
credit for.
  But I would caution each and every one of us as we enter into this 
fray I guess after we come back from the Memorial Day break that it is 
going to be very difficult to hold intact the concept of a majority for 
a particular bill that will be campaign finance reform and perhaps even 
more difficult to hold together a majority for the particular bill that 
one cares about.
  And yet, in my judgment, there have been enough abuses, some maybe 
perfectly legal, as a matter of fact, and some perhaps even illegal, 
that the time has come in the United States of America when we all 
should look in the mirror.
  I have a hunch that there is enough blame to go around from one 
political party or the other and perhaps from one candidate to another 
as we look across America. And I must say that most candidates live 
well within the rules, but there have been a lot of abuses and the time 
has come for us in the Congress of the United States to really focus on 
this issue.
  So it is my hope as we stand here tonight that, first of all, we do 
adopt this rule. That is, ultimately, very, very important. And I hope 
we adopt it by a large majority. And that, secondly, we pay attention 
to this debate. And then, hopefully, when it is all said and done, we 
will have campaign finance reform in America.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, they said pigs would fly before we got an 
open debate on campaign finance reform in the House. Well, Mr. Speaker, 
it is time to bring home the bacon because we are here at last. After 4 
years of promises made and promises broken, we are finally going to get 
a vote on Shays-Meehan.
  Or are we? It is not all clear to me that this rule will allow for a 
vote on the Shays/Meehan bill, especially in light of the commitment of 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to essentially filibuster this 
bill by offering hundreds of amendments throughout the summer.
  The Speaker's message is clear. He supports more money in campaigns, 
not less. He wants to enhance the role of wealthy special interests in 
congressional elections rather than diminish it. Well, the public 
clearly feels differently.
  In a recent NBC Wall Street Journal poll, 92 percent of the American 
people felt that too much money was spent on campaigns. We are here 
today because the American voters demand that we fix a broken system.
  Over the course of this debate, there will be many substitutes and 
many amendments. I urge all of my colleagues to remember that there is 
only one bill that is both bipartisan and bicameral and that will enact 
real campaign finance reform this year, there is only one bill that has 
the support of nearly every grassroots organization that is active on 
reform, and there is only one bill that has the support of editorial 
boards all across this country. That is the McCain/Feingold/Shays/
Meehan bill.
  Unlike the other substitutes and alternatives, only Shays-Meehan will 
conclusively ban soft money. Only Shays-Meehan will address the growing 
problem of third-party campaign advertisements and only Shays-Meehan 
will give the FEC the teeth it needs to prevent abuses in the current 
system.
  Above all, our bill is a product of compromise. It will benefit 
neither party at the expense of the other. At the end of the day, Mr. 
Chairman, a vote for campaign finance reform is a vote for Shays-
Meehan.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule.
  I guess I would like to say I guess it is better late than never. We 
should have had this debate last year. But at least now, with this 
rule, we are about to have this debate. But, again, better late than 
never.
  I think we must thank the Committee on Rules. It was a hard job to 
structure this rule. Given the complexities of the issues and the 
controversies generated, and we have heard some of them here tonight, 
and the interest groups that have been working at cross purposes here, 
I think it is probably the best vehicle that we could have supported.
  Well, whatever one would say about that, the point is the time is now 
to deal with this issue and we can finally get at our campaign system 
that is clearly out of control. We can at least have an intelligent 
debate of sorts on this.
  I think there are many critically important issues that we can 
discuss and examine during the course of this debate, some of them 
mentioned tonight. We must support this rule and, hopefully, pass 
Shays-Meehan in the end.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  The freshmen Democrats and the freshmen Republicans came together as 
our major undertaking in this class, all of us were involved in 
targeted races in the 1996 election, and we decided we were going to 
work together. It does not always happen in this House, but we decided 
to work together, and we put together H.R. 2183, the bipartisan 
freshman bill.
  We are proud that that bill is the base bill for a debate in this 
Congress. We respect everything that other reformers have done, 
including the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) to bring this cause forward.
  Now, we could look at this rule and say, ``We are proud of this rule. 
It is going to give us the complete, open debate that we asked for.'' 
But when we look back at the history over the last month or two, we see 
an enormous reluctance to bring up campaign reform. We remember that 
when the Republican leadership tried to bring up a bill they tried to 
bring up a bogus reform bill that took two-thirds in order to pass. 
That was not the way, and the people of this country said, ``No, that 
is bogus reform. We need real reform.''
  Now we have a rule that allows 11 substitutes and many amendments; 
and the question is, can this process be managed so we have a fair 
debate here on the floor so we can give the American people what they 
want? And what they want in every poll in every time we go back to our 
districts, they say, ``There is too much money in politics. We have got 
to contain the money. We need campaign finance reform.''

                              {time}  2245

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

[[Page H3728]]

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I heard a lot about people denouncing 
attack ads and independent expenditures and soft money, but it is 
interesting to me, not one person that has spoken has denied that money 
being spent in their district. They could very easily say, I do not 
want any of this money in my district, but none of these self-righteous 
people are doing that in their own districts.
  We hear from many people too much is being spent. We also know that 
Americans spend about as much each year on yogurt and potato chips as 
we do on electing our officials. Are the proponents of limiting free 
speech and expenditures trying to tell the American people they spend 
too much money on yogurt?
  They are going to come up next and say, you spend too much money on 
sports, because that money is more than campaigns. Are they going to 
say, you spend too much money on entertainment, because that is greater 
than the amount spent on campaigns.
  We have a lot of concerns. My concerns are foreign money and 
campaigning on Federal property and illegal money. But, oh, my 
goodness, we have laws that prevent that. We have to keep this in mind, 
that you need to enforce existing laws.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, having joined with the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Baesler) and other members of the Blue Dog Caucus to 
initiate a discharge petition last October to force consideration of 
campaign finance reform under a fair and open process, I am very 
pleased to be here tonight debating a rule to bring up campaign finance 
reform under an open process.
  The American people deserve to know where their representatives stand 
on the major proposals to reform our campaign finance laws. Although 
this rule meets the standard of openness that the Blue Dogs call for in 
our discharge petition, the process for considering campaign finance 
reform will fall far short of the standard of fairness unless we defeat 
the previous question and allow the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley) to offer an amendment to allow the House to have clean votes 
on all the major proposals under a fair process.
  Having worked with my Republican colleagues to use discharge 
petitions to force a fair debate on the balanced budget constitutional 
amendment and other issues, I am very disappointed that the majority 
did not listen to the advice of those of us who initiated the discharge 
petition that brought us to this point.
  The Blue Dog discharge petition in the underlying rule, H. Res. 259, 
calls for extensive debate on leading reform legislation followed by 
votes on each offered substitute.
  The guiding principle behind the Blue Dog discharge petition was that 
we should allow clean up-or-down votes on all major campaign finance 
plans: the freshman bill, who worked awfully hard on their bill; the 
Shays-Meehan bill; the Doolittle bill; any alternative either 
leadership wishes to offer and any other alternatives as substitutes at 
the beginning of the process.
  Under the king-of-the-hill process in which the amendment receiving 
the largest number of votes becomes the base bill for the purpose of 
perfecting amendments, if more than one amendment receives a majority 
vote, the Blue Dog discharge rule would have allowed clean votes on all 
amendments in the form the authors of the amendment wanted by 
prohibiting second degree amendments.
  Let me just sum up by saying what we must do to provide for a clean 
and open debate is to allow all the substitutes to be submitted as 
those authors wish them to be submitted and vote on them and allow the 
one that gets the most votes to become the base bill and then allow 
anyone that has an amendment to offer that amendment to the base bill 
ultimately getting to the final package of true campaign reform. To do 
less than that will make another sham. We have already been through one 
sham in this process. To do other than that will end up with another 
sham.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting now that wide-open 
rules are considered shams when they are not getting their way.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time, and I am 
going to overlook the specifics and the details for a moment and just 
say that I am grateful to our leadership for hearing the appeal of some 
of us and many from the other side to give us an opportunity over the 
coming days and weeks to debate this issue in an open process. I think, 
in all fairness, it will be an open process.
  But just to say that our party, the majority party here, has possibly 
decided to change strategy and quit running and hiding from this issue 
and get on the offensive and be proactive. If we disagree with our 
friends on the other side on the specifics, let us debate the issue, 
and let us have a vote on each and every substitute, and let us let 
majority rule. Democracy still works in this country.
  Back in 1974, when this current system was brought into place, the 
shoe was on the other foot, and the Democrats were in charge here. They 
used this floor to debate these issues and bring forth what they 
thought were their priorities. We should do the same thing. If we have 
a legitimate disagreement, we should be on the offensive to say this is 
the way things used to be.
  I am most concerned about the corrupting influences of soft money in 
the American political process. Mr. Speaker, alcohol, tobacco and 
gambling are not the influences that I want to drive this process. They 
are proliferating. Millions of dollars of unregulated, unlimited soft 
money from some of these influences that are not good for our country 
or good for our children or good for this process are now dominating 
this business. Pretty soon, we, as candidates, will not even control 
the messages in our own elections if we do not do something about it.
  We can have an honest disagreement about whether we should fix the 
current system or even possibly go back to the way things used to be 
before Watergate. But, most of all, we should have the debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am struck by many different emotions. I do not intend 
to talk about the merits of the issue tonight. But I feel proud to look 
at Members on both sides of the aisle who, in the last 3 years, passed 
congressional accountability getting Congress under the same laws as 
the rest of the Nation. And I'm proud Republicans and Democrats working 
together passed gift ban and lobby disclosure legislation as well.
  I am proud of the work of the Blue Dogs, and I see the gentlemen from 
California (Mr. Farr) and Mr. Miller and the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Gejdenson) who have worked hard on campaign finance reform 
legislators over many years.
  I see other Members on the Democratic side of the aisle who helped 
forced this issue to come to the floor with a few Republicans. 
Ultimately, my leadership recognized that we did need to have a vote on 
campaign finance reform and I thank them for that.
  It is going to be a dicey time because it is going to be truly an 
open debate. There is plenty of opportunity for mischief. Some can 
misuse the process. So reform minded Members on both sides of the aisle 
have got to make sure this does not happen.
  I am proud also of the freshmen who made it a point to work together 
to find common ground. And I look forward to the next few weeks and the 
debate we will have.
  I thank my colleagues who supported efforts to form debate and vote. 
And I thank my leadership for recognizing we need to have an open and 
honest debate. I hope and pray that, in the end, we can all be proud of 
the outcome.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)

[[Page H3729]]

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this Titanic 
Gingrich stall proceeding and the previous question as well as the 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, throughout the recent history of the Rules Committee, no 
other major issue has ever been subjected to such a convoluted process 
as campaign finance reform is being accorded;
  By proposing no less than 11 substitutes, and currently considering 
nearly 600 amendments, a ``doomsday'' scenario is being presented to 
the American people;
  Previously, the Republican leadership blocked reform efforts, made 
promises for floor action and reneged and delayed, brought up 
meaningless legislation on the suspension calendar and made a mockery 
of the House. Today, the effort now is to kill reform by overloading 
the process;
  The Republican leadership is proposing an endless debate that will 
take us well into the summer, will result in no resolution, and will 
fail to bring about much needed reform;
  As our colleague Joe Moakley has said, ``We'll just go through a lot 
of motion and not get any action.''

                [From the Washington Post, May 21, 1998]

  Raft of Campaign Finance Reform Plans May Mean Lengthy House Debate

                            (By Helen Dewar)

       Rival camps in the fight over campaign finance legislation 
     got the official go-ahead yesterday for a free-for-all on the 
     issue in the House that could last well into summer.
       Under a procedure approved by the Rules Committee after a 
     lengthy hearing, the House will begin debate today on a dozen 
     plans, including alternative proposals to ban or sharply 
     curtail the unregulated ``soft money'' donations to political 
     parties at the heart of fund-raising abuses in the 1996 
     presidential campaign.
       No votes are anticipated until after Congress returns from 
     its Memorial Day recess, and still to be determined by the 
     committee is the problem of how to deal with an extraordinary 
     load of amendments, including 586 that have been filed so 
     far.
       Never in the history of the Rules Committee has it faced 
     such a formidable load of amendments, said committee Chairman 
     Gerald B.H. Solomon R-N.Y.), who promised to prune the list 
     to manageable proportions over the recess. He dismissed some 
     lawmakers' complaints that the process could take all summer. 
     ``It could but it won't,'' he said. Without interruption, the 
     bill could be wound up in four days, he added.
       Only a couple of months ago, House Republican leaders 
     resorted to extraordinary means to block votes on the leading 
     proposals, including a total soft-money ban proposed by Reps. 
     Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) 
     and a somewhat less stringent alternative proposed by a 
     bipartisan group of freshmen.
       But their tactics created an uproar, and, in order to keep 
     from losing control of the House on the issue, GOP leaders 
     did a sudden about-face and opted for a wide-open process 
     providing for votes on a multitude of plans and even more 
     numerous amendments to them.
       As a result, the reform groups, once united in opposition 
     to the leaders' tactics, are competing against each other, 
     raising the possibility that none of the plans would get 
     enough votes for passage--or that all of them would get 
     bogged down in a struggle over amendments.
       Now it was Democratic leaders, as well as their Republican 
     counterparts, who were getting caught in the squeeze. 
     Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), who has been 
     pushing for the Shays-Meehan bill, raised some hackles at a 
     Democratic caucus Tuesday night when, according to several 
     observers, he acknowledge without apparent disapproval that 
     some Democrats would also support the freshmen's bill.
       At yesterday's hearing, several lawmakers expressed concern 
     that the debate might be stretched out over weeks, with 
     interruptions for other business, making it little more than 
     ``filler'' to plug into open spaces in the schedule. Several 
     also objected to allowing amendments to each of the plans as 
     they come up for votes, instead of holding them in reserve 
     for action on the final version, saying this could lead to 
     lethal delays. ``We'll just go through a lot of motion and 
     not [get] any action,'' said Rep. Joe Moakley (Mass.), 
     ranking the committee's ranking Democrat.
                                  ____


                   [From the Roll Call, May 21, 1998]

                          Congress Inside Out

                        (By Norman J. Ornstein)


     message to members: look beyond rhetoric before voting on cfr

       Campaign reform is back--for an extended debate in the 
     House. The ``strange bedfellows'' coalition that Sen. Mitch 
     McConnell (R-Ky) pulled together for the Senate debate on 
     campaign reform is alive and well--from the National Right to 
     Life Committee (NRLC) and the National Rifle Association to 
     the ACLU.
       Encouraged by House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and 
     McConnell crony Rep. Anne Northup (R-Ky), and led by the 
     NRLC's Douglas Johnson, this coalition has used the guise of 
     the First Amendment to fight bitterly and unrelentingly 
     against any reform, and in particular against any proposal 
     that changes the free-for-all jungle surrounding all 
     electioneering communications that do not use ``magic words'' 
     like ``vote for'' or ``vote against,'' and thus call 
     themselves issue advocacy.
       The coalition opposes the Shays-Meehan plan in this area, 
     which would treat electioneering communications in the period 
     just before an election by the same rules that apply to 
     independent expenditures--disclosure of donors and ad 
     sponsors, and contribution limits for groups.
       It opposes with equal fervor the freshman Hutchinson-Allen 
     plan, which is a simple, watered-down disclosure provision 
     for a narrow category of electioneering ads that covers only 
     sponsors, not donors--not even very large donors.
       It opposed unalterably the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment in the 
     Senate, which covered disclosure of large donors only for 
     electronic communications of $10,000 or more within 60 days 
     of an election, tailored at influencing directly the election 
     or defeat of a candidate, and banned direct electioneering 
     contributions from labor unions and corporations.
       This anti-reform coalition has already been hitting House 
     Members hard. The NRLC has made each provision on sham issue 
     advocacy a right-to-life test, telling Members that a vote 
     for any reform will harm their pro-life record, a serious 
     problem for many GOP lawmakers. The group ran harsh negative 
     radio ads against staunchy pro-life Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-
     Ark) for his temerity in supporting any disclosure for any 
     political ads.
       Using the umbrella aegis of the ACLU, the coalition will 
     cloak itself in the First Amendment, claiming it is just for 
     free speech. Of course, the ACLU position is simply the 
     position of the organization's current leadership; as Burt 
     Neuborne, a former legal director of the ACLU has pointed 
     out, virtually every previous leader in the ACLU has a 
     sharply different view than the current elite in the 
     organization on the constitutionality of campaign reform 
     proposals.
       But whatever the real civil liberties position on reform, 
     Members of Congress should be more directly aware of what the 
     members of this broad anti-reform coalition are for and 
     against:
       1. They are against disclosure. Some ``reformers,'' like 
     Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif), claim they are for lifting all 
     limits and stiffening disclosure, relying on the market and 
     informed consumers to self-regulate the political and 
     election process. This would be a worthy position for debate 
     if it were accurate.
       But Doolittle, along with the NRLC's Johnson and the ACLU's 
     Laura Murphy and Ira Glasser, are not for full disclosure. In 
     fact, they are opposed to any and all disclosure of sources 
     or sponsors of any political ads except the very narrow class 
     of those using the few magic words.
       They oppose any disclosure for the more than $150 million 
     in ads run in 1996 that were self-labeled ``issue advocacy'' 
     but, as an analytical study by the Annenberg School of 
     Communications has shown, were candidate-centered, more 
     harshly negative than any other category of ads, and clearly 
     designed to elect or defeat particular candidates.
       2. They are for secrecy, obfuscation and misdirection. The 
     Annenberg study and good investigative reporting around the 
     country in 1996 and 1997 showed that sham issue-advocacy ads 
     were often designed to blindside candidates and to obscure 
     deliberately the origin of the attacks. Funds often were 
     laundered through two or more organizations, with vague names 
     like ``Citizens for Reform,'' making it difficult to figure 
     out the source of the campaign electioneering messages.
       Attack campaigns were often run at the end of the campaign, 
     leaving no time for the attacked candidate or the press to 
     uncover the source. Very likely, some candidates and/or their 
     party campaign committees colluded with outside groups to 
     orchestrate ``issue advocacy'' attacks on their opponents, 
     leaving the attacking candidate with his or her hands clean, 
     able to disavow the vicious attack while reaping the benefit.
       Absent any disclosure, we will see a whole lot more of this 
     approach, aimed at confusing voters and blurring 
     responsibility and accountability. Ask yourself if confusion, 
     surreptitiousness, irresponsibility and unaccountability are 
     the values of the First Amendment the Framers intended to put 
     first.
       3. They are for unlimited corporate and labor involvement 
     in electioneering. Since 1907, corporations have been barred 
     from using their funds to influence directly the outcome of 
     elections. The same ban has existed for labor unions and 
     their dues since the 1940s. Corporations and labor unions can 
     use voluntary political action committees to mobilize their 
     executives, employees and members to get involved in electing 
     or defeating candidates for office.
       But the so-called issue-advocacy campaigns have provided a 
     gigantic loophole to allow corporations and unions to use 
     unlimited (and undisclosed) amounts of corporate funds and 
     union dues to target candidates, violating the intent of 
     those existing laws.
       Of course, some conservatives are trying to have it both 
     ways, using the backdoor approach of ``paycheck protection'' 
     to cripple labor unions while leaving corporations free to do 
     what they want to shape election results. But the best way to 
     stop labor unions and corporations from running these 
     campaigns is to follow the legal traditions and ban their 
     funds from use in electioneering--an approach opposed by this 
     coalition.

[[Page H3730]]

       4. They are for foreign involvement in American elections. 
     Current laws ban the use of foreign money in American 
     campaigns. But any source of funds, foreign or domestic, can 
     be used for these so-called ``issue advocacy'' campaigns. And 
     we will never know if foreign funds, including funds from the 
     Chinese government, are used in ads that are clearly designed 
     to elect or defeat candidates--there is no disclosure.
       So here's a message for Members of Congress as you prepare 
     to vote on reform plans and amendments that address this sham 
     issue advocacy. Look beyond the threats and the mantra of the 
     First Amendment offered by opponents of any reform in this 
     area and consider the implications of the votes you cast:
       Do you really want to vote against disclosure of the 
     authors and funders of vicious attack ads?
       Do you want to be on record voting for unlimited and 
     undisclosed use of labor union dues and funds from corporate 
     coffers to elect or defeat candidates?
       Do you want to endorse a system allowing unlimited, 
     unregulated and undisclosed use of foreign money to influence 
     American elections?
       Of course, there are reasonable and heavy-handed, 
     constitutional and unconstitutional, ways to approach 
     reforming this system. The freshman plan is frankly too week; 
     it includes disclosure, but only of the groups sponsoring 
     these ads, not the major sources of funds. The Shays-Meehan 
     approach (which, in the interest of disclosure, I helped to 
     craft) is a better one, although I fear that it will be hard 
     to sell to the Supreme Court.
       I am much more comfortable with the approach my colleagues 
     and I subsequently devised that became the Snowe-Jeffords 
     Amendment, which puts reasonable if broad limits on 
     electioneering ads masquerading as ``issue advocacy'' by 
     providing targeted disclosure of large contributors and 
     keeping out corporate and labor funds.
       Each of these approaches at least tries to apply the spirit 
     and approach of the Buckley decision and a sensitivity to the 
     First Amendment rights of issue advocates to a class of ads 
     that are not issue advocacy and thus defy the intent of the 
     Court. Whether too weak, too strong or just right, the 
     zealots from the NRLC and the ACLU will be opposed.
       Which side are you on?

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, it is 11 o'clock, 5 minutes of 
11:00, and we are now finally getting to the debate on the rule on 
campaign finance reform, an interesting rule that brings 11 different 
viewpoints to the floor, allows an hour vote for each one, and 
unlimited amendments.
  The question is whether this Congress is going to be serious about 
passing campaign reform. It was just mentioned that, when our party was 
in control, we and the 101st, 102d, and 103rd did pass campaign reform, 
and it was substantive.
  It was a bill that, first of all, had the premise of fairness, a bill 
that did not favor one party over another. Second, it reduced the 
influence of special interest. Third, it leveled the playing field. 
And, fourth, it made access to the system by nontraditional candidates.
  One of the bills that is in order is a bill that does that. It caps 
spending. It reduces individual PAC contributions. It reforms the role 
of wealthy donors and people who use their own money. It reforms the 
role of soft money. It finally puts the brakes on massive expenditures 
of money in the political realm that are now unregulated, undisclosed 
and outside the law, those that are independent expenditures.
  I hope Members of the party will take a look at this bill. There are 
106 coauthors on this side. It is the only bill that is on the floor 
that is really comprehensive, the only bill that addresses all the 
issues that the 101st, 102d, 103rd Congress did. If you adopt this 
rule, you will have a chance to do comprehensive campaign finance 
reform.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes to point out 
to the gentleman that just spoke in the well that all of these 
wonderful bills and all of the previous approaches by the Democrats in 
previous Congresses left out one minor piece; that is, the special 
interests that spend more money in politics than all the rest combined, 
the labor unions, which spent, in the last cycle, in the last election, 
somewhere between $300 million and $500 million according to a Rutgers 
University study.
  Are they at all impinged by any of these bills? Of course not. That 
is not soft money. You see, that is Democrat money. We will not abuse 
it at all.
  I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) said that the Shays-
Meehan bill codifies the Beck decision. What the Beck decision says is 
that labor union members must approve their money being used for 
political activity.
  This codification of the Beck decision says you may get your money 
back if it was used for political activity so long as you are no longer 
a union member, which is to say you have to leave the money to get your 
money back.
  This is the sham. This is the game that is being played. Stop the 
union or stop the corporate soft money accounts. That is fine. We both 
get about $140 million a year. We both get $140 million over a 2-year 
cycle from three committees. But eliminate any opportunity from 
impinging on the labor unions which support the Democrats 100 percent.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) said that the airwaves are 
flooded with negative political attacks. Yes, of course they were, by 
unions. Of course they were. He was not there stopping them. In fact, 
he was welcoming them.
  When the unions this year decided that occasionally they would 
support some friendly Republicans, the Democrat leadership wrote a 
whining letter to the union leadership and said, do not dare support 
Republicans. You are our guys.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) also said that, in this 
process, no political voice is heard unless they contribute up to 
$50,000. It is only a rich guy's game. He may be speaking from personal 
experience; but from my experience, and anyone that I know, we listen 
to all. We hear from everyone, whether or not they are contributors. If 
it is his experience only to listen to those who contribute $50,000, 
that is his problem, not the country's problem.
  There is, indeed, an outside influence. If we are going to treat them 
fairly, we treat them all, including the labor union's money. But I 
will point out to the gentleman there is no controlling legal authority 
to do that.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) was 
going to point out that the facts of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) are wrong. We will get into that. But I take seriously your 
description of the issue. You say major changes are not needed to 
implement present law. I say implement present law and make major 
changes in the law. That is what you said.
  Money is swamping the Democratic process and you are standing up, 
defending the status quo. The present system demeans the contributor. 
It demeans the recipient. It increases polarization, and it deepens 
public cynicism.
  Shays-Meehan addresses both soft money and issue ads. I say to the 
minority who usually are not such defenders of free speech, free speech 
is not the same as unlimited paid campaign ads. Vote for Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for the 
last speaker.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the remaining time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) has 
4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.

                              {time}  2300

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, because it will 
eventually allow us to vote on campaign finance reform, though I must 
say that it should be called the heel-dragging rule. There is so much 
debate scheduled on this issue, that I am afraid it could go on for 
months.
  While I object to this filibuster tactic, I am pleased that it will 
finally allow us to vote on Shays-Meehan. Shays-Meehan bans soft money, 
it regulates third party expenditures, it will help to level the 
playing field between challengers and incumbents and it encourages 
greater disclosure. It will help

[[Page H3731]]

to turn the political process back to an election, instead of an 
auction that is going to the highest bidder, the person who spends the 
most money.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to show the public that our elections are not 
for sale, our government is not for sale, and bring in real campaign 
finance reform. We need to vote on it before we go back and ask our 
constituents to vote for us.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the message the American people are sending 
us is clear: Reform our campaign finance system; reform it now. The 
Republican leadership does not get that message. They do not want to 
get that message.
  There was a famous handshake three years ago with President Clinton. 
The Speaker said he was going to have a vote on campaign finance 
reform. Time and again that vote has been delayed. He promised a vote 
in March. It is May; we are still waiting.
  Keep in mind the Speaker is in charge of this House. If he wanted a 
vote on campaign finance reform, we would have that vote tonight. That 
is what we ought to be doing, instead of delay and delay on this issue. 
And speaking of delay, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the 
Republican Majority Whip, is working vigorously to kill campaign 
finance reform. You should clap. We all know what you are doing.
  The Republican leadership thinks we need more money in this political 
system. They would lift current limits on campaign contributions. They 
would increase the influence of the wealthiest in this country.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, is hissing, and I mean this seriously if we 
are going to set precedent, is hissing from Members of this House in 
order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Hissing is not proper decorum in the House, 
under Jefferson's manual.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I urge the people of America 
to pay close attention to this debate on campaign finance reform. Pay 
close attention, because you will hear so many different arguments, 
facts, figures and legal theories, not just today, but possibly for 
weeks to come. There will be so much that is said that it may be hard 
to follow what is really important in this debate.
  There is only one thing that matters when all is said and done: Will 
your representative in Congress vote for the only meaningful campaign 
finance reform bill to be offered this year? Will your representative 
vote for the Shays-Meehan bill? That is all that matters.
  The Shays-Meehan bill is the only bill that truly bans soft money and 
has the support of grassroots campaign finance reform organizations. 
Huge soft money contributions have become the leading corrupting 
influence in our political process today. Soft money contributions have 
caused politicians to do many things that they would not ordinarily do 
to abandon their constituents, to abandon the taxpayer, to abandon the 
public interest.
  My friends, ask yourself this: With all of the evidence of the 
corrupting influence of campaign contributions on politics, why should 
it be so hard to reform this system? Why should it be so hard? The 
answer is because the Republican leaders who control this House are 
committed to blocking the successful passage of campaign finance 
reform.
  The vast majority of Democrats are committed to real reform, and we 
have been joined by a small group of concerned Republicans. Together, 
hopefully, we represent a majority. But we do not control the action on 
the floor. That is why, ladies and gentleman across this country, you 
must pay attention.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Miller) has expired.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Remember, there is only one way to 
determine whether or not your Representative truly believes and 
supports and is for campaign finance reform. That is, at the end of 
this debate, did they vote for the Shays-Meehan bill?
  Mr. LINDER. Regular order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Miller) has expired.
  Mr. MILLER of California. * * *
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
has expired.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, is it the regular order of the House for the 
gentleman to ignore the Speaker and to ignore the time limits and speak 
as long as he did?
  Mr. MILLER of California. As did the gentleman when he just 
previously spoke. You were also told time expired, and you continued to 
speak.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The rule of the House is the person speaking 
must cease speaking and his remarks are not transcribed when he is no 
longer under recognition. The gentleman is out of order.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) the Majority Whip of the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 
6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I think we just got----


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, we have jeering back here on this side. Can 
we get some order in the House?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House will be in order.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I hope the American people just saw that 
display, because what they saw is Big Brother on the prowl again, Big 
Brother government trying to stifle the American people once again, and 
they are not even satisfied with open and honest debate. They want the 
debate on their terms, voting up or down on their bills, and they do 
not want any amendments. Well, I look forward to having a vigorous and 
complete debate about the state of our campaign laws, the laws that the 
gentleman from California enacted around 1974.
  Some believe that the laws that govern our elections are in such 
desperate shape that we should erect a huge government bureaucracy and 
sharply limit the ability of our citizens to participate through 
further spending limits; others believe that things are so serious that 
we need to scrap the First Amendment to the Constitution, the premier 
political reform in human history, and start all over with a new First 
Amendment that restrains the exuberance of the American electorate; and 
the president uses campaign finance reform as a way to distract the 
American people from his own campaign's shameless abuse of the campaign 
laws.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we need to throw the baby out with 
the bath water. We do not need to scrap the First Amendment simply 
because the Clinton campaign could not abide by our own current laws.
  Some of my colleagues, with very good intentions in their hearts, 
have crafted legislation that would make our Founding Fathers turn in 
their graves. The Shays-Meehan approach is a direct assault upon the 
First Amendment. The Hutchinson bill is only slightly less offensive. I 
contend that these two bills will erect a Byzantine set of laws that 
will gag citizens' speech, and, as the ACLU has warned, not exactly one 
of my best supporters, but they have warned that this barrier would 
inevitably be analogous to barbed wire fences. No individual or group 
would try to scale it, unless they were willing to become ensnared in a 
complicated set of laws, whose penalties would inflict serious pain.
  Now, attempts to regulate and to require disclosure of issue advocacy 
that has been talked about a lot here

[[Page H3732]]

through statute and through FEC regulation have repeatedly been 
declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and other lower Federal 
courts.

                              {time}  2310

  The Court has always viewed issue advocacy as a form of speech that 
deserves the highest degree of protection, strict scrutiny under the 
First Amendment. And that Court has not only been supportive, has not 
only been supportive of issue advocacy, it has affirmatively stated 
that it is untroubled by the fact that issue advertisements may 
influence the outcome of an election. In fact, in Buckley v. Valeo the 
Justices stated, and I quote, and it is a wonderful quote, ``The First 
Amendment denies government the power,'' denies big brother the power, 
``to determine that spending to promote one's political views is 
wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In a free society ordained by our 
Constitution, it is not the government, but the people, the people, 
individually, as citizens and candidates and collectively, the people 
as associations and political committees, they are the ones who must 
retain control over the quantity and the range of debate on public 
issues in a political campaign.'' Not this House, not some bureaucracy, 
not the FEC, not even you. The people, something we forget about in 
this Chamber a lot.
  Freedom of speech is the issue. My friends who support Shays and 
other bills to restrict freedom of speech will deny that any First 
Amendment issue is at stake.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, the First Amendment is not a loophole. Freedom and 
reform are not mutually exclusive principles. They go hand-in-hand.
  The First Amendment is not an idea that should be tossed aside like a 
piece of garbage. It is our first freedom. It is our most critical 
freedom. It is the First Amendment in America's premier political 
reform. We should be expanding freedom. We should be encouraging 
participation in the political process.
  Now, many campaign reform proposals go in the other direction. They 
clamp down on freedom, they gag citizens, they restrict freedom. I 
believe that there are things we can do to improve our campaign laws. 
We should have full disclosure so that the American people have quicker 
and better access to the information that they need to make informed 
decisions. And the proposal of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Doolittle) to require that all campaign contributions be posted on the 
Internet I think is an excellent way to get full disclosure.
  We should cut out the bureaucracy and the paperwork so that more of 
our citizens feel more comfortable about running for office. We should 
lift up campaign limits so that middle America can solicit the support 
that they need to run for office, not only rich people.
  We should oppose any effort to give welfare to politicians, and I 
urge my colleagues to stand for freedom and join with me in protecting 
the First Amendment from further attack.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Meehan-Shays 
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 1998. This legislation bans soft 
money and prevents this ban from being circumvented by loopholes and 
exceptions.
  Campaign finance reform is essential to restoring public confidence 
in not only the political system but our legislative process, as 
evidenced by a Wall Street Journal/Hart poll in which 68% of the people 
questioned said they believed the American political system is more 
influenced by special interest money than it was 20 years ago. But we 
don't need polls to tell us that the American people distrust the way 
that soft money has infiltrated this institution. All of us in this 
body have heard from our constituents, and they are clamoring for 
reform.
  Mr. Speaker, those opposed to this legislation would have us believe 
that the bill is unconstitutional, that it would erode our First 
Amendment rights to free speech. H.R. 3256 does not impinge on our 
constitutionally guaranteed rights to free speech. What it does do, 
however, is strengthen the definition of the term ``campaign ad'', so 
that groups who pay to produce and broadcast these ads must adhere to 
federal election laws. Specifically, under the Meehan-Shays Bipartisan 
Campaign Reform Act, any ad run within 60 days of an election that 
features a clearly identified federal candidate is considered 
``campaigning'' and will have to be paid for according to FEC 
guidelines.
  This provision ensures that the public is fully aware of who is 
paying for these so-called ``issue advocacy'' ads. It would be applied 
evenly, to Republicans and Democrats, corporations and unions, 
individuals and organizations. Mr. Speaker, we have a limited number of 
legislative days remaining in the 105th Congress. We are well into the 
1998 election cycle. H.R. 3256 is a reasonable and well-crafted 
bipartisan approach to an issue that the American people want this 
Congress to address as soon as possible.
  Let's do the right thing, let's pass real reforms to the 
Congressional Campaign System.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a 
vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of 
agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 208, 
nays 190, not voting 35, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 186]

                               YEAS--208

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Pappas
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--190

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa

[[Page H3733]]


     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--35

     Bateman
     Berman
     Boehner
     Burr
     Burton
     Canady
     Clement
     Coburn
     DeFazio
     Deutsch
     Foley
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Hefley
     Herger
     Johnson, Sam
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCrery
     McDade
     Meeks (NY)
     Oxley
     Parker
     Paul
     Quinn
     Scarborough
     Shaw
     Skaggs
     Stark
     Taylor (NC)
     Torres
     Towns
     Waxman
     Wicker
     Yates

                              {time}  2333

  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. PICKERING and Mr. KNOLLENBERG changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________