[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 74 (Wednesday, June 10, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4443-H4465]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO CONSTITUTION TO LIMIT CAMPAIGN SPENDING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
442 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 119.

                              {time}  1940


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
joint resolution (H.J.Res. 119) proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to limit campaign spending, with Mr. 
Hansen in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the joint resolution is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) as the Member in favor of the 
joint resolution each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today after having asked that this 
constitutional amendment be offered, although I disagree profoundly 
with what it tries to accomplish.
  Mr. Chairman, I know this is very unusual that I would ask to 
introduce, or have the constitutional amendment of the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) introduced, even though he may not want it 
introduced. But I think frankly that this is the time to have this 
debate. Earlier on in the year, I thought, because of my opposition to 
campaign reform, particularly the Shays-Meehan approach, that I frankly 
would try to block its coming to the floor. But now that we are going 
to have this open and fair debate, I think it is high time that we have 
this debate, because this is a debate about free speech, this is a 
debate about the Bill of Rights and the first amendment to the 
Constitution. This is a debate that frankly the so-called reformers 
have had all their way for a very, very long time. It is time for this 
House to let the American people know what is going on, particularly in 
this case with this amendment, because this amendment, and I do not 
want to question anybody's motives, but I think this amendment frankly 
was offered to cover up some of the campaign abuses by the Democrat 
National Committee and this administration that we are looking into.
  So I bring this amendment to the floor, to do so, to help clarify for 
my colleagues the real focus of this debate. Tonight we will frame the 
debate on campaign reform. Any debate on campaign reform and regulation 
has to begin and end with a discussion of the first amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States. That is why we are here tonight.
  There are two sides when it comes to campaign reform. One side wants 
to change the Bill of Rights in order to give government more control 
of the political process. The other side, my side, wants to preserve 
the Bill of Rights and open up the political process to more Americans.
  Now, make no mistake about it. The Gephardt amendment that we are 
about to debate is the most honest effort by the so-called reformers, 
honest effort, because it confronts, head-on, the troubling notion that 
most of these other substitutes, like the Shays-Meehan bill, do not 
pass the constitutional smell test.

                              {time}  1945

  The Gephardt amendment says that we should change the first amendment 
to fit the political passions of the moment. The Gephardt amendment 
would change the Constitution, change the Constitution to permit 
Congress and the States to enact laws regulating Federal campaign 
expenditures and contributions, which is currently held to be 
unconstitutional, and it would give to Congress and the States 
unprecedented, sweeping, and undefined authority to restrict speech 
protected by the first amendment since 1791.
  Now the ACLU, not exactly one of my best supporters, but in this case 
very much on target, has noted that the Gephardt constitutional 
amendment is vague and overbroad. It would give Congress a virtual 
blank check to enact any legislation that may abridge a vast array of 
free speech and free association rights that we now enjoy.
  As the Washington Post said, and they are not exactly a supporter of 
mine, but they editorialized against the Gephardt proposal, and I 
quote:

       Campaign finance reform is hard in part because it so 
     quickly bumps up against the first amendment. The Supreme 
     Court has ruled, we think correctly, that the giving and 
     spending of campaign reforms is a form of political speech, 
     and the Constitution is pretty explicit about that sort of 
     thing. Constitution: The Congress shall make no law abridging 
     the freedom of speech is the majestic sentence.

  Now the minority leader himself, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt) stated his position honestly when he said, and I quote:

       What we have here is 2 important values in direct conflict: 
     freedom of speech and our desire for healthy campaigns in a 
     healthy democracy. You cannot have both. Why disagree with 
     that? In my view, free speech and democracy are not in 
     conflict. In fact, you can't have democracy without free 
     speech and limiting free speech eventually limits democracy.

  Now the Supreme Court has correctly noted when it said in a free 
society ordained by our Constitution, it is not the government but the 
people individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as 
associations and political committees who must retain control over the 
quantity and range of debate on public issues in a public campaign. If 
this constitutional amendment were adopted, Congress and local 
governments, not the people, would control speech.
  The ACLU has noted that passage of this amendment would give Congress 
and every State legislature the power heretofore denied by the first 
amendment to regulate the most protected function of the press, and 
that is editorializing. Print outlets such as newspapers and magazines, 
broadcasters, Internet, publishers, cable operators would all be 
vulnerable to the severe regulation of the editorial content by the 
government.
  Now a candidate-centered editorial, as well as op-ed articles or 
commentaries printed at the publisher's expense, are most certainly 
expenditures in support of or in opposition to particular political 
candidates, and the Gephardt constitutional amendment, as its words 
make apparent, would authorize the Congress to set reasonable limits on 
the expenditures by the media during campaigns when not strictly 
reporting the news.
  And the New York Times is editorializing in favor of Shays-Meehan? 
Other newspapers are editorializing in favor of shutting off freedom of 
speech and freedom of, and I will yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts in just a moment, but such a result would be intolerable 
in a society that cherishes free press.
  Now it is interesting to note that while the minority leader and many 
Members of his party support this constitutional amendment as the only 
way to limit spending in a constitutional manner, they also plan to 
vote in favor of Shays-Meehan that limits the same spending. Now if a 
constitutional amendment is needed, as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt) rightfully claims, then other bills that contain those same 
spending limits are constitutional.
  Now the proposal of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) does 
from the front door what other proposals like the Shays-Meehan bill do 
from the back door. Campaign finance reform should honor the first 
amendment by expanding participation in our democracy and enhancing 
political disclosure. The Gephardt constitutional

[[Page H4444]]

amendment does not honor the first amendment, it shreds it.
  So I just urge my colleagues to vote to protect the freedom of speech 
and vote against the Gephardt constitutional amendment and then vote 
against all the other substitutes that limit campaign spending and 
violate the Constitution.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman, he has 
made a fundamental confusion here. The constitutional amendment and the 
Shays-Meehan bill do different things, and no one has been arguing, 
prior to the gentleman from Texas, and I do not underestimate the 
novelty of the arguments he brings to us from time to time, but no one 
has argued that nothing is constitutional.
  The constitutional amendment would allow us to go further; but, for 
example, one of the major parts of the Shays-Meehan bill is the ban on 
soft money. Would the gentleman tell me if he thinks that is 
unconstitutional, and would he tell me which decision of the Supreme 
Court makes banning soft money?
  Mr. DeLAY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I do not have to claim 
that soft money is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of the United 
States has already stated that, and, reclaiming my time, and the 
gentleman can get his own time, let me just answer his question, and I 
have got to yield to other Members.
  Let me just say that the constitutional amendment opens up all kinds 
of mischief, and let me finish, if the gentleman will let me finish, 
including the things claimed by the Shays-Meehan bill. If the Shays-
Meehan bill was not unconstitutional, then you would not need the 
Gephardt constitutional amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield for one more question.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. That statement is, of course, nonsense. 
The argument that if the Shays-Meehan bill was constitutional we would 
not need the amendment, is simply not true. It is, of course, often the 
case that you will be for a bill that takes you to the limits of what 
is now constitutionally possible and later for an amendment, and I 
would give a specific example: soft money.
  I would like the gentleman to tell me, because the Supreme Court did 
say in the Buckley case that we can ban contributions, soft money 
contributions, not expenditures, would the gentleman tell me out of his 
great store of constitutional knowledge, recently acquired, what 
Supreme Court decision says that soft money ban would be 
unconstitutional?
  Mr. DeLAY. It is very clear. Reclaiming my time, it is very clear in 
Buckley versus Valeo. They are very clear that if we collect moneys 
that is used in support of an idea or in the support of a particular 
issue, then we cannot limit the expenditures of the contributions of 
those moneys.
  The gentleman makes a statement and then does not even have the 
courtesy to allow someone to answer the statement.
  The point is that they were very clear in the fact that we can do 
anything in support of an issue, but we cannot specifically say that we 
are advocating the election or the unelection of a particular 
candidate.
  So I say that the reason that the minority leader has bought a 
constitutional amendment to the floor is to show the fact that we have 
to manipulate and shred the first amendment of the Constitution in 
order to have the kinds of bills like Shays-Meehan, and the gentleman 
has his own time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. MEEHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would remind the gentleman from Texas 
that last week he voted to amend the first 16 words of the Bill of 
Rights.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary and a recognized constitutional expert within this body.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to 
express my appreciation for the appearance of the majority whip in a 
new guise, defender of the first amendment, and particularly as an 
advocate of free speech. He and I have served together for, I do not 
know, a dozen or 14 years. I guess I will ask for a nexus search. I 
cannot remember any previous occasion when the issue was freedom of 
expression that the gentleman from Texas was here.
  We have had constitutional amendments, we had two amendments to 
restrict the first amendment or to cut back or to change what the 
Supreme Court says. He was for both of them; that is legitimate. We 
have had a whole series of assaults on free speech. Often it comes from 
speech that is obnoxious, but that is when free speech gets involved, 
and I am forced to conclude, not having previously heard the gentleman, 
he himself said he does not usually agree with the ACLU, he does not 
usually agree with the Washington Post. He quoted, by his own 
admission, authority after authority in defense of free speech to whom 
he is usually an opponent. He has a whole bunch of allies to whom he is 
usually a stranger. This is first time in my memory that the gentleman 
has been for free speech.
  Why? Because we are talking about the free speech of people with 
large amounts of money trying to either win an office or buy some 
political influence. We are talking about free speech that is on behalf 
of millionaires, and it becomes very clear what the principle is. The 
gentleman is for free speech as long as it is expensive. I have never 
heard him support free free speech, but expensive free speech, the 
purpose of which is to buy one's way into the political process. He is 
all it.
  He has also, it seems to me, neglected to mention one thing about the 
constitutional amendment, and I worked on the drafting of it. I agree 
that constitutional amendment, as it came before us, is not ready to be 
put in the Constitution. That is why it is so disappointing to see it 
used in this fashion.
  I have never supported a constitutional amendment coming to this 
floor without a previous subcommittee markup and committee markup. This 
constitutional amendment has had no such markup in the subcommittee or 
committee.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Is the gentleman from Massachusetts not a cosponsor of 
this amendment?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, I am a cosponsor of this amendment 
which did not get a subcommittee markup and did not get a committee 
markup. I am sorry those terms appear to be foreign to the gentleman 
from Texas.
  When we are dealing with the Constitution of the United States, it 
would be irresponsible to go directly from the drafting to the floor. 
That did not happen with the balanced budget amendment. That did not 
happen with the various religious amendments. We work in the Committee 
on the Judiciary on these amendments, and I cosponsored; I said I 
worked on it.
  What I wanted, however, was to begin a serious discussion, and if the 
Republican leadership really wanted to advance that discussion, they 
would have had a subcommittee markup, they would have had a committee 
markup bringing a constitutional amendment directly to the floor.
  Having refused for a year and a half to have any committee 
consideration, it is hardly serious legislating about the Constitution. 
In fact, if anybody had tried to get an amendment through seriously 
that way, he or she would legitimately be subjected to criticism.
  Then the next thing the gentleman does is totally collapse this into 
the bill, and I am impressed by the reasoning here. Apparently he 
recognizes, and his allies, that the bill brought forward by the 
gentleman from Connecticut and the gentleman from Massachusetts is hard 
to attack on its merits, so he has abandoned that by claiming that it 
is clearly unconstitutional.
  No one who was supporting the constitutional amendment introduced it 
as a substitute for this bill. Indeed, those

[[Page H4445]]

of us who think a constitutional amendment would be useful explicitly 
believe that legislation is possible and desirable but that an 
amendment could take us further, and his suggestion that Buckley 
outlaws a ban on soft money is clearly wrong. Buckley clearly says soft 
money has to do with the contributions. The gentleman is talking here 
in this bill about limiting contributions, and Buckley said we could 
limit contributions. It said we can limit them to a thousand dollars.
  Now, there are separate issues with issue advocacy and independent 
expenditure. What the gentleman from Texas is doing is collapsing 
everything. The constitutional amendment and soft money and issue 
advocacy and independent expenditures, all complicated, substantive 
subjects, get collapsed into his rhetorical assault on the notion of 
reform because he is not for restricting expensive free speech.
  The gentleman from Texas, as he said, did not want the bill to come 
to the floor. He told us that. So he decided instead to let it come to 
the floor in the most convoluted process. By the way, the Committee on 
Rules, which would not allow a single amendment onto the floor to 
reduce the defense budget by a penny, which has restricted important 
amendments on virtually every other bill we have today, has allowed to 
this bill, I believe, more amendments than were made in order for all 
the other bills this Congress has dealt with this year. That is, of 
course, not serious legislating.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. I have not asked for the gentleman to yield.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Oh, I am sorry. I just did not realize 
the gentleman was taking the seventh inning stretch so early in the 
evening.
  What we are talking about here is a recognition that this bill cannot 
be assailed on its merits, so we have, and here is what they have done: 
First of all, they bring forward a constitutional amendment that they 
have not allowed to have a subcommittee markup or a committee markup. 
It had a hearing over a year ago, but, no, went further on that, and we 
have not had that process of debate and discussion that refines 
procedures.

                              {time}  2000

  If, in fact, people try to bring this to the floor without 
subcommittee markup, people would be yelling at it.
  Secondly, the inaccurate claim was made that because you are for a 
constitutional amendment in a certain area, you must think no 
legislating is possible. And the gentleman confuses the issue of soft 
money. Buckley clearly says you can limit contributions. The ban on 
soft money here is a ban on contributions. Maybe a later Supreme Court 
might say no to it.
  I must say also I am further impressed by this. This Congress voted 
for the Communications Decency Act as part of the Telecommunications 
Act. It was defeated 9 to 0 in the Supreme Court. By the way, the 
people of constitutional knowledge who were surprised that the Supreme 
Court did that was quite slender. That did not stop Members from voting 
against it.
  That is another new-found trait of the gentleman from Texas. He is 
now determined apparently never to vote for anything that would be 
unconstitutional. Maybe we could make that retroactive and he could go 
back into the record, because I am willing to point out to him areas 
where he has done just that.
  So I do not think the gentleman as a defender of free speech comes 
with quite as much experience as he may bring to other issues.
  Mr. DeLAY.  Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has talked about all my 
motives for bringing this to the floor and everything, except the 
substance of the amendment before us. Could the gentleman enlighten us, 
is he for or against the amendment that is before us?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, first 
let me say this. I have not spoken about the gentleman's motives. I 
talked about the gentleman's new-found love of free speech that costs a 
lot of money. I talked about the procedural inappropriateness of the 
way of doing this. And my answer is, I am for a Constitution America 
amendment. I am not for this one as written, as I am rarely on a 
complicated and sensitive subject for the first draft of anything, 
precisely because I recognize that the Constitution is an important 
document.
  What I would like to see is a subcommittee markup and a committee 
markup dealing with this set of subjects. I know of no one who is 
capable of excogitating that and then, without any discussion, without 
anybody else, bringing it forward. So I am in favor of a constitutional 
amendment.
  I also share the overwhelmingly majority of opinion, contrary to the 
gentleman from Texas, that there is plenty of area left by the Supreme 
Court in which you can legislate. The gentleman suggested that all 
these bills were unconstitutional, and no one but him thinks that. He 
is entitled to the splendid solitude of his constitutional opinion, but 
I do not think it ought to influence the House.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would like to engage in a short colloquy with the gentleman. Is it 
not true that the Supreme Court has held that it is constitutional to 
limit the contributions that an individual gives to $1,000?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes. In the Buckley case, that is exactly 
what they held.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Is it not also true that the Supreme Court has held 
that it is constitutional to limit the contributions that a political 
action committee can give to $5,000?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Subject to correction by the 
constitutional authorities, I would say yes.
  Mr. DeLAY.  If the gentleman would yield further, I just want to 
correct the gentleman. He is absolutely right, it is constitutional for 
a $1,000 contribution from individuals and $5,000 contributions limited 
to PACs to political candidates.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I must 
say I am a little puzzled when my friend from Texas says, ``I want to 
correct the gentleman, he is absolutely right.'' That is not what I 
would ordinarily list as a correction.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. If the gentleman will yield further, I want to take two 
other examples, and on my own time I will have points to make. But I 
just I thought it would be useful to illustrate the gentleman's point 
that the Supreme Court has held in absolutely clear fashion that limits 
are contributions are constitutional in the context I have given.
  The only other two I would mention, is it not true that the Supreme 
Court has for over 50 years upheld the constitutionality on bans of 
corporations' outright expenditures in campaigns, and the Supreme Court 
has recently as the Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce case 
restricted the activity in the campaign field by chambers of commerce?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, yes. As 
my friend from California, who teaches constitutional law, among other 
things, at the time when he still had a day job, knows, there is a 
complex set of opinions, and some things are allowed and some are not, 
and there is also a gray area, and some of us think that what has 
clearly been banned from regulating should be expanded.
  But no one, except apparently the gentleman from Texas, thinks that 
the current constitutional doctrine makes all of this unconstitutional. 
Everyone recognizes that there is an area of regulation, and I believe 
that the gentleman from Connecticut and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts have together come up with a bill that has enough appeal 
within what is constitutionally possible, so the gentleman from Texas's 
first reaction, he said, was to block the bill from coming to the 
floor; the second reaction was to come up with the most bizarre rule 
which is designed, in fact, to prevent anything from ever coming 
forward; and the third to inaccurately claim it is unconstitutional.
  I will repeat as I close and say I think we should do a 
constitutional amendment. It should be done in the

[[Page H4446]]

normal way of a subcommittee and committee markup. But none of that 
means that the Shays-Meehan bill, particularly in some of its core 
provisions, like limiting soft money, is remotely arguably 
unconstitutional.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to my friend 
from Massachusetts being highly critical of the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay) for bringing his own amendment forward, complaining that it 
was not slowed down by a markup in the Committee on the Judiciary, 
where it might not have squeaked out and still be residing in the desk 
drawers over there. That is unusual, that someone would object to 
expedited treatment of their legislation. That makes this an historic 
day.
  But really why we are here is to address perhaps a philosophical 
question as to the astonishing statement of the distinguished minority 
leader, that you cannot have healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy 
and free speech. That is a startling statement. I think we are entitled 
to wonder and explore whether or not that truly expresses the sentiment 
of Members of this House, because it has always seemed to me, naive as 
I may be, and certainly unlettered in the nuances of the Constitution, 
that you cannot have healthy elections without free speech. It is a 
condition precedent to a healthy election.
  Now, Thomas Jefferson, who was no stranger to free speech, said in 
1808, ``The liberty of speaking and writing guards our other 
liberties.'' So we should be very careful. I think the phrase the court 
uses is ``strict scrutiny.'' We should impose strict scrutiny on any 
efforts to limit the first amendment, which has served us pretty well 
for 222-some years. Yet here we are in this Chamber, under the watchful 
eye of Lafayette on my left and George Washington on my right, debating 
essentially the downsizing, the rationing of free speech, this very 
precious freedom.
  George Orwell, in a review of a book by Bertrand Russell, said, ``We 
come the task of the intellectual to speak of the obvious.'' I 
certainly do not make any claim to being an intellectual, but the 
dangers of the amendment of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), 
cosponsored by the distinguished gentleman and learned constitutional 
scholar from Massachusetts, those dangers, it seems to me, are 
painfully obvious.
  Is it not obvious that the ability of citizens, individually or in 
groups, to publicly criticize political candidates or public policy or 
public officials is the heart and the soul of our political system?
  Now, we proclaim, most of us do, that we are for limited government. 
But this amendment, if it became law, is Big Brother run amuck. Have 
you thought about the enhanced power of the media as the rest of us try 
to cope with the Federal speech police? This amendment allows the State 
to regulate campaign expenditures, therefore to regulate free speech. 
That is the dream, the wish fulfillment of every tyrant since the dawn 
of recorded history.
  This amendment, if it became in the Constitution, would be a massive 
consignment of power to the courts, who will then make the 
determinations as to what is reasonable, an invitation to endless 
litigation.
  Our Declaration of Independence tells us that government derives its 
just powers from the consent of the governed. That means an informed 
electorate is indispensable to a functioning democracy, and free 
speech, political debate, ideas, proposals for governing, are the 
necessary conditions for informing the electorate.
  How do you communicate your ideas, your proposals, your criticisms; 
how do you effectively campaign when free speech is rationed? Newspaper 
ads, television, radio commercials, signs, leaflets, buttons, telephone 
banks, U.S. postage, all of these things cost money, and to limit a 
candidate's ability to raise money is to limit his or her speech, and, 
therefore, and thereby, limiting the information available for informed 
decisionmaking.
  History has got a way of repeating itself, and this amendment reminds 
me of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, where the Federalists tried 
to suppress criticism of the government. They, too, had the idea that 
there was just too much political advocacy, and the government could be 
trusted to decide and enforce the correct amount.
  This amendment is a frontal assault against our most cherished 
principles, principles that monuments and military graveyards from 
Arlington to Iwo Jima remind us were paid for with American blood. If 
this amendment were to pass, we would demean the towering 
accomplishments of our founders and our framers, and we were not sent 
here to demean or downsize the Bill of Rights, but to defend it.
  One hundred thirty-four years ago in a little cemetery in 
Pennsylvania, one of my State of Illinois' most illustrious sons asked 
a haunting question, whether this Nation, conceived in liberty and 
dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, can long 
endure. Each generation has to answer that question for itself, and I 
wonder what our answer will be?
  Mr. Chairman, I hope we can defeat this amendment and the 
inadvertently pernicious philosophy behind it, and, for this 
generation, keep faith with those who gave us these blessed freedoms.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell), a cosponsor of bipartisan campaign finance 
reform, the Shays-Meehan bill, and a constitutional law professor from 
California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, the distinction before us is between expenditure of 
money, which the Supreme Court, in my view, has correctly identified as 
a form of expression, and contribution, which is an act. In offering 
this amendment, my good friend and colleague, for whom I have the 
highest regard, is, I believe, confusing the two.
  I believe that the amendment is offered in order to suggest that you 
need to amend the Constitution in order to have Shays-Meehan, or 
McCain-Feingold, as it is known in the other body.
  In reality, you do not, because there is this vital distinction 
between expressing your own views or spending your own money to express 
your own views, which is quite protected, and the act of contributing 
to somebody else for their campaign, contributing to a political party, 
contributing to a PAC, the soft money, which is the subject of the 
regulation under Shays-Meehan or McCain-Feingold.
  The Supreme Court has been careful to emphasize this difference. It 
did it in the Buckley v. Valeo case when, in 1976, it dealt with the 
first attempt in modern times in the post-Watergate era to regulate the 
activities of campaigns. But it was not the first time that the Supreme 
Court drew distinctions that affected speech under the first amendment. 
Indeed, the Supreme Court has made quite a practice of dealing with 
speech under the first amendment.
  ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech'' is the 
wording of the first amendment, and yet the Supreme Court has said, 
except the Congress may restrict commercial speech; except the Congress 
may restrict speech that constitutes libel and slander; except Congress 
may restrict speech that constitutes obscenity. Congress may restrict 
speech that constitutes an incitement to imminent lawlessness. Congress 
may restrict speech that constitutes a group libel. Congress may 
restrict speech that constitutes fighting words.

                              {time}  2015

  So with this background where the Supreme Court has, over many years, 
made distinctions, we come to the question of campaign finance. Every 
time that the Supreme Court has said that it is permissible for the 
Congress to deal with speech, it has said, provided the fundamental 
goal of free speech is protected, then for very important other reasons 
there can be restrictions, but that fundamental goal is protected.
  Here, the fundamental goal is my ability to spend my own money and my 
own time speaking in my own way. But to prevent corruption and to 
prevent

[[Page H4447]]

the appearance of corruption, it is permissible and, in my view, highly 
desirable to limit how much somebody can give to me or how much 
somebody will spend to influence a campaign under the aegis of the 
Republican Party in my case or the Democratic party on the other side.
  In conclusion, I say do not confuse these issues. We do not need to 
amend the Constitution to do what needs to be done, and what needs to 
be done is the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition of H.J.Res. 
19. Some of our colleagues would have us believe that the only way we 
can have campaign finance reform is to amend the Bill of Rights and 
overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo.
  The First Amendment in the Constitution guarantees that Congress 
shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. The 
Buckley v. Valeo decision provides that, although certain limitations 
on contributions are permissible, that limiting political expenditures 
is an unconstitutional denial of free speech in violation of the First 
Amendment.
  The proposed amendment, however, will allow Congress and the State 
legislatures to prohibit certain speech and actions by candidates, 
their donors, political action committees, issue advocacy groups, and 
the press.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that we are better off trusting the American 
people to discern the value of information they receive than we are in 
having Congress or the States regulate the information they receive. 
There are several problems with this proposed amendment.
  First, the contemplated amendment proposes an unprecedented exception 
to our free speech right and would represent the first time the Bill of 
Rights has been amended. At the very place in the Constitution where we 
have protected the free speech rights of Americans for over 200 years, 
we should not add a prohibition on political speech.
  Second, Mr. Chairman, because the proposed amendment uses vague 
terminology to define what Congress can do to regulate a political 
speech and elections, it will be left to future Congresses to implement 
legislation to decide what is reasonable and what is effective 
advocacy.
  As we have seen with other constitutional amendments on this floor, a 
transient majority will frequently vote against the Bill of Rights. A 
majority of this House, as a matter of fact, has already voted twice 
this Congress to amend the Bill of Rights. We should not allow a simple 
majority to define who gets to say what during a campaign.
  The third point, Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment would also make 
regulation of the press possible for the first time. Heretofore, the 
first amendment has denied legislatures the power to regulate the press 
in any way or prohibit media endorsements of candidates.
  Since the expense of producing and communicating an editorial comment 
could be included as an expenditure of funds to influence the outcome 
of an election as described in the proposed amendment, it will subject 
the press to regulation as we have never done before. This outcome will 
be intolerable to the American people. Even if there were an exception 
for newspaper editorials, who would get to decide when a publication is 
a newspaper?
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment would grant Congress 
and the State legislatures the authority to define express and issue 
advocacy. The ability to make the distinction between these two forms 
of speech will leave only candidates, political action committees, and 
the media free to comment about candidate records during elections, and 
it would deny freedom of speech to individuals and groups who might 
want to comment on issues that may have political ramifications.
  We have many reforms that can be considered without overturning the 
Supreme Court decisions or amending the Constitution. We can consider 
other reforms such as public financing of elections, improved 
disclosure requirements, providing discount vouchers for media 
coverage, reinstating tax credits for small contributions, and on and 
on. There is a lot that we can do without putting our right to free 
speech in jeopardy.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to vote against this attack on our Bill of Rights.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am struck as I look at the clock and it is 20 minutes 
past 8:00, no further votes expected, and here we are debating campaign 
finance reform. It is interesting.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Allen), who has been a leader in the effort to pass 
bipartisan campaign finance reform, working with both Democrats and 
Republicans in the freshman class.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in opposition to this amendment, but I 
do not for 1 minute want to suggest that this debate is about the 
amendment.
  What is going on here? We have the majority whip on the Republican 
side bringing forth a proposed constitutional amendment by the 
Democratic leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), and then 
saying he is going to vote against it. What is going on here?
  I will tell my colleagues what is going on. The gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. DeLay) said that he wanted to frame the debate. I will 
tell my colleagues what is going on. This is an attempt to drag a red 
herring across this whole discussion.
  What is going on here is this: Since campaign reform was brought back 
to the floor, the free speech coalition, so-called, is in full gear, is 
in overdrive. It really should be called the free speech/big money 
coalition. Every time the antireformers say ``free speech,'' they 
really mean ``big money.'' The antireformers cannot defend big money on 
its merits. The American people would not buy it. So they cloak the 
rhetoric in the terms of free speech.
  Members of the free speech/big money coalition claim that all 
campaign finance reform is unconstitutional. These folks claim that 
money and speech are one and the same. They argue, since money is equal 
to speech, reasonable limits on contributions are unconstitutional. 
They are wrong. Antireformer free speech arguments are simply cynical 
attempts to confuse the issue of campaign finance reform.
  I want to deal with two issues, one a soft money ban. Until tonight, 
I had never heard Buckley used as a way to suggest that a ban on soft 
money would be unconstitutional.
  Some antireformers claim that soft money is constitutionally 
protected under the Colorado Republican Party decision. Wrong. That 
decision dealt with hard money, not soft money. In fact, the Colorado 
court said it ``could understand how Congress, were it to conclude that 
the potential for evasion of the individual contribution limits was a 
serious matter, might decide to change the statute's limitations on 
contributions to political parties''; in other words, contributions of 
soft money. In other words, Congress can ban soft money.
  Take the second issue. Antireformers contend that the Supreme Court 
has said disclosure of issue advocacy is unconstitutional. And they 
sometimes hold out the case of McIntyre v. Ohio Board of Elections.
  McIntyre involved an individual handing out fliers advocating a 
position for a local election. The flier did not have a disclaimer, 
and, yet, the Ohio elections board argued that the State's disclosure 
law had been violated.
  The court held that small-scale anonymous pamphleting is 
constitutionally protected, but they said this applies only to printed 
materials, not to television or radio. So the court did not find that 
this Congress could not require disclosure about radio and television 
issue advertisements.
  There are two primary constitutional arguments used by the free 
speech/big money coalition. They are both baseless. Soft money can be 
banned, and information about issue ads can be disclosed.
  Both of the major pieces of legislation before this body right now, 
the Shays-Meehan bill and the Hutchinson-

[[Page H4448]]

Allen bill, the freshman bill, both ban soft money, and both have 
restrictions requiring disclosure on issue advocacy.
  Antireformer arguments about free speech are red herrings. They are 
designed to confuse, to cast out. When antireformers say ``free 
speech,'' they mean ``big money.'' They want to protect big money, and 
they use the rhetoric of free speech. That is what this debate is all 
about. Free speech in this democracy does not equal big money. The 
antireformers are wrong.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has 8\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) has 12 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish the gentleman would have yielded to me, because 
the gentleman is claiming all kinds of things about big money, soft 
money; and the gentleman himself received about a million dollars from 
labor unions in support of his election. Now that he is in office, he 
would want to ban similar type of spending that might be used against 
him.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Doolittle).
  (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I am happy that we are considering this 
proposed amendment to the Constitution, because this amendment, without 
question, is where the debate ought to be on the government regulation 
of political speech which is under consideration.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Missouri and my other liberal 
colleagues who have endorsed this approach. I do not endorse it, but I 
commend them, because it is honest. My liberal colleagues recognize 
that, in order to limit speech, it is necessary to amend the first 
amendment. They know that any attempt to abridge a citizen's first 
amendment rights by statute, such as most of the proposals before us 
do, in fact, is unconstitutional. So I commend them for their honest 
admission of this fact.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a debate which will clarify that the so-called 
campaign finance issue is really about limiting our right to engage in 
political speech and participate in free elections.
  In an effort to pave the way for big government regulations such as 
Shays-Meehan, this resolution would amend the Constitution to grant 
Congress and the States power to set spending and contribution limits 
and to define what a political expenditure is.
  The words of the Gephardt resolution are relatively few, but the 
ramifications are stunning. The amendment would give Congress a free 
hand to regulate, restrict or, indeed, even prohibit any activity which 
is perceived by the government to constitute the campaign expenditure.
  Candidate spending, independent expenditures, and even issue advocacy 
by private citizens and groups would be swept within the orbit of 
governmental regulation.
  Thanks to the first amendment, America's premier political reform, 
Congress does not have the authority to stifle political speech. The 
Supreme Court has rightfully rejected efforts to suppress political 
speech time and time again.
  If this amendment should pass, it would provide the government with a 
blank check to gag American citizens, candidates groups, and parties. 
Liberals call this reform.
  The Founding Fathers had the wisdom and courage to construct the 
Constitution of the United States. The first amendment has served our 
Nation well for over 200 years. The first amendment speech protections 
are a legacy we are extremely fortunate to have.
  Of all the types of speech that we are guaranteed by the first 
amendment, guess which was the most important in the minds of the 
framers? It was not the ability to go out and advertise automobiles or 
beer. It was political discourse, the very thing the British Government 
tried to abridge when it was in power. Our founders tried to prevent 
this from ever happening again by enacting the first amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the first amendment prevents the government from 
rationing the political speech of an American citizen through campaign 
spending regulations in the same way it prevents the government from 
telling the Washington Post or the Sacramento Bee how many numbers it 
may distribute or how many hours a day CNN may broadcast.

                              {time}  2030

  Amending the first amendment for the first time in two centuries, the 
big government reformers want to make the unconstitutional be 
constitutional. They would rewrite the first amendment, a frontal 
assault on American freedom that even the ACLU has characterized as a 
recipe for repression.
  While I relish the debate itself, I recoil at the prospect of gutting 
our first amendment freedoms. I prefer the crystal clear language of 
the first amendment, which says, ``Congress shall make no law abridging 
the freedom of speech.''
  We as representatives would do well to abide by the Constitution and 
defeat this resolution.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney), who has been a leader in the effort to fight 
for campaign finance reform, and a leader in our bipartisan effort to 
support the Shays-Meehan bill.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have an historic opportunity to pass real campaign 
finance reform in this Congress. That opportunity is Shays-Meehan. 
Although some of my colleagues in this body support an amendment to 
overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley vs. Valeo, such an 
amendment is not needed to pass Shays-Meehan. Shays-Meehan will pass 
constitutional review. The DeLay amendment will do just that, delay. I 
have been told that the amendment's sponsor does not even intend to 
vote for it.
  Shays-Meehan will ban soft money once and for all, and will require 
greater disclosure from groups which conduct sham issue advocacy ads. 
For months we have held hearings in the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight on alleged campaign finance abuses. All of the alleged 
abuses involved soft money. Not one of these hearings would have been 
needed or would have been held if Shays-Meehan had been enacted, if 
Shays-Meehan had been law.
  If we vote in favor of the DeLay amendment, those of us who may favor 
it, it will be years before it could take effect while the States 
debate ratification. In the meantime, we will have lost our best chance 
in years to pass real reform, Shays-Meehan. There is an old saying that 
a bird in hand is better than two in the bush, and the Shays-Meehan 
bill is within our grasp.
  So I am urging all of my colleagues who are sincere reformers on both 
sides of the aisle to vote present on all substitutes, on all bills, 
except Shays-Meehan. Let us keep our eye on enacting within this 
Congress and passing it and ratifying true reform, Shays-Meehan. Vote 
present or no on the DeLay amendment and yes for Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Lois Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise first to say how grateful I am that this debate 
has finally begun. Many of us have different views of campaign finance 
reform, but the fact that the House has begun to consider these 
approaches tells me that we have finally listened to the will of the 
American people who desperately want us to fix our political system.
  I hope that as we debate this issue over the next several weeks we 
will do so in a bipartisan, civil, and thoughtful manner, because in 
fact, I do believe that the nature of our deliberation itself is a part 
of the reform experience and enterprise.
  I would support a constitutional amendment on campaign funding if I 
believed that it would be the only option available to us to change 
this system. But I oppose the amendment at this time for these reasons.
  First, instead of taking the long, arduous, and radical step of 
amending the Constitution, we do have the ability now to make dramatic 
changes to

[[Page H4449]]

our political system by passing a bipartisan Shays-Meehan bill later in 
this debate.
  Second, changing the Constitution is only necessary if we were to 
impose overall mandatory spending limits on campaigns. The Shays-Meehan 
bill contains numerous important reforms. In particular, it bans soft 
money and regulates issue ads, but it does not mandate overall spending 
limits.
  Third, this amendment is being offered as a vehicle to criticize the 
Shays-Meehan and freshman reform bills as unconstitutional, and they 
are not. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld a variety of 
contribution limits, and has furthermore ruled that Congress is within 
its right to enact additional reforms.
  The Shays-Meehan bill will not restrict free speech. Failure to pass 
this bill will suppress the voices of average Americans who are 
clamoring to be heard over the din of wealthy special interests 
dominating our political landscape, and this is the reason now that we 
must defeat this amendment and support the Shays-Meehan bill.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 50 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers).
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I have not been convinced that we need an 
amendment to the Constitution in order to enact real campaign finance 
reform in this Congress. In fact, throughout the time that I have 
served in this particular body, I have avoided all attempts to change 
the Constitution, many of which came, of course, from that side of the 
aisle.
  Mr. Chairman, I heard someone say earlier tonight that the reason 
they were here was to preserve the Bill of Rights. I know that just a 
week ago, 217 Members of this body voted to change the Bill of Rights 
and the first 16 words of the First Amendment.
  I also know that many of the same people who are arguing about free 
speech interests tonight were also cosponsors and voters in support of 
the flag-burning amendment, which, indeed, restricted the ability of 
individuals to make their views known through burning the flag.
  I also know that the majority whip and many Members who are 
participating in this debate tonight voted for the Internet Decency 
Act, and to restrict people's ability to express themselves on the 
Internet. So I have to assume that in fact this is not about the first 
amendment and people's rights to express themselves. It is about 
stopping campaign finance reform.
  The argument that was put forward is that this particular amendment 
was brought to the floor by the minority leader, when in fact it was 
brought to the floor by the majority whip. There is a trend that I see 
happening in this body, a very disturbing trend. A week ago we saw the 
elements of the President's budget brought not at his request to the 
floor but by the chairman of the Committee on Rules. Why? Because it 
was important to construct a straw man that could be attacked and then 
voted down. That is what we have tonight, a straw man.
  We also have an attempt to mislead. Shays-Meehan does not require a 
constitutional amendment to be put in place. How do I know? Because 
when it was introduced, I sent it to constitutional scholars throughout 
my district.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), who has been a leader in the bipartisan effort to 
get campaign finance reform, and a leader on Shays-Meehan.
  (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, while I think this is a cynical amendment, and 
certainly I do not want to question anyone's motives, I do think this 
is valuable in that an amendment like this will bring out the more 
extreme viewpoints in the House on this particular issue, because we 
have people from one extreme that say we need a constitutional 
amendment, which obviously most of us think is a bad idea, and then the 
other side that says we should just have unlimited expenses by whoever 
and whatever and whenever, no matter which direction our society is 
going in.
  I want to bring the perspective of kind of the logical, commonsense 
approach from East Tennessee, kind of out of the heart of America. I do 
not accept PAC money. I always thought that was kind of a bad thing, so 
I just decided a long time ago not to take that money. I raise my money 
from individuals, the old-fashioned way. I can look them in the face.
  In 1996, 95 percent of the money in my campaign was from the State of 
Tennessee, just kind of down home grass roots. I think we keep our 
hands more clean that way and say no to it all.
  Where I am coming from here is I do not want big special interest 
groups with tons of money to dominate our elections to the United 
States House of Representatives. I think there is a commonsense 
approach that says we should have some limits on soft money from 
tobacco and alcohol and gambling interests, of all things, that is 
climbing so fast that it is going out of control.
  Do we want big tobacco to have the ability to just dump millions of 
dollars, which they already have, directly to the political parties, 
without any restraints or any controls? Do we want to cause Members of 
the House of Representatives to lose control of our own elections 
because of outside influences, where they had independent groups come 
in and bombard them with their $1 million, and they raise money from 
individuals back home, and they cannot even stay in the game because of 
these outside influences? Come on. Common sense says there is some 
reasonable balance, and we can reform this system.
  I want to thank the leadership for bringing campaign finance reform 
to the floor, but I want to encourage our leadership to do what they 
said they were going to do and bring reform to the floor. We have a 
bunch of good substitutes to choose from, and it is time we bring them 
to the floor. I do not mind staying up until 4 in the morning, but I 
want to see these votes scheduled.
  I say to our leadership, I thank them for changing their strategy and 
bringing this issue back to the floor, where it deserves to be heard. 
But I also say, let us get on with it.
  I am an appropriator. I know we have appropriations bills to bring to 
the floor, but we cannot just continue to delay this issue. I am not 
using the gentleman's name, I say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), the majority whip. I just meant to say, let us not delay, no 
pun intended, sir. I have the greatest respect for the gentleman.
  But we do need to debate these substitutes. As soon as we can, we 
need to move beyond the cynicism, beyond the extreme, come to the 
middle ground.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAMP. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, as someone who has never received 
special interest PAC money in the history of his elections, I think it 
is important that the gentleman makes it clear that the gentleman has 
in the past. Is that not the case?
  Mr. WAMP. No. I have not, did not. I have never accepted PAC money. I 
will make that clear. That is right. I thank the gentleman for 
clarifying.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say that I have never taken PAC money in the history of my election.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has played such a great 
leadership role working with both sides of the aisle to bring real, 
true, bipartisan campaign finance reform to a vote on the floor of this 
House.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is exciting to begin the process of debating 
campaign finance reform. It has been an absolute pleasure to work with 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Marty Meehan) and Members on both 
sides of the aisle who favor reform, and I also thank my freshman 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle for working so hard to bring 
campaign finance reform before this Chamber. Had the freshmen not made 
their effort, we would not be here today, and I thank them from the 
bottom of my heart.
  The Sharp Meehan substitute does not circumvent the Constitution of 
the

[[Page H4450]]

United States. The amendment my majority whip has offered is not an 
issue I support, and I will be voting against his Constitutional 
amendment.
  We support a ban on soft money, both on the Federal and State level, 
for Federal elections. We also believe we need to call the sham issue 
ads what they truly are, campaign ads. It means that people who attempt 
to influence elections will exercise their freedom of speech through 
the campaign process, and that we all play on a basically even field.
  Right now if we say, ``Vote for, vote against, elect, reelect so and 
so,'' it is a campaign ad. Under our bill if one talks about a 
candidate 60 days to an election, it is a campaign ad and must come 
under the campaign rules.
  Current law does not limit what we can spend, it limits what we can 
raise from each individual. A wealthy person can spend whatever they 
want under our campaign laws. We do not change that. They have to file 
and record what they spend. That is the law now. We are not changing 
it.
  We codify Beck, which was the Supreme Court decision that said that a 
nonunion employee does not have to pay their agency fee to cover 
campaign expenditures. We improve the FEC disclosure and enforcement. 
We say that wealthy candidates who spend more than $50,000 cannot turn 
to their own parties for additional help.
  We say that foreign money and money raised on government property is 
illegal. Believe it or not, it is not illegal now, because, 
surprisingly, soft money is not considered as a campaign contribution. 
It was intended years ago, to be used for party-building, but it has 
been totally misdirected.
  I would urge this House to pay close attention to what happens in the 
next few weeks. It was my hope and expectation we would deal with 
campaign finance reform in February, as my leadership promised, or 
March, at the latest.

                              {time}  2045

  That did not happen. And then we were told we would deal with it in 
May. Unfortunately, that has not happened. There is a point where the 
word of our leadership needs to be honored. I hope we can expedite 
debate and conclude our work to reform our campaign laws.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is amazing to me no one wants to talk about this 
constitutional amendment. When the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt), the Democratic leader said, and I quote, ``I intend to fight 
for and make the case for this amendment, because I believe the future 
of our democracy demands such a change,'' yet he refuses to come down 
and speak for an amendment that he and others, including the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, have beaten their chest about for months in order 
to cover up some of the campaign abuses by the Clinton administration 
and the Democrat National Committee.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts has asked many questions trying to 
confuse us about the difference between contributions and expenditures 
for candidates and contributions and expenditures for organizations and 
parties. The Supreme Court was very real and very straightforward on 
the two. They said Congress could possibly limit contributions and 
expenditures to candidates because there is a potential for corruption.
  Now, I do not know anybody in this House that is corrupted by the 
expenditures or contributions. On the other hand, they also said 
parties and groups cannot be corrupted, therefore we cannot limit their 
ability to speak out by raising money and spending it.
  So I answer the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) in his own 
words, a letter to our colleagues signed by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt):
  ``Many of the changes to our campaign finance system that people 
rationally argue for are simply unconstitutional.'' We heard him say 
right here that that is not the case. ``Since the Supreme Court's 1976 
opinion in Buckley versus Valeo, through its recent decision in 
Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, it has been made 
repeatedly clear that the constitutional barriers erected by the court 
cannot be wished away. That is, the Supreme Court has consistently and 
ever more assuredly told us that any restrictions on expenditures by 
candidates or anyone else are unconstitutional.'' This is the gentleman 
from Massachusetts.
  ``While we may restrict contributions to candidates, those 
permissible restrictions are very narrow and cannot reach the kind of 
abuses that we are interested in curbing because they are easily 
circumvented. In short, neither Congress nor the States have any 
constitutional authority to limit expenditures, independent issue 
advocacy, or uncoordinated.''
  And I quote from the gentleman from Missouri and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts: ``The current explosion in third-party spending is 
simply beyond our ability to legislate.''
  They want this constitutional amendment so that they can change the 
first amendment to the Constitution and limit our ability of free 
speech. And the reason I brought the amendment here is to catch them, 
to catch them after they had beaten their chests about Shays-Meehan and 
others.
  We will get into this and it will be a long, open and fair debate; 
what the reformers have asked us to do. And we will have that open and 
fair debate as long as it takes, because I believe that people in this 
body are too cavalier with American's freedoms. Too cavalier to say, as 
it was just said, we ought to stop these bad old special interests. 
Well, whose special interests? Americans that spend $100 or $200 to 
contribute to a group like National Right to Life or National 
Organization of Women? Are those big bad special interests?
  Mr. Chairman, I will be asking those that vote ``present'' on this 
amendment why they cannot stand up for what they have believed in in 
the past.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the joint resolution is considered read for 
amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 119 is as follows:

                             H.J. Res. 119

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
     each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
     proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States within seven years after 
     the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

       ``Section 1. To promote the fair and effective functioning 
     of the democratic process, Congress, with respect to 
     elections for Federal office, and States, for all other 
     elections, including initiatives and referenda, may adopt 
     reasonable regulations of funds expended, including 
     contributions, to influence the outcome of elections, 
     provided that such regulations do not impair the right of the 
     public to a full and free discussion of all issues and do not 
     prevent any candidate for elected office from amassing the 
     resources necessary for effective advocacy.
       ``Section 2. Such governments may reasonably defined which 
     expenditures are deemed to be for the purpose of influencing 
     elections, so long as such definition does not interfere with 
     the right of the people fully to debate issues.
       ``Section 3. No regulation adopted under this authority may 
     regulate the content of any expression or communication.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone 
a request for recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a 
minimum of 5 minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that 
immediately follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on 
the first question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  Are there any amendments to the joint resolution?
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been a very interesting and lengthy debate 
about the first amendment implications of spending limits, and I thank 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) my colleague from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank), the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) for all of their input into the constitutional implications of 
spending limits.

[[Page H4451]]

  But, Mr. Chairman, let me make one thing very, very clear. The Shays-
Meehan bill does not include spending limits. I have a sneaking 
suspicion that reform opponents have contrived a debate here today that 
is nothing more than a red herring. Their message is that any campaign 
finance reform is impossible without amending the United States 
Constitution, and nothing could be further from the truth.
  According to the eminent constitutional scholars such as John 
Miekeljohn and Thomas Emerson, the core principle underlying the first 
amendment is that voters should have the ability to tap into the vast 
marketplace of ideas so they can draw their own conclusions about 
political issues and candidates.
  Nothing in the Shays-Meehan legislation precludes their ability to do 
that. In fact, I firmly believe that the bill would enhance political 
dialogue by increasing disclosure.
  Now, Supreme Court decisions have affirmed that reformers stand on 
solid constitutional ground when we argue that campaign finance reform 
and first amendment rights are not mutually exclusive. The Court has 
repeatedly recognized that Congress possesses a broad ability to shield 
the political process from corruption and the appearance of corruption.
  In the landmark case of Buckley v. Valeo, the Court ruled that 
Federal contribution limits ``do not undermine to any material degree 
the potential for robust and effective discussion of candidates and 
campaign issues by individual citizens, associations, the institutional 
press, candidates, and political parties.''
  More recently, in 1989, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed 
that position in Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce, ruling 
that the current ban on corporate treasury contributions and 
expenditures serves to combat ``the corrosive and distorting effects of 
immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of 
corporate form * * *''
  It is clear to me and the majority Members of this Congress that 
support the Shays-Meehan bill, that it is time to move forward with 
this debate. Legitimate constitutional concerns must be addressed, but 
the first amendment shell games should not be used any longer to 
postpone debate on reform any longer than they already have.
  Let me also state that tomorrow marks an anniversary. It is the 
three-year anniversary that the Speaker of the House and the President 
of the United States met in New Hampshire and shook hands in agreement 
to get real comprehensive campaign finance reform to a vote in this 
Chamber. The three-year anniversary. Can my colleagues imagine? It has 
been three years and we still have not had a vote on a comprehensive, 
bipartisan, bicameral McCain-Feingold Shays-Meehan campaign finance 
reform legislation.
  Tomorrow morning when we take the well, it will be an anniversary of 
sorts. I would encourage Members from both sides of the aisle to come 
to this well and mark that third-year anniversary with a renewed call 
for a vote on campaign finance reform. The public has had it. This vote 
is long overdue. Let us mark this anniversary with a vote on real 
campaign finance reform and pass the Shays-Meehan bill.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in opposition to the amendment. The 
Supreme Court has spoken very clearly. Limits on money spent in 
elections in certain cases are limits on free speech. We have heard the 
references to Buckley v. Valeo. The Supreme Court stated very clearly 
that spending money in the political process in most cases equals free 
speech, and the bottom line of what we are discussing here today is 
free speech.
  Now those who would want to say that we are trying to combine free 
speech with big money, it just simply does not wash. I know in my own 
personal campaign, the average amount of my contribution was $30, yet I 
had millions dumped in against me and it was uncontrollable. 
Uncontrolled, and no one had to disclose.
  What I am asking, and what we are asking for here ultimately, is let 
free speech reign but let the voters understand that they have the 
right to have every penny disclosed that is contributed or is accepted 
in a campaign.
  I think it is very clear here what the bottom line is, the reason why 
this amendment was even drafted. Let us look at this again coming from 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) printed in Time Magazine, 
February 3, 1997. ``What we have here is two important values in direct 
conflict: Freedom of speech and our desire for healthy campaigns and a 
healthy democracy. You can't have both.''
  Now, I think that lays it out pretty clearly. You cannot have both. 
So what do we peel off? We peel off free speech so we can have healthy 
campaigns in their definition. There are no healthy campaigns. There is 
no free press. There are not freedoms without free speech.
  Mr. Chairman, how do supporters of this so-called constitutional 
amendment defend this? They say that they are only trying to balance 
conflicting values. Right. Give us a break.
  Many tried to argue that we need to restrict free speech because they 
believe that money buys elections. Well, let me remind them that the 
results of the California primary last week proved that money does not 
buy elections and, in fact, the high profile candidates who dumped 
millions of dollars out of their own pocket into Statewide races were 
turned away empty handed.
  What the lessons are that we can take from these results is that 
money does not decide elections, the informed voters in America decide 
elections. And that is what we need to focus on, making sure that 
American voters are fully informed.
  Unfortunately, many people still do not trust the American people to 
make wise decisions. Despite the repudiation of the ideals of big 
government, my liberal friends continue to search for ways to place 
restrictions on the freedoms of the American people. Their answer to 
moral decay and the breakdown of the family is to step in and take 
prayer and the Ten Commandments out of our schools. Their answer to a 
struggling economy and unemployment is to take more money away from 
families and create more paperwork for bureaucrats. And their answer to 
illegal campaign contributions and possible foreign influences in 
elections is to change the Constitution to restrict the political 
participation of Americans and free speech.
  Do they not get it? It is printed right here, a direct quote from the 
gentleman from Missouri. That is the bottom line of this debate.
  The fact is that well-intentioned liberals in previous Congresses 
passed reform bills in 1974, and the result has been an increase in the 
strength of PACs and an increase in the amount of fund-raising that 
politicians are forced to do. The answer is not to close off more 
avenues of free speech.
  The ACLU and the late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, two 
voices normally aligned with those supporting this amendment, have made 
very clear statements on this issue. In the words of Justice Marshall 
he said, ``One of the points on which all members of the Court agree is 
that money is essential for effective communication in political 
campaigns.''
  The ACLU, a bastion of liberalism, said that H.J. Res. 119 is vague, 
overbroad and it would give Congress a virtual blank check to enact any 
legislation that may abridge the vast array of free speech and free 
association rights that we now enjoy.

                              {time}  2100

  I happen to agree with the ACLU on this issue. Unfortunately, the 
proponents of H.J. Res. 119 disagree.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. DeLay, and by unanimous consent, Mrs. Chenoweth 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, let me remind Members again of their 
views on free speech and healthy campaigns and a healthy democracy. 
They said it right here. They say, we cannot have both. And what we are 
hearing today in this amendment is, we peel off free speech.
  We just heard the distinguished gentleman from Illinois quote Abraham 
Lincoln, when Abraham Lincoln asked, at a very poignant time, a very 
important time in this Nation, how long can we endure, how long can we 
endure with the freedoms that we do have.

[[Page H4452]]

  We must endure and we must protect those freedoms and then this 
Nation will remain free. The Constitution's authors trusted the people 
of this great Nation to make well-informed decisions about their lives 
and about their representatives, and I trust the people. Unfortunately, 
some Members still do not trust the American people to make the right 
decisions and they do not trust that they are well informed in this 
free society.
  I ask that we defeat this amendment, H.J. Res. 119.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentlewoman, we 
have had about 25 years or so of extensive Federal regulation of our 
campaigns and yet things seem to have gone from bad to worse. Would the 
gentlewoman care to share her opinion as to why we seem to have have 
ever-increasing problems despite all the massive regulation that has 
been in the law?
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, it seems very clear to me, we have been 
trying to put the solution in the hands of the bureaucrats instead of 
letting the solutions rest with the well-informed electorate. When the 
electorate understands who is trying to give an inordinate amount of 
money to political candidates, they always respond. They respond 
negatively to anyone who gives the appearance even of allowing 
themselves to accept an inordinate amount of money.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, 200 years ago our Nation was founded with the principle 
that people would be chosen to represent based solely on the quality of 
their character. Those times have changed, but I think that ideal 
should remain the same. Obviously, it has not.
  If you leave the Cannon House office building and take about 110 
steps, you will find yourself at the door of an exquisite building with 
marble floors, beautiful red carpets that I visited on several 
occasions, and it is the Republican National Committee.
  If you go a few hundred more steps, you will find a much uglier 
building that is not near as nice, but it is the Democratic National 
Committee. But they both exist for the same purpose. They raise money 
and they pedal influence.
  I am not here to defend that system. I am here to change it.
  I think it has gotten to the point where, and I think it can be 
proven, 95 percent of all congressional elections are won not by the 
best man but by the person who raises the most money.
  Even now, as there is an open race in my home State of Mississippi, 
if people ask me who I think will win, I will tell them the name of the 
guy, a very nice guy by the name of Ronnie Shallison, and both 
Democrats and Republicans alike, the very next sentence out of their 
mouth is, but who is raising the most money. You see, that is what it 
has become in this town. Not the best person, not the person who wants 
to make our country, to keep it the greatest Nation on earth, but the 
guy who can make and raise the most money.
  Some Members in this room will try to tell you that that is good. I 
am here to tell you that that stinks.
  There is another system out there that we keep talking about, but 
maybe it has not been explained to the American people. It is called 
soft money. If you as an individual want to contribute to a candidate, 
you are limited by law to $1,000. If your spouse wants to give $1,000, 
that is okay. If your kids wants to give $1,000, that is okay. It is 
all reported.
  If you belong to a political action committee like the NRA or the 
National Right to Life, that group can give a candidate $5000. But if a 
PAC or a wealthy individual or an Arab oil sheik or whoever wants to 
give $100,000 to a candidate, they can go around that law by giving it 
to either the Democratic or the Republican Party, and then that party 
writes a check for $100,000 to the candidate and it is perfectly legal. 
And some Members tell you in this room that is right. I am going to 
tell you, that is wrong.
  There is another process out there called independent expenditures. 
Once again, you as an individual are limited, but if an organization 
or, once again, an incredibly wealthy individual who has got a personal 
axe to grind wants to spend $1 million against a candidate or $10 
million against a candidate, he can go straight to the television 
station and he can go straight to the radio station, he can go straight 
to the newspaper, he can spend all he wants, he can say anything he 
wants, and some folks call that free speech.
  Well, if all you do is cater to the rich folks, yes, it is free 
speech. But what happens to the average Joe who cannot raise $1 million 
and who cannot squander that kind of money. See, I visited both of the 
headquarters. The only average Joes I saw there and the only poor folks 
I saw there were working there. They do not have much of a voice in 
this town, and they do not have much of a voice in this town because 
money talks.
  So if you think that is right, vote not to change a thing. But if you 
think that is wrong and that this corrupt system is threatening the 
very democracy that all of us swore to uphold and defend, then let us 
have a real debate and let us close some of these loopholes, and let us 
see that the people can run for Congress and have a fair chance of 
getting elected, not because they raised the most money but because 
they are the best person, they have the best character, and they want 
to do the best things for our Nation.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Gephardt amendment. 
While the gentleman from Texas, the majority whip, and I have different 
views on some of the reform proposals before this House, I think we 
clearly agree that this constitutional amendment poses a dangerous 
threat to our liberties.
  William Gladstone praised the United States Constitution as the most 
remarkable work known to man in modern times. Henry Clay, in a speech 
to the Senate in 1850, said the Constitution was made not merely for 
the generation that then existed but for posterity. And it is with that 
high regard for the Constitution that we begin this debate on campaign 
finance reform.
  The gentleman from Texas knows that it is not necessary nor prudent 
to amend the Constitution in order to accomplish reform. For that 
reason, I and others have opposed this amendment. While we are in total 
agreement that the Constitution should not be amended in this fashion, 
there is a respectful disagreement on the compatibility of campaign 
finance reform and the Constitution.
  I believe that you can summarize three different prevailing 
approaches to campaign finance reform today. The Supreme Court, 
luckily, 22 years ago has commented on each approach. Let us examine 
these.
  One approach is for full disclosure. Let us remove all limits and let 
us just disclose everything. The Supreme Court understands why that 
might not be a good idea and said that Congress has a right and 
authority to require more.
  A second approach is to impose spending limits, let us take money out 
of the system. And the Supreme Court has in fact ruled that 
unconstitutional and that an abridgment of political speech. I reject 
that.
  Then there is a third approach, and that is the approach of the 
freshman bill, the Hutchinson-Allen bill to put reasonable limits on 
contributions which the Supreme Court says meets the test of free 
speech. The case that is most often cited, many times referred to 
tonight, is Buckley vs. Valeo.
  In that case, the Supreme Court of the United States, after reviewing 
the improper influence of big money in the 1972 presidential campaign, 
said that it was constitutional and consistent with free speech to put 
limits on campaign contributions, not limits on campaign spending, and 
that is the distinction, but restrictions on large campaign 
contributions.
  The Supreme Court described the appropriate limitations and approved 
the limitation of $1,000 per individual and, of course, corporate and 
labor union contributions had already been approved as appropriate to 
be banned. However, as has previously been described, there is the 
loophole of soft money, and everything worked fine until the loophole 
came through that those contributions that were illegal, if

[[Page H4453]]

given individually to a candidate, were permissible through the 
political parties and went to the benefit of the candidates.
  That loophole did not exist when Buckley vs. Valeo was decided by the 
United States Supreme Court. Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, there 
are those who want to remove all campaign contribution limits and allow 
anyone, whether individual or special interest group, to pour as much 
money as they want into the political system. In other words, let the 
good times roll, as long as there is full disclosure.
  Let me read to you what Buckley vs. Valeo, the Supreme Court, said 
about disclosure:
  While disclosure requirements serve the many salutatory purposes 
intended, Congress is surely entitled to conclude that disclosure is 
only a partial measure and that contribution ceilings were a necessary 
legislative commitment to deal with the reality or appearance of 
corruption inherent in a system. And so more than disclosure is 
appropriate. And today we conclude that disclosure is not adequate, 
that we need more in our system.
  The second view of reform today that we have talked about is that we 
ought to restrict spending limits, and that clearly is 
unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court has said. And I reject that 
view.
  So the Supreme Court has given us some guidance in all of this, but I 
believe it comes down to the third approach that I have talked about, 
the freshman bill, the Hutchinson-Allen, because it respects the 
rulings of the United States Supreme Court.
  This bill does not violate the first amendment because it does not 
try to regulate campaign spending. The freshman bill reduces the 
influence of big money contributions in American politics and 
strengthens the voice of the individual. That is what is important.
  The freshman bill adopts that third approach to campaign spending, an 
approach that addresses the worst abuses in our system, and yet it is 
consistent with the first amendment.
  In fact, the Supreme Court has said that the overall effect of 
contribution limits is merely to require candidates and political 
committees to raise funds, and this is important, this is a quote, to 
raise funds from a greater number of persons.
  We do not want to restrict campaign spending. We want to make sure 
that we raise money from a broad spectrum of people that strengthens 
the role of the individual. In other words, by saying that the Loral 
Corporation or the tobacco companies cannot give their millions of 
dollars to political parties is consistent with the first amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Watts of Oklahoma). The time of the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. DeLay, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hutchinson 
was allowed to proceed for 5 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Loral Corporation or other 
companies give their millions of dollars to political parties, it is 
consistent to ban those contributions, it is consistent with the first 
amendment.
  It does not limit free speech and it has the beneficial effect of 
strengthening the role of individuals in our political process. That is 
why I urge my colleagues, along with the gentleman from Texas, to 
reject this constitutional amendment before us today and to support 
campaign finance reform that tells the homemaker, that tells the 
factory worker, that tells the voice of grass roots America, your voice 
counts in American politics. The freshman bill does that. If you 
support empowering individuals in the role of our government, then you 
will support the freshman bill.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman for his approach 
in trying to protect freedom of speech at the same time trying to 
regulate campaigns. The gentleman was chairman of the State party in 
Arkansas. He takes a much more evenhanded approach than the Shays-
Meehan approach, and I applaud him for opposing the Gephardt 
constitutional amendment.
  The difference between the gentleman and myself is the gentleman 
wants to use regulators and bureaucrats to regulate. I want the people 
to make the decision, my constituents to make the decision, not a 
Washington bureaucrat. But the gentleman from Mississippi would not 
yield to me. So I want the gentleman, since he was a State party, I was 
shocked to hear the gentleman from Mississippi say that the national 
parties, both Republican and Democrats, exercise undue influence on 
elected officials that represent their parties. That is shocking to me, 
that the gentleman would even think of such a thing.

                              {time}  2115

  In fact I think in the gentleman's bill, he does not restrict 
campaign contributions or moneys going to State parties.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me respond to 
the gentleman. I was a State party chairman in Arkansas. I think it is 
important that we do not federalize all of the State elections and all 
of the State campaign processes. For that reason, the freshman bill 
does not regulate the States in every aspect.
  The gentleman from Texas did point up that there are two different 
philosophies. One is a regulated fashion, and one is just simply 
disclosure. I talked about that. That is an important distinction. I 
have thought about that philosophically. One way is to just have full 
disclosure. I do not believe we can move in that environment, where 
political action committees can give a million dollars, where 
corporations can give a million dollars, where individuals can give a 
million dollars. I do not believe disclosure can overcome that enormous 
influence of big money. The court has said that appropriate 
contribution limits are reasonable and constitutional. He can call it a 
regulated environment if he wishes, but I think we need rules in our 
society that recognize the importance of free speech, recognize the 
importance of the first amendment to the Constitution, but at the same 
time tries to make sure that everyone has a voice in our democracy, a 
voice in our freedom, and a voice in the political process.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I do 
not disagree with the gentleman's intent and his good intentions, but 
it does strike me as odd that the gentleman from Mississippi was making 
the point that money is the root of all evil and money elects people.
  We just had a primary in California where one candidate spent $40 
million of his own money, another candidate spent $20 million of her 
own money, and both candidates lost to the person who spent less than 
$10 million of other people's money. So this notion that money buys 
races has been disproved time and time again.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the gentleman. That is a very good point. I 
reject the idea that money always controls in politics. In fact in my 
campaign, I spent $100,000 less than my opponent and I won. We can cite 
many examples of that. I do not think necessarily that when we have 
contributions to political parties that there is always corruption. But 
let me ask the gentleman from Texas, and I think he would agree with 
me, that whenever $600,000 is given by the Loral Corporation in soft 
money to the Democratic National Committee which is followed by a 
waiver of the transfer of technology to China, that that is a 
legitimate concern by your constituents, that they are concerned about 
that and the influence of that money, which is soft money, does the 
gentleman agree that there are people in his district that are 
concerned about the propriety and the appearance of a quid pro quo of 
getting something in exchange for $600,000?
  Mr. DeLAY. I hate the appearance. If the gentleman would yield 
further, I would just say that through disclosure, then my 
constituents, not some bureaucrat in Washington, D.C. can express 
themselves through elections and other means as to their feelings, as 
to the connection of $600,000 by Loral connected to a waiver to sell 
the Chinese certain information. That is for our constituents to 
decide, not a regulated bureaucracy.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is the difference in philosophy, whether 
disclosure is enough. We all know that $600,000 is transferred, but the 
appearance of impropriety is still there. The

[[Page H4454]]

appearance. That is the concern of the American citizen. That is why I 
believe the freshman bill is appropriate. I ask for support for that 
and rejection of the constitutional amendment.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to talk for just a few minutes tonight about the 
amendment itself. I came over here to encourage opposition to the 
amendment and as I listened to the debate, nobody is for it and so 
maybe I do not need to do that, but I would like to review why this 
amendment was introduced and what it would have done.
  I think I heard that the sponsor, the gentleman from Missouri, was 
going to vote ``present'' on this amendment. I heard the cosponsor, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, say that he was no longer for the 
amendment and it should have taken more time in the committee process 
and the amendment that they had drafted was not the amendment that he 
could support today. But I have a letter here that the whip has already 
referred to that was sent out February 7, 1997 that encourages support 
of this amendment.
  It says, ``The current explosion in third-party spending is beyond 
our ability to legislate.'' It says, ``Legislating where we have 
constitutional authority to do so is necessary.'' Then it says, ``This 
amendment is necessary beyond that.''
  It also says that this amendment would not only allow the Federal 
Government to regulate spending in Federal elections and set spending 
limits, it says this amendment would allow State governments to 
regulate spending in State elections.
  So suddenly we move not only beyond what controls Federal elections 
but now we have decided we are going to see what we can do to control 
State elections as well as we would with this amendment. This 
amendment, as proposed, says to promote fair and effective functioning 
of the democratic process with respect to elections for Federal office 
and States.
  This is not just an amendment that the gentleman from Texas made up 
and brought up here today. It is an amendment that was filed. It was an 
amendment that the authors at the time said was necessary to solve the 
problem of money in politics and that the way to solve that problem was 
this amendment that would allow the Congress to regulate contributions, 
would allow the Congress to regulate speech.
  The gentlewoman from Idaho has mentioned that quote at the same time 
that the letter was circulated to our colleagues who were here in 1997. 
That quote was that we have two important values in direct conflict, 
freedom of speech and our desire for healthy campaigns and a healthy 
democracy. Then it says, ``You can't have both.''
  You cannot have both free speech and healthy campaigns? I think that 
is out of Time magazine, February 1997. And so this amendment would be 
necessary to do the things that today we are saying can be done in 
legislation.
  In February of 1997, two attorneys, two constitutional scholars, two 
leaders in the House, said this could not be done with legislation; 
that in fact it would take a constitutional amendment to limit third-
party spending; that you could not legislate that under any authority 
we had at that time, that it would take this amendment to legislate 
that. And what did this amendment do? This amendment decided in the 
balance between free speech and what the sponsor calls healthy 
campaigning that free speech would be what would have to go.
  This amendment is designed to create a hole in the Buckley v. Valeo 
case. This amendment is designed to do what that case says you cannot 
do. The Buckley v. Valeo case said you cannot limit spending, so we 
come up with a constitutional amendment that addresses that very 
decision and says, no, you can limit spending if we go ahead and 
resolve this conflict by limiting freedom of speech and saying to the 
Congress, you can limit spending.
  Then again in that letter our colleagues received, it says that not 
only can we limit spending here, we will even allow the States to limit 
spending, allow the States to limit speech, allow the States to do what 
the Supreme Court has said they cannot do.
  Amending the first amendment in this way would give Congress sweeping 
and unprecedented powers that it has never had before. If you can begin 
to limit speech, I think as the language of the amendment read, the 
language of the amendment said to limit speech in a way that the 
Congress did not feel would interfere with elections. What does that 
mean? How could you possibly do that?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Blunt was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. BLUNT. Then if the Congress later decides that they want to limit 
the speech of the news media, why could you not do that? Why could you 
not limit the coverage that news organizations give in the last days of 
the campaign? Why could you not require that they list their 
advertisers, list their owners, list all the information that the 
Congress might decide needs to be listed as part of the speech of the 
media?
  This is an amendment that the sponsor said was necessary to do many 
of the things that the legislation that we will be dealing with in the 
next few weeks would do. But now nobody is for the amendment. The 
sponsors are not for the amendment. They are going to vote ``present.'' 
They are going to vote ``no.'' Nobody is for the amendment that only 
months ago was seen as a necessary element to do the kinds of 
legislation that we are talking about doing today.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, allow me to reflect on inconsistency for just a moment. 
The majority whip just spoke with the gentleman from Arkansas, and he 
said, ``I appreciate your approach to this issue.'' But yet I have, 
``And oppose the bipartisan gag order,'' the Dear Colleague from the 
gentleman from Texas that says, ``The Hutchinson freshman bill, H.R. 
2183, violates the first amendment rights of citizens, citizens groups 
and political parties.''
  The gentleman from Texas also said that he believed that constituents 
were very concerned with quid pro quo kinds of arrangements around 
fund-raising.
  I turn to the Washington Post, Monday, November 27, 1995.

       ``See, you're in the book,'' DeLay said to his visitor, 
     leafing through the list. At first the lobbyist was not sure 
     where his group stood but DeLay helped clear up the 
     confusion. By the time the lobbyist left the Congressman's 
     office, he knew that to be a friend of the Republican 
     leadership, his group would have to give the party a lot more 
     money.

  Inconsistency seems to be the order of the day. As I said in my 
earlier comments, it dogs the concerns that are being raised over and 
over about the attacks, supposed attacks on the first amendment. Why do 
I say this? Because those that are so strenuously arguing for a hands-
off approach to the first amendment relative to campaign finance reform 
were in fact more than willing to reject the original language and 
intent of the Constitution when it came to the first amendment last 
week and religious freedom, to the first amendment previously regarding 
the flag burning amendment, to the first amendment previously regarding 
the Internet, and to the first amendment and individuals' rights to 
speech whenever we talk about any organization, domestic or foreign, 
that deals with the issue of abortion. Apparently our indignation 
around changes to the Constitution are situational.
  I sometimes feel like Alice in Wonderland. We are considering a 
constitutional amendment brought to the floor by people who do not 
support it. That amendment is being discussed only by people who wish 
to defeat it. No one is promoting the constitutional amendment. Yet it 
is consuming the time of the other side. I said I feel like Alice in 
Wonderland. Like Alice in Wonderland, when the Cheshire cat fades in 
substance, his little smile is left. That is the hope around this 
debate, that when the words fade from the debate tonight, people will 
be left with this lingering concern that there is some sort of attack 
going on relative to the first amendment, and it is not true.
  Why is it happening? I will tell you why. Because we are very, very 
close in this body to bringing change to the way we do business here, 
and that terrifies some people. That is what is driving this charade 
tonight. A consensus is building around Shays-Meehan. There is a 
bipartisan group that is

[[Page H4455]]

growing in this body. Good government groups across the Nation have 
endorsed it. Ethics organizations around the country have said that it 
is something that we have to do. We are poised to restore integrity to 
the campaign process in this country. Unfortunately that leads some 
people to frighten, to misinform, to mislead the public into believing 
that making our political system one we can trust requires us to amend 
the Constitution we love. It is not true. Shays-Meehan does not require 
a change in the Constitution. It is very clear.
  When the bill was originally introduced, I had concerns about some 
provisions which no longer exist in the bill, and I sent the document 
out to legal scholars all over the State of Michigan. I asked for 
responses. Any of the concerns that I got back have been addressed in 
the current iteration. There is no one of any legal stature arguing 
that Shays-Meehan is unconstitutional. It may be that individuals have 
looked at this issue and they have a view on it, but it is not 
necessarily held by people who actually work with the Constitution and 
the legal system on a day-to-day basis.
  I find this whole argument so far this evening to be extremely 
confusing. We have issues in front of us, plans in front of us that 
people want to talk about, people want to debate, people want to pass. 
But this side wants to spend all of their time talking about an 
amendment that no one is promoting. Why? Because they hope it will 
frighten people enough that they will reject all change. Do not give 
them what they want.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. RIVERS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman spoke of inconsistencies and 
took a shot at the gentleman from Texas, and I just wanted to question 
her about the inconsistencies she called. First let me say I hope the 
gentlewoman will submit for the record all the legal scholars and the 
written opinions that she claims support her position.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. DeLay, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Rivers was 
allowed to proceed for 5 additional minutes.)
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to put forward any 
materials that I can put together if the gentleman would do the same 
and show me who he is relying upon for his conclusions.
  Mr. DeLAY. I did not make the claim.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, when I see his, I will give him mine.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I 
noted the gentlewoman from Michigan takes a shot at the gentleman from 
Texas but does not want to stand her ground. She claimed that she 
submitted to all the legal scholars of the State of Michigan and not 
one legal scholar that she knows of claims our position to be the right 
position.
  I just ask the question, has the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. 
Rivers) talked to the ACLU, a group that the gentlewoman would probably 
like their kind of support? She made inconsistent statements, 
inconsistent statements that no one believes in our position.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield, because that is 
not what I said.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield to 
me, I think it is ironic that the gentlewoman, who had over 5 minutes 
now, wants us to yield to her after taking shots at the gentleman.
  So I just say there are no inconsistencies from this gentleman, 
particularly in light of the fact that the gentlewoman from Michigan 
raised the fact that the first amendment that I supported on religious 
liberty is an assault on the first amendment.
  As my colleagues know, the gentlewoman and--well, I retract that. The 
party, the Democrat party, has for so long tread on the freedoms of 
Americans that they cannot even understand, understand that when we are 
trying to pass a constitutional amendment to enhance the first 
amendment and enhance freedom, and here we are trying to defeat an 
amendment brought by the gentlewoman's own minority leader that is 
trying to destroy the first amendment, there are two very clear, 
consistent approaches to amendments to the Constitution.
  (On request of Mr. DeLay, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Peterson of 
Pennsylvania was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Texas, I was 
interested in the gentlewoman's comments from Michigan and wondered if 
he had an idea of the political contributions that this particular 
individual had?
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to answer the 
gentleman?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I have no idea.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word and oppose the Gephardt-Frank-DeLauro constitutional amendment and 
any proposal that would limit free speech.
  The Buckley decision recognized that campaign finance restrictions 
proposed severe constitutional concerns because they limit the ability 
of individuals to advocate candidates and causes in the public forum 
and require government monitoring and control of political speech 
activities. Overturning Buckley would cut to the heart of our 
democratic system by empowering Congress and the States to severely 
restrict the ability of individuals and groups to communicate their 
views about candidates and causes if such advocacy were in any way in 
support or in opposition to a candidate for Federal office.
  Overturning Buckley through this constitutional amendment raises many 
more questions than it answers. The sponsors would grant to Congress 
the abilities the Supreme Court held the first amendment denied, 
legislative control over the regulation of campaign finances. Since the 
common purpose of the proposals is to carve out an exception to the 
first amendment principles announced by the Court, against what 
baseline would such legislation limiting contributions and expenditures 
be measured, or would Congress and the States have largely unfettered 
discretion to dictate the nature, scope and enforcement of campaign 
legislation?
  What about the press? May news coverage or editorial endorsements be 
considered contributions or expenditures in support of or in opposition 
to favored and disfavored candidates? Now, there are times I would like 
to have those overruled or disallowed. Right now the Federal Elections 
Commission specifically exempts from the defining definition of 
expenditure any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed 
through the facilities of any broadcasting organization not owned by a 
party.
  I think what we really need to be careful about is any proposal, this 
proposal or any proposal we consider limiting free speech. What about 
those who are concerned of child pornography and want to raise money 
and speak against it and support candidates who will do something about 
it? What about those who have a concern for drunk driving? Mothers 
Against Drunk Driving; should they be limited in their free speech? How 
about those who want drug-free schools and want to deal with drug 
addictions and drug abuse? Should they be limited to free speech when 
in the process of electing people? Those who are opposed to the 
expansion of gambling; many of us feel that gambling is a tax on the 
poor, but there are those who want more gambling. Should they be 
limited to free speech? I do not think so. Those who are concerned 
about teen smoking? I have read lots of ads today about teen smoking. I 
am not opposed to those. Partial-birth abortion. Should people be 
limited in speaking out against this horrible crime that is going on in 
this country, partial-birth abortions? For the right to bear arms,

[[Page H4456]]

should we be limited for those who believe in the right to bear arms?
  These are the issues that inappropriate legislation will 
inadvertently control, and I think we must be very careful. Should we 
trust future Congresses and State legislatures to determine who and 
what issues can be discussed? And how much money can be spent?
  I happen to come from a State that has no limits, Pennsylvania. 
Campaign finance reform is not an issue for the State of Pennsylvania 
because while most of the money comes from people, people give checks, 
people give money to campaigns, soft money is not a big issue there 
because people give the money, and people are disclosed, and if my 
colleagues accept money from somebody with bad character, they are 
considered someone who they are not going to support in the election 
process.
  This amendment would give Congress, the States, the rights to 
regulate the press and could limit the right to commentary. Do we want 
to do that?
  In conclusion, I would like to just share with my colleagues from the 
Washington Times: ``This is not so much an amendment to the 
Constitution as an assault on it. The Founders, in their concise 
wisdom, said that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of 
speech. There was no wiggle room, nothing ambiguous, and even so, the 
effort to find the exact practical boundaries of the first amendment 
had been one of the richest, most contested practical bound areas of 
the law.''
  Imagine, if my colleagues will, what would happen if a pernicious and 
expansive ambiguity were introduced in the first amendment. Imagine the 
free-for-all we in Congress would have given the power to regulate 
political speech, bound only by the obligation to be reasonable about 
it.
  The Gephardt amendment would trash the Constitution and the 
guarantees of free speech, and I think this House better be very 
careful with a lot of pieces of legislation that have been introduced 
that in my view, if not changed, will limit the right of people to 
fight against pornography, to fight against drunk driving, to fight 
against teen drug abuse, to fight against expansion of gambling, teen 
smoking, partial-birth abortions, the right to bear arms, and on and 
on. Those are freedoms that go to the heart of this country and should 
be talked about in the process of electing candidates at the State and 
national level, and we should not inhibit that, and we must be careful 
because in my opinion many of the bills, as written, do just that.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the longer this debate goes on tonight, the weirder it 
gets. If my colleagues listen to the last few speakers here, some might 
think that we are engaged in a great legislative debate to defeat a 
constitutional amendment that required all of the resources of this 
body to come in here and debate and defeat. We would not even be 
discussing this amendment if the majority whip had not brought it to 
the floor. Almost everyone who has spoken here tonight is opposed to 
this amendment.
  This is not a debate about this particular amendment. The Committee 
on Rules in this case brought to the floor the freshman bill, the 
Hutchinson-Allen bill, H.R. 2183. The Committee on Rules of this House 
authorized 11 substitutes to that piece of legislation. This amendment 
was not one of them. The Committee on Rules authorized hundreds of 
amendments to this particular piece of legislation. We have plenty of 
opportunity to discuss campaign reform.
  Instead, the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas, brings to the 
floor a proposal that is a constitutional amendment that no one, the 
author himself, did not offer; and we are here, in his words, trying to 
defeat an amendment that we would not have to defeat if it had not been 
brought to the floor.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentleman did not misspeak. He 
said that the minority leader did not author the constitutional 
amendment. Did not the minority leader author this constitutional 
amendment?
  Mr. ALLEN. He did not offer it to the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DeLAY. The gentleman said offer it. I stand corrected.
  Mr. ALLEN. It is not author; offer.
  But what is going on here is real simple. The debate about this 
constitutional amendment is an attempt to drag a red herring across 
this whole debate, it is a chance to confuse big money and free speech 
and to defend big money in the name of free speech. And the analysis 
put forward by the gentleman from Missouri a few minutes ago had 
everything to do with expenditures, about expenditures and the 
constitutional problems of regulating expenditures.
  Well, there is a problem. The Shays-Meehan bill does not regulate 
expenditures. It deals with contributions. The Hutchinson-Allen bill 
does not deal with expenditures, it deals with contributions. Both of 
these bills are constitutional. It is constitutional to enact a soft 
money ban, it is constitutional to regulate issue advocacy.
  This debate is a fraud. It should stop now.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I do not understand how the so-called 
reformers do not want to debate the issue. They make incredible 
statements on the floor of the House, then yield back and do not want 
to debate. They claim that this leadership of this House does not keep 
their word in offering open and fair debate. We are going to have the 
most open and fair debate on this issue that my colleagues can imagine. 
Yet they do not want to debate because they do not want to look at the 
issues of free speech versus regulated speech, free speech versus 
stopping Americans from exercising their constitutional right.
  I was just going to ask the gentleman from Maine about the fact, and 
I have an USA Today article here dated Monday, September 30, 1996, and 
I do not blame the gentleman, I congratulate him; he got elected. But 
in this article it says the AFL-CIO has spent more than $500,000 on a 
series of television ads criticizing Longley, the gentleman's opponent 
in the last election, votes on Medicare, student loans and private 
pensions. The ads have helped make Portland the political advertising 
capital of the Nation. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) was the 
total beneficiary of this $500,000, yet he has the audacity to stand up 
on this floor and talk about the corruption created by big money 
expenditures especially when they have been made on his behalf.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I control the time, and I will yield if I 
can get unanimous consent to continue for 5 minutes after the gentleman 
concludes.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. McInnis was allowed to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maine.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, the brief answer is labor. Whatever ads the 
AFL-CIO ran in my district were legal, they were accurate, and they 
were part of this debate.
  As we know, all of us who were involved in the 1996 elections, there 
was a great deal of outside money on all sides. In my particular 
district in the last month of the campaign there were no AFL-CIO ads. 
There were, however, a vast number of ads run by the Republican 
National Committee.
  The truth is, I say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), that in 
the last 3\1/2\ weeks, I will be exactly specific, there were no AFL-
CIO ads run against my opponent. There were, however, up to $50,000 a 
week of ads run by the Republican National Committee.
  This is a democracy. These outside ads are constitutional. It is 
entirely proper that they be run. The important point is that neither 
Shays-Meehan nor the Hutchinson-Allen bill would prevent these ads from 
being run. It is perfectly appropriate to have that kind of discussion.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

[[Page H4457]]

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentleman is now ready to 
debate through this gentleman's time, because he would not take his own 
time to yield to me, but I just ask the gentleman once again, the 
gentleman, before the September that he is talking about, received 
benefits of over $500,000 from AFL-CIO, spent on him or against his 
opponent all the way through to September 15. There was more money 
spent past then, some claim to be almost over $1 million, spent by the 
labor unions, attacking his opponent. Then the gentleman admits to a 
huge amount of money being spent in the last 3 weeks on his behalf, 
independent expenditures.
  Yet I am just asking the gentleman, does the gentleman approve of 
that kind of expenditure, or does he not? Obviously he does not, 
because he now wants to support Shays-Meehan and Allen-Hutchinson, that 
would limit the ability of outside groups to spend that kind of money.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to stand here 
and tell the gentleman, I think the key to campaign reform is 
disclosure. I know the gentleman earlier talked about the Loral 
situation, which, in my opinion, is a corporation that ought to hold 
its head in shame for what occurred. But, you know, no campaign brought 
that out. None of these do-gooder bills, in my opinion, brought that 
out.
  What brought it out was disclosure. The newspapers got hold of it. If 
you want better campaign in this country, require disclosure every 
Friday, and make us put it on the Internet. If somebody in my district 
gave me $100,000 and you found out about it on Friday, where do you 
think it would be in Sunday's newspaper? It would be the headline. It 
is disclosure.
  I want to put everybody on this floor on warning, and want to be fair 
with everybody: Those of you on this floor who stand up, in my opinion, 
in somewhat of a hypocritical fashion and say, ``Let's ban soft money, 
let's stop the big money,'' and we heard big money from the previous 
gentleman, I am going to bring out, I have got your contribution 
reports here.
  For example, the gentleman who just talked about big money, and I say 
this in due respect, he and I had a debate on C-SPAN, but I want full 
disclosure.
  The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), this is his report. In the last 
reporting period, $55,000 from PACs, $54,900. Page 1, PACs, 12 of them; 
page 2, PACs, 12 of them; page 3, PACs, 12 of them; page 4, at least 12 
of them; page 5, at least 12 of them; page 6, at least 12 of them.
  Let us talk about the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers), who was 
the previous speaker. The American Trial Lawyers Association, $10,000; 
the United Steel Workers Union, $10,000; the Education Union, $10,000; 
Teamsters Union, $10,000; United Auto Workers, $10,000; Human Rights 
Campaign, $10,000; Machinists, $10,000; American Federation of State, 
County and Municipal Employees, $10,000.
  I just want everybody to be on notice, when you stand up here and 
talk about the corruption of big money, you had better check your own 
contribution list. I do not think it is corrupting. I think disclosure 
saves that. I think disclosure lets the voters make their decision. And 
if you are going to stand up and act like ``holier than thou,'' I have 
this book.
  You can disclose mine, I am not ashamed of any one of them. But I 
want to make sure the American public as they see this debate know 
exactly where you got your money. So if you allege this has corrupted 
it, you have some self-explaining to do.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I do not have the time to yield. I will 
not yield. I control the floor.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Watts of Oklahoma). The gentleman from 
Colorado controls the time.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, the idea here is not for us to attack each 
other. That is not my intent. My intent is to, first of all, make sure 
that those of us speak with a true heart, number one; number two, that 
we have disclosure.
  This is a rich man's game, if you let Shays-Meehan go through. If you 
let this freshman bill go through, it is a rich man's game. The very 
wealthiest people in this country can play.
  Well, I am not wealthy. My dad owned a little hardware store. I 
raised some contributions. I work hard on raising money, because I know 
in my district I face the odds of having somebody wealthy run against 
me. I have to have that money. I have to be armed.
  Do not eliminate the poor man, the working person out there that 
wants to run for political office. If you are worried about what they 
are getting in contributions, make them disclose it every Friday. Then 
if the voters do not like who they receive contributions from, let the 
voters vote no. Let the voters vote.
  Some people underestimate the intelligence of the voters out there. 
Take a look at what happened as a result of disclosure in California to 
Mr. Checchi. The disclosure showed how many millions and millions and 
millions of dollars was going into that campaign. What happened, the 
people rejected it. They did not say he could not use the money. Of 
course the Supreme Court will protect him using his own money. Even the 
money contributed, they did not prevent that. In fact, what happened 
earlier, everybody, before the California reform was, by the way, 
thrown out because it was unconstitutional, people were concerned, how 
can anybody ever match Mr. Checchi's money?
  It is disclosure that brought accountability and disclosure that will 
work for us. I intend to practice disclosure. If you or I hear people 
saying about how corrupt it is, how corrupt the people in this House 
are, how corrupt you are because you have to go out and raise money 
because you cannot write your own check, we are going to talk about 
that. Every one of those contributions we are going to talk about.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman yield a particular amount 
of time under the 5 minute rule, or just yield blanket time? I just 
want to know for future reference as well. I apologize for 
interrupting. I want to know what the process will be. We are going to 
do this for weeks.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. While the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
McInnis) is standing on his feet, he may yield time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Can the gentleman yield a particular amount of time, or 
just yield time?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman just yields time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for 
clarifying that.
  Mr. Chairman, all of us in 1996 have groups that came in and bought 
television ads for issue advocacy. In my race, the labor unions spent 
$850,000 on issue advocacy. I did not like that particularly, but I 
think they have the right to do that.
  I find it quite disturbing that anyone would take the notion that you 
have a right to curtail the right of any group to buy television ads or 
radio ads or newspaper ads to talk about issues, even if it mentions a 
candidate by name, as long as they do not expressly ask for the defeat 
or the election of that candidate.
  I would like to say more about this issue, but I appreciate the 
gentleman letting me get that comment in.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I see that my 
respected colleague from the State of Texas is next, and since she will 
be speaking after me, I would like to go through those political 
contributions.
  The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), 58 percent of her funds 
come from political action committees: $47,000, industrial unions; 
$41,000, unions; public sector unions, $34,000; transportation unions, 
$26,750. Let me get a little more specific. Communications Workers of 
America, $15,000; Teamsters Union, $13,000; Association of Trial 
Lawyers, $10,000; American Federation of County Municipal Employees 
Union, $10,000; United Steel Workers Union, $10,000; Laborer Union, 
$7,500; Food and Commercial Workers Union, $7,000; IBEW Union, $7,000; 
National Association of Retired Federal Employees, $7,000; United Auto 
Workers, $6,500.

[[Page H4458]]

  I think this is very key. This is disclosure. Some people have no 
objection to that. Actually, I have no objection to it. I think 
disclosure does it. I just want to be up front where these 
contributions come from as we listen to the statements throughout this 
long evening.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have never come on the floor of the House and denied 
the ability of anyone to present full disclosure. In fact, I support 
full disclosure, and I am glad my good friend from Colorado has offered 
to give the record of my contributions, because I am glad to stand with 
the men and women of America, and particularly the working men and 
women of America. I hope to stand with them in this debate that we will 
continue, and also stand with all America.
  This amendment that we have on the floor of the House at this time 
obviously is not a serious amendment. And I appreciate my good friend 
from Texas as well. I know that in many instances the gentleman comes 
with a great deal of sincerity. But this constitutional amendment is 
what it is, it is an attempt to frivolously treat the very serious 
issue of campaign finance reform.
  We have a number of very valid legislative initiatives, one by the 
freshmen, one by Shays-Meehan, that are real campaign finance reform. 
My good friends on the other side of the aisle know that they are 
taking up the people's time and making this discussion. Why? Because 
they are asking for a constitutional amendment. It takes two-thirds 
vote in the House and three-fourths of the States that would be 
required to pass this amendment.
  The reason why I came to the floor, not only to have the gentleman 
from the Committee on Rules recount for this body the contributions 
that I received legally, by the way, and we are all looking to ensure 
that we have a system that responds more to the people's needs than to 
this excessive counting of money, but I do not have a problem with 
disclosure. What I have a problem with is frivolity.
  Mr. Chairman, if I can turn to the Speaker on this whole idea of 
campaign finance reform, that is why I know my friends on the other 
side of the aisle are taking up our time to frivolously discuss this 
issue, the Speaker, the very person who leads them, said, ``One of the 
greatest myths of modern politics is that campaigns are too expensive. 
The political process in fact is underfunded, it is not overfunded.''
  So even for all he has recounted that all of us have received, his 
own Speaker says we need more money, more money, more money. So this is 
not a serious constitutional amendment.
  I came to the floor of the House because we have a serious issue that 
should be discussed. My good friend the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Peterson) started mentioning gun reform, and the gentleman started 
mentioning partial-birth abortion.
  I want to mention tonight James Byrd, in Jasper, Texas, who was 
killed by hate crimes and a violent group. We are not discussing 
anything serious when we talk about a constitutional amendment for 
campaign finance reform. We know it is not going to pass.
  Why are we not talking about a man who was picked up by men, and 
where he was beaten, chained to a truck and then dragged for 2 miles? 
Why are we not talking about someone whose torso was found on the edge 
of a paved road, his head and arm in a ditch? Why are we not talking 
about hate crimes? Why are we not talking about the tragedy that 
happened in Texas, that happened in Virginia, that is happening around 
this world?
  Why? Because we want to come to the floor of the House and make fun 
of people, and try to act like we are making some progress on campaign 
financial reform. Mr. Byrd's family needs the country, this United 
States of America, to address what happened in Texas, to address the 
Klan, to address hate crimes. But, no, we are here at almost 11 o'clock 
at night talking about a constitutional amendment that means nothing, 
because it is going nowhere, because the very Speaker, the head of the 
party that they represent, has said, ``We are underfunded in campaign 
finance reform.''
  I am sad that I have come to the floor of the House asking for some 
relief for the family of Mr. Byrd, some recognition of the tragedy that 
has occurred in Texas, and they can count on those of us who care to 
respond to this devastating, vicious crime.
  That is what we need to be on the floor of the House discussing, not 
a frivolous constitutional amendment that is going nowhere, because if 
we wanted to be serious about what we are doing, we would move forward 
on the legislative initiative that is there already.
  I would hope my good friend from Texas would join me in offering our 
sympathy to the Byrd family, but, as well, that we would be counted on 
to try to address the viciousness that has happened to this man's 
family, his dismembered body, only because of the color of his skin and 
because of the hatred that has been promulgated and promoted. I hope we 
all stand up against it.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. DeLay, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Jackson-Lee 
of Texas was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding, and 
I, too, send my sympathy to the Byrd family in Jasper, Texas.
  But the gentlewoman is calling frivolous her own minority leader's 
constitutional amendment, and she quotes the Speaker of the House on 
too much money. If the gentlewoman would hold it up again, I would like 
to read the quote again.
  I guess the gentlewoman is not going to.
  The gentlewoman says the Speaker says there is not enough money in 
politics. I would just ask the gentlewoman, what is enough money? Is 
the gentlewoman aware we spent in the Presidential and all elections 
last time, in 1996, $2.8 billion? That is less than the American people 
spend on potato chips. That is 1 percent of all the advertising in the 
country for products. And we are talking about the foundation of our 
democracy, our electorial politics. We spend 1 percent of all the 
advertising trying to convince the American people that you ought to be 
elected or I ought to be elected. What is too much?

                              {time}  2200

  It is your time, and I just ask the question: How much is too much?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming the time then, and 
I thank the gentleman very much. It was very clear, and I would be 
happy to emphasize the point. It says, in fact, it is underfunded.
  I think that we can take the actual facts from what the Speaker says. 
It is underfunded. Is not overfunded. So the Speaker seems to be 
saying, if I can read the clear English, the black-and-white English 
here that says he wants more money.
  What I am simply saying is that this constitutional amendment is not 
an amendment that is serious about campaign finance reform, realizing 
that we have serious legislative initiatives that Democrats have been 
asking time and time again to come to the floor of the House. Yet, we 
have a constitutional amendment that takes two-thirds of this body, 
three-fourths of the States, when States have their own individual 
campaign finance reform structures.
  We are asking for Federal legislation that deals with soft money, 
that deals with PACs, that deals with issue ads. This amendment does 
not do so.
  Might I just close by simply saying I came to the floor of the House 
to offer my deepest sympathy to the Byrd family and to ask this 
Congress, this body, to address the question of hate crimes in America 
and the vicious and horrible and almost outrageous tragedy that has 
happened to the Byrd family in Texas, my home State.
  I am asking and pleading, let us stop this debate and deal with the 
crisis that we have in hateful and violative vicious acts in America 
simply because of the color of your skin.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have an opportunity to speak in opposition 
to

[[Page H4459]]

this constitutional amendment. This debate reminds us of just what this 
country is. It is a country full of people that have their own opinion. 
That is what has made it so great is that we have debated all of our 
opinions in public, and we have had vigorous debates that reflect our 
democracy.
  I think from the last speaker we can see there is somebody that 
thinks this debate is frivolous, that this amendment is frivolous. Yet, 
our minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) realized what other 
reformers have failed to see; you cannot pass the current proposals of 
campaign finance reform without infringing on the constitutional right 
to free speech.
  At the heart of each of the proposals is a muzzle on first amendment 
rights. They stated this in their ``Dear Colleague'' letter last year. 
So while one person that is a Member of the minority party thinks it is 
a frivolous amendment and not worthy of our time, their same party's 
minority leader believes that it is the core and the necessity of 
campaign finance reform.
  I do not believe that we should infringe on the right of free speech. 
I do not believe that we should amend the Constitution. I think it 
served our country well that every group and every individual has an 
opportunity to express their ideas and their perspective in campaigns 
and outside of campaigns.
  It scares me a lot to think that we would begin to change those 
rules, that we would begin to eliminate the ability for people to 
freely debate the issues that confront us in elections and confront 
this country.
  The fact is that we spend $9 trillion in this country. We are the 
most powerful country in the world. There are a lot of people that 
believe it is worth their time and energy and money to influence the 
debate. What we need to do is make sure that all of the money spent is 
clear to the voters that it is reportable and that any law we pass is 
enforceable.
  The reality is that we are not even able to do that today. We had an 
election in 1996, and there are all sorts of abuses and suspicions that 
crimes were committed in the course of that election.
  The presidential election is the most closely reflective of what 
proposals today are for the congressional elections. Yet, despite those 
laws, what we have is probably the most flawed election in our history.
  We cannot investigate it. We cannot trace the money. We cannot find 
people to testify. In fact, what happens in a system like that is the 
person that is most willing to abide by the law, that is the most 
careful to do exactly what the letter of the law requires, ends up the 
person least likely to win, the person the most disadvantaged.
  Because when you push the money off the table, when you have people 
who want to influence elections that cannot do it through the legal 
process so that the American voters can watch and judge, what you do is 
create a system that invites the person most willing to abuse the 
system to do that for their own political advantage.
  I am proud to have lived very carefully, not only technically, but 
within the spirit of the law in the course of my campaigns. I accept 
that I am in a very tough district and that I will probably have a 
tough campaign every 2 years. I accept the fact that I may lose.
  What I do not accept is that we might go to a system where a person 
could step forward to run that would be the most likely to collaborate 
with independent expenditures off the radar screen and have the best 
advantage. I think that compromises the voters in my district and the 
voters all across this country.
  Secondly, as soon as you start deciding the rules, you start deciding 
who wins and who loses, what groups are able to affect elections, and 
what groups are not.
  I surely do not think those people that would support campaign 
finance would begin to restrict what newspapers can print on their 
editorial page. I have not seen that proposed. Yet, that is an 
independent expenditure. No one appoints them. No one asks them to be 
objective. No one enforces that objectivity.
  In fact, you only have to live in my district to see what one editor 
can do that is not objective to understand the disadvantage that 
presents. But we cannot regulate that, and we are not going to regulate 
that, and I do not support regulating that.
  The fact is that I have raised money for my campaign. I am proud that 
very little of my money has come from PACs, about 22 percent last time 
I checked. Most of my money comes from individuals. Almost all of it 
comes from my district. I raise money by going from one individual to 
another and say I am going to commit myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. 
Northup) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Northup was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, what I am proud to do is go from 
individual to individual, many people who have never given to campaigns 
before, and say this is what I believe; can you help me?
  My husband and I have raised six kids. We could not possibly fund an 
election ourselves. That is the Democratic process. Any laws that limit 
individuals from participating in campaigns and in elections and in 
free speech and in the debate of what direction this country is going 
in is a terrible opportunity to take away their opportunity to 
participate in a democracy.
  I am tired of people saying that the whole system is corrupt. I 
believe in the system. I believe in this country. I believe in my 
colleagues. Not everybody agrees with any of us. None of us wins in a 
unanimous election. But I believe most of us abide by the laws.
  We participate because we believe in a democracy. We believe the 
debate is good. I am sorry for those people who have decided to gain 
political advantage by implying to the American people that the whole 
system is corrupt. I do not know who they talked to or who they work 
with, but they are not with the people that I work with every day.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think I am probably going to be one of the last 
people to speak tonight. I was over in my office preparing for the next 
issue we are going to be debating and listening to this charade that is 
supposed to be a debate on campaign finance reform, finding myself 
extremely embarrassed, embarrassed for the majority party, embarrassed 
for the people of this country, embarrassed that my colleagues would 
think people could listen to this and think they were serious; that 
they would bring before the House campaign finance not reform, but what 
they would call a constitutional amendment that they do not believe in, 
and then they would stand there and talk against the amendment that 
they brought forward.
  I think my colleagues must think that the people of the United States 
of America are not very bright. They are wrong. The people will listen 
to this. They will know it is a ruse. They will know that what my 
colleagues cannot bear is to have us debate the Shays-Meehan bill, that 
they do not want to talk about doing away with soft money, that they do 
not care whether we have accountability with our issue ads.
  At the same time, when somebody comes before us that speaks well, 
like my colleague, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers), and 
others, my colleagues bring forward those who have contributed to them 
and think that will embarrass us, think that because all they do is 
bring forward our labor contributors, to think that we are not proud to 
be supported by nurses and teachers and by truck drivers and 
electricians and the workers of this country, how dare they think that 
that would be an insult to us. We are proud of that. Those are the 
workers of the United States of America. Those are the people that also 
support campaign finance reform.
  Let us get over with this this evening. Let us get started. Tomorrow 
is the anniversary of 3 years that the Speaker and the President shook 
hands on bringing campaign finance reform to the floor for a vote that 
will have real meaning on the people of this country so they can 
support and buy into our political system.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H4460]]

  Mr. Chairman, I have found this to be a very interesting and 
informative debate, and I find it kind of interesting to listen to my 
colleagues on the other side talk about this frivolous constitutional 
amendment that we are here debating tonight. I would have to say that 
``frivolous'' is probably not the appropriate word to describe it. 
Probably ``threatening'' is the more accurate word.
  What is interesting about tonight, our colleagues over there are 
saying that this is sidetracking the debate. But, Mr. Chairman, one of 
the things that is very interesting is last year the Senate also 
debated this constitutional amendment or one very similar to it, and 38 
of the Members in the Senate of the other party voted for this 
constitutional amendment. This has been a serious proposal, a serious 
suggestion on the other side. I think it certainly is the wrong one.
  I think the wrong idea in reforming our campaign finance laws is to 
limit free speech. That is why I am proud to be part of the freshman 
task force and a supporter of the freshman bill because it is the only 
one of the significant bills that deals with soft money that does not 
seek to restrict free speech. In fact, what it does is, it tries to 
create a balance so that everybody has an equal opportunity to speak 
out on the issues.
  The soft money issue I think has people kind of confused because 
there are lots of different kinds of soft money. There is the soft 
money that our political parties raise. There is the soft money that 
people give to groups, right-to-life groups or environmental or 
conservation groups or organized labor dues. That is another form of 
soft money.
  One of the things that the freshman bill tries to do is to create 
some distinction between those. It says that the parties cannot raise 
soft money and spend it anymore.
  Why is that important? It is important because in 1992, the two 
parties raised about $35 million in soft money. By 1996, that number 
had grown to about $275 million. It is estimated that in 1998 it could 
be as much as $500 million. Some people estimate it could go to as much 
as a billion dollars in the year 2000.
  The gentleman from Colorado spoke earlier and was criticizing Members 
who had received support from various groups, talking about the big 
money in politics. When people are giving hundreds of thousands of 
dollars, even millions of dollars a year in soft money to the political 
parties, that is really big money.
  Do we want to know what, Mr. Chairman? The people who give that money 
do not even like being asked for that money. More and more of those 
groups that are being asked to fund the soft money of the political 
parties are saying we do not want to do it. These are not voluntary 
contributions in their views.
  What we ought to be working for, Mr. Chairman, are competitive 
elections. One of the innovative things that the freshman bill does is 
that it allows parties to help its candidates with the hard money, the 
money that individuals give to make sure that, if an independent group 
attacks a person, that they have the ability to respond.
  My friend from Colorado said that if the freshman bill passes, then 
politics is just going to be a rich man's game. The truth is just the 
opposite if the freshman bill passes, because the freshman bill will 
assure that every election can be a competitive election, because every 
candidate will have access to the resources in order to support their 
campaign.
  There is a lot of difference between the Shays-Meehan bill and the 
freshman bill. The big difference is that the freshman bill does not 
seek to limit speech. It does not seek to limit the ability of 
independent groups to talk about candidates or talk about office 
holders. It does not seek to restrict the debate. It seeks to make sure 
that everybody can participate in the debate in an equal way.

                              {time}  2215

  That is the goal, fair and competitive elections. I would just urge 
my colleagues tonight to defeat this amendment for certain and also to 
support the freshman bill.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that a while ago there was 
some discussion about which groups were contributing to which 
candidates, and I do not think anyone on this side meant to diminish 
anyone for the contributions that they had received, or certainly not 
to diminish the groups that contributed. But I think that what we are 
speaking from on this side is that we want to guarantee the right of 
those individuals and those groups to be able to continue that free 
speech.
  I think it is important that we remember that hard money is money 
regulated by the FEC. It is money that can be used to expressly 
advocate the defeat or the election of a political candidate. All other 
money is soft money.
  It is interesting that most of these so-called campaign finance 
reform bills are designed not to cut back on or reduce the money spent 
by candidates for political office, but they are designed to prevent 
and reduce the money spent by so-called special interest groups.
  What are special interest groups? Special interest groups are labor 
unions, teachers, right-to-lifers, prochoice, proenvironment, 
antienvironment. And why should any of those groups be denied the right 
to spend whatever money they want to spend to bring to the attention of 
the American voter the voting records of individual candidates, as long 
as they do not expressly advocate the defeat or the election of that 
candidate?
  I, for one, commend the majority whip for bringing the Gephardt 
constitutional amendment to the floor. I do not think it is going to 
pass, but I think it illustrates the fact that the Gephardt amendment 
to the Constitution is very open in what it attempts to do, and that is 
that it attempts to diminish speech. It allows the Government, through 
some bureaucrat at the FEC, to determine what is too much, what is not 
enough, what is inappropriate, what can be done and what cannot be 
done.
  Even the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) himself said, ``What 
we have here is two important values in direct conflict: freedom of 
speech and our desire for healthy campaigns. You can't have both.''
  I would ask the gentleman, if he were here, what is a healthy 
campaign? What is too much money? I think it has been pointed out very 
clearly here this evening that the amount of money spent on campaigns 
by all candidates for Federal office in 1996 was a very minute amount 
compared to the money spent to advertise alcohol, soapsuds, detergents, 
toothpaste and all sorts of products that are manufactured throughout 
America.
  Is it inappropriate for the American people to be fully aware of all 
the issues that they are going to be voting upon? I think that if the 
American people realized that this constitutional amendment that we are 
going to be voting on maybe tomorrow, that the Shays-Meehan bill and 
others was going to effectively limit their right to participate in the 
American political system, that they would be rightfully upset.
  Buckley v. Valeo has made it very clear that free speech is a part, 
and an integral part, of the political system in America, and that we 
cannot limit the amount of money spent on these political campaigns. We 
cannot limit the amount that one individual can spend of his own money 
or her own money in their campaign.
  As I said earlier, I find it quite ironic that all of these bills 
want to limit everybody's money that they spend for issue advocacy, but 
they do not want to limit the amount of money that the politicians 
spend in their campaigns.
  As a matter of fact, some of these bills go so far as to say that 
during the last 60 days before an election, no one will be speaking 
except the candidates themselves or the news media. I do not want, 
particularly, to have a system that controls our political system in 
America that is controlled by the news media exclusively or even 
political candidates, because I think a vital part of our freedom in 
America guarantees the rights of any group to spend any money they want 
to to talk about issue advocacy.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud of many things. I am proud to be a Member of 
Congress. I am proud to be a citizen of

[[Page H4461]]

the United States. But I am not proud of our campaign laws. I have 
heard no one say our whole campaign system is corrupt. That is an 
absurdity.
  I have heard some people say that parts of the system are corrupt. 
Parts of the system are corrupt, and I think we should change those 
parts that are corrupt. The system of campaign finance in the Nixon 
administration was corrupt, and I congratulate the Democrats and 
Republicans who reformed that system in 1974. It worked quite well for 
several years until people found a major loophole, and it was called 
soft money, the unlimited sums that individuals, corporations, and 
labor unions and other interest groups can give to the political 
parties for party building. These contributions, in a very pernicious 
way, got redirected to support candidates, not party building, totally 
subverting the campaign laws that worked quite nicely for 12 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also proud of the fact that the last Congress 
passed the Congressional Accountability Act that got Congress under all 
of the laws that it had exempted itself from for more than 30 years. We 
did this on a bipartisan basis, I might add. I am proud of the fact 
that the last Congress banned gifts to Members of Congress on a 
bipartisan basis. I am proud of the fact that the last Congress on a 
bipartisan basis passed lobbying disclosure. We had not amended that 
law since 1946.
  The gifts to Members of Congress had become corrupting. The lack of 
disclosure of lobbying had become corrupting. It had become corrupting 
that Congress thought it did not have to abide by the laws that it 
imposed on the rest of the Nation.
  Sure, I am proud to be a Member of Congress. I am proud to be an 
American citizen. But when we see things wrong, we fix them. If we do 
not, we should not be very proud of our work in Congress.
  I've come to the conclusion that soft money makes PAC contributions 
look saintly. The $262 million that the political parties raised in the 
last cycle will probably be doubled this year. It is a shakedown of 
business. I think most people know it. And if anyone wants access to 
either side of the aisle, they need to contribute or else they do not 
have access. That fits my definition of corruption.
  We want to change the system. We simply want to ban soft money. We 
want to go back to the way it was after the law of 1974. Ban soft 
money. Ban the unlimited sums that individuals, corporations, labor 
unions and other interest groups can give to the political parties that 
is not being used the way it was supposed to be, for party building and 
registration. It went right back to candidates. Recently, $800,000 of 
soft money was spent in the special election in Staten Island. That 
wasn't party building.
  Now, what we seek to do in the Meehan-Shays legislation, is ban soft 
money on the Federal level and on the State level for Federal 
elections. We also want to call the sham issue ads, that are clearly 
campaign ads, campaign ads. We do not limit people's voice. They speak 
through the campaign process.
  We do not say 60 days to an election people do not have a voice. They 
have a voice. Candidates can raise PAC contributions and they can spend 
whatever they raise. Groups can run ads for candidates who are right-
to-life, right-to-choice, anti-labor, pro-labor. But they cannot use 
union dues or corporate treasury money, because it is a campaign ad. We 
cannot do it under current law, and we want to strengthen the 
definition of campaign ads to make sure people do not use the union 
dues for campaign ads 60 days to an election, and do not use corporate 
money 60 days to an election. But union members can speak out through 
their PAC contributions spent on ads. Members who work in corporations 
and stockholders can influence the process through a PAC contribution 
spent on campaign ads.
  We codify Beck. We improve the FEC disclosure and enforcement. We ban 
franking 6 months to an election. And we make it very clear that 
foreign money and fund-raising on government property is illegal. It is 
not illegal now. Hello. It is not illegal. It is soft money. Soft money 
is not campaign money. We had better fix it.
  Now, some on my side of the aisle say, no, we are just going to hold 
President Clinton accountable for everything he has done, but we do not 
need campaign finance reform. Unfortunately, some on the other side of 
the aisle say we need campaign finance reform, but we are not going to 
hold our President and others accountable. We need to do both.
  Democrats did it in 1974. They held President Nixon accountable for 
what he did. And they reformed the system as well. Believe it or not, 
the Vice President was right. There is no controlling authority. Soft 
money is not viewed as campaign money. We need to fix that.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we have had a pretty good start on a debate 
tonight. I wish some on the other side really wanted to debate this 
rather than just take cheap shots at people, because I think this is a 
very, very serious debate. We are talking about the most fundamental of 
freedoms that the American people have when we talk about limiting 
someone's right to speech and freedom of the press.
  Let me try to put it in perspective. I think we are drawing to a 
close. But just let me try to put in perspective what I saw here 
tonight.
  Where are we today? We found that in the campaigns of 1996, the 
Clinton administration, some unions, we are investigating the Teamsters 
right now, others may have violated the law in the ways that they 
collected campaign contributions, even from foreigners. To cover that 
up, the President's party and the leadership of his party in the House 
and the Senate decided that their biggest issue this Congress was going 
to be campaign reform and that they were serious about it.
  In fact, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) the minority 
leader, wrote a constitutional amendment splitting the first amendment, 
splitting away free speech so that he could control through government 
bureaucracies and Washington bureaucracies freedom of people's right to 
free speech through the campaign process.
  I thought it was important and serious to bring the gentleman's 
constitutional amendment to the floor for serious scrutiny because the 
gentleman and the Democrat party of this House have been beating their 
chests for 2 years talking about campaign reform. They were serious, 
they said. They want an open and fair debate. They wanted to bring it 
down here and show the abuses and the corruptions of this House.
  Mr. Chairman, I am here to tell my colleagues I know most of the 
Members of this House, Democrat and Republican, and I do not know of 
one of them that is corrupt. Not one. And I am going to warn the 
Members of this House, when anyone talks about corruption, I am going 
to ask the question throughout this debate for that person to name the 
Member of the House that is corrupt. If they claim corruption and 
campaigns are corrupt, then they should be able to stand here in this 
House and have the courage to name the person that they feel is 
corrupted by campaign contributions. That is serious.
  I think it is very serious when some are so arrogant to come to this 
floor and propose legislation that says that they know better than my 
constituents about my fund-raising habits, my ability to raise 
campaigns.
  Now, the gentleman who brought the amendment, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), came to the floor of the House, raises more 
money than me. So anybody that starts attacking me about raising money, 
I hope that they will look at the gentleman from Missouri. In the last 
election he raised $3.2 million and spent $3 million.

                              {time}  2230

  I salute him. I think that is wonderful that he has been able to 
raise that kind of money. No telling how much expenditures, independent 
expenditures were spent on his behalf. Most people think that the 
unions spent in the 1996 election $35 million. That was what they 
assessed their members to spend extra.
  We have estimated and we continue to estimate that the unions alone 
have spent over $350 million in independent expenditures across this 
Nation. So be it. They have every right to do so. They should be able 
to express themselves as to who should control this

[[Page H4462]]

body and who should be elected and who should be unelected.
  Most of the Members that have stood up here and complained about this 
process are the beneficiaries of that money, and yet they have the 
audacity to come down to the floor of the House and claim that the 
monies spent in their behalf by independent expenditures are 
corrupting. I have more confidence in my character than obviously they 
do, because I do not feel corrupted by participating in the process. We 
do not spend enough money in the process.
  We spend less than $5 a person that votes in this country to try to 
convince them to be part of this political process and participate in 
the process, less than $5 per person. That is amazing to me. Yet we 
call it corrupting to try to convince people to be part of the process 
and participate in the process.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Watts of Oklahoma). The time of the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. DeLay was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Connecticut was talking 
about how great it was in 1974 that we had all this campaign reform. 
The gentleman ought to look at his history: 1974 is after Watergate. We 
had a huge infusion of Democrats elected after the Watergate election.
  The reason that most of the laws that were passed in 1974, I tell the 
gentleman, was to make sure that challengers could not raise as much 
money as the incumbents were spending on their franking privileges. My 
point is, my point is that what this debate is becoming is who wins and 
who loses. Who are we going to say gets to raise money and who does 
not?
  Why are we doing that? Most Members on my side of the aisle are here 
because they want to limit government. They want to get government out 
of our lives. They hate regulation. They want to reform the regulatory 
process of this government. And yet they turn right around and, in a 
most fundamental freedom of this country, the freedom to speech, they 
want to use regulation of campaigns to limit the American people's 
right to participate in campaigns openly and honestly.
  I think full disclosure does that. I do not think limiting people's 
freedom of speech by more bureaucracy, more laws, more opportunities to 
get one another, more opportunities to stop one group from being able 
to raise enough money for the other group, let the people decide. They 
are incredible when you allow the people the freedom to look at these 
elections, participate in them and openly and freely decide who they 
want to represent them.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay) has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. DeLay was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, what I said to this Chamber was that the 
campaign finance laws in 1974 were designed to cut the unlimited sums 
that in particular the CREEP organization of the Nixon administration 
raised and to stop the shakedown of businesses that took place. And 
that shakedown stopped for a number of years until both parties 
designed a new system called soft money that just brought us back to 
the Nixon era.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's assessment of 
history, but I remember a different history.
  I remember a history that they used that as a great argument, and 
many are using the same kinds of arguments for the gentleman's bill, 
have used that for a great argument. But the result, and we all know 
why they did it, the reason they wanted to ban PACs to begin with is to 
stop Republicans from raising money and limiting their ability to raise 
money through PACs. Then they did not like that, because we were pretty 
good at it. And so they figured, the majority, then the Democrats, 
figured out another way to keep challengers, Republican challengers 
from challenging the Democrat incumbents serving in the House, from 
raising more money than these incumbents could use in free postage 
called the franking privilege.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the 
bottom line is that the corporations that were being shaken down by the 
Nixon administration are telling me now that they are being shaken down 
by both political parties in soft money.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman define ``shaking down'' 
for me?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay) has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. DeLay was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, shakedown is when leaders from both parties 
will call up a corporation president, and say we would like $100,000 or 
$200,000 or $300,000 or a half a million, and make it very clear to 
those leaders that they can expect no action on their legislation 
unless they get it. That is a shakedown.
  Mr. DeLAY. Would the gentleman like to name Members that do that?
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I think during the course of debate, there 
are going to be a lot of issues that come out.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has just made an accusation 
that leaders of both sides of the aisle shake down corporations. Would 
the gentleman like to name----
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, do not even wonder for a minute about 
whether I will be able to document that information.
  Mr. DeLAY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think it is just 
outrageous. It is incredible that the gentleman thinks that when you 
call someone up to raise money for a campaign, that is a shakedown.
  Mr. SHAYS. $100,000, $200,000, half a million dollars.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I think it is just incredible.
  Mr. SHAYS. But it is true.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask for regular order. The gentleman does 
not even pay me the courtesy. I have yielded to him. I am trying to 
close the debate. I do not yield to him again.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) 
controls the time and should not be interrupted.
  Mr. DeLAY. I think it is just outrageous that the gentleman would 
accuse leaders of both sides of the aisle of being able to raise money 
to participate in the campaign and call that a shakedown. It is not a 
shakedown to get out and actively participate in the process and ask 
people to participate in the process, whether it to be ask them for $1 
or $100,000.
  It is an outrage that someone would come down to the floor and offer 
a constitutional amendment or write one or offer a piece of legislation 
that would stymie the freedom of the American people to decide to 
participate in the process and participate in free speech and free 
press. I think that is the outrage. That is the shakedown. That is the 
coverup. That is the thing that the American people ought to be 
outraged over. That is the thing we are going to stop because we are 
going to have this debate, and the American people are going to 
understand both sides.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I stand in oppostion to the Gephardt 
amendment.
  Last Thursday, a very interesting debate took place on this floor. I 
am speaking of the debate surrounding the Religious Freedom Amendment.
  At one point, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Edwards, submitted a 
motion to recommit the Amendment. He stated that we ``do not have the 
right to change the Bill of Rights every time we disagree with a court 
decision.''
  Mr. Edwards' argument was while we claim to believe in the First 
Amendment, supporters of the Religious Freedom Amendment were voting 
against the Bill of Rights, because we want to get back to the original 
meaning of the First Amendment.
  Well, I hope that Mr. Edwards will come to the floor today--perhaps 
with a motion to recommit--because if he thinks allowing prayer in 
school is dangerous, this Gephardt Amendment is a frontal assault on 
the First Amendment--and does much more to undermine Freedom of Speech.
  What this Gephardt amendment demonstrates is something which has been 
clear to me for some time--that campaign finance reform is really all 
about free speech and the First Amendment.
  You see, freedom of speech--the right to say what you want, how you 
want, when you want, about political opponents, is our most fundamental 
freedom. Without freedom of

[[Page H4463]]

speech, there is no integrity to the Bill of Rights, and all our 
freedoms are on shaky ground.
  Mr. Gephardt's attempt to redefine the Bill of Rights amounts to an 
admission that attempts to limit campaign money like the Shays-Meehan 
bill are indeed efforts to limit free speech.
  He even stats that we cannot have freedom of speech and healthy 
campaigns in a healthy democracy--that we must choose between one or 
the other.
  Mr. Chairman, I disagree with that assertion.
  When the Founders said that Congress shall make no law abridging the 
freedom of speech, they left no room for ambiguity.
  If Congress grants itself the authority to abridge the freedom of 
speech, it will amount to a crushing of the Constitution's guarantee of 
free speech.
  Consider the words of the Supreme Court's ruling in Buckley v. Valeo:

       In the free society ordained by our Constitution, it is not 
     the government, but the people--individually as citizens and 
     candidates and collectively as associations and political 
     committees--who must retain control over the quantity and 
     range of debate on public issues in a political campaign.

  There is a key difference between the vote today and our vote on 
Thursday. The Religious Freedom Amendment would have strengthened the 
First Amendment by returning to the intentions of the Founding Fathers. 
The vote on Thursday was compatible with the Bill of Rights.
  Our vote tomorrow is not. Instead, it is an effort to severely 
restrict our freedom, and to violate the spirit of the First Amendment.
  I would ask all of you, not only today, but through the rest of our 
careers in public service, to judge all legislation by what it does to 
our freedom.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in strong support of 
reforming our Nation's campaign finance laws. After months of 
obstruction and delay, after the steady stream of efforts by the 
Republican leadership to squelch this debate, the House is finally 
discussing campaign reform.
  I support the constitutional amendment which has been brought to the 
floor today. In my opinion, it is the only comprehensive solution for 
fixing our campaign finance system. But now is not the right time for a 
vote on it. This amendment, like all campaign reform bills other than 
Meehan-Shays, must be put on hold.
  There is a crisis of confidence in our system of campaign financing. 
It is imperative that we pass reform this year--and it is urgent that 
we take the first step now. But the best way to clean up the system is 
by voting for the bipartisan Meehan-Shays bill, not through any other 
campaign reform measure, including this one.
  I do, however, believe that the Congress should vote some day--not 
today--on this amendment. When I introduced it last year, I did so 
because I believe it is the best way to shut down the sewer pipe of big 
money which is polluting our political process.
  Over the last two decades, Congress and State and local governments 
have tried to enact limits on the role of money in politics. We have 
tried to pass legislation that would help put a bigger premium on the 
quality of a candidate's ideas, not the quantity of contributions to 
his or her campaign. But we are hamstrung by a Supreme Court which has 
equated spending money with political speech.
  The Founding Fathers did not envision a political system where 
candidates for Congress routinely raise and spend millions of dollars. 
They could not have foreseen candidates spending tens of millions of 
dollars of their own funds to get elected. And they certainly could not 
have imagined the non-stop fundraising carousel that candidates must 
ride in order to run for office.
  This Amendment would clarify that campaign spending is not an 
absolute; that we could enact modest restrictions on spending to reduce 
the dominance of fundraising and campaign dollars in our political 
process. Some day, I hope Congress will pass this constitutional 
amendment and fix our broken campaign finance system once and for all. 
But I will not vote for it today.
  The opponents of campaign reform want to kill the process--the only 
thing that has changed is their tactics. First they tried delay and 
obstruction, now it's endless debate and amendment. The only way 
proponents of reform can prevail is through a single-minded focus on 
Meehan-Shays.
  Meehan-Shays is our last, best chance for campaign reform this year. 
Friends of reform--the majority of House members, I believe--must band 
together behind the Meehan-Shays bill. It may not suit everyone's 
taste--campaign reform comes in 435 flavors, after all. But we cannot 
afford to dilute our strength by supporting every alternative.
  The Republican leaders of this House are satisfied with the current 
system. They stand for the power of big money and against change. They 
don't want Meehan-Shays or any other effective reform bill to pass.
  The Republican leadership brought up this bill and many others as a 
roadblock to reform. They aren't interested in a debate; they are 
interested in deadlock. They want to run down the shot clock so that 
Congress will be unable to deliver the slam-dunk of campaign reform for 
the American people.
  The majority of Democrats, and I believe, the majority of Congress, 
rejects the status quo. We understand we have reached a critical point 
in the history of our democracy. We need to take the first serious step 
to clean up our politics. If we fail to take this first step, our 
democracy will drown in the fast-rising tide of campaign cash. Campaign 
reform is the art of the possible--and Meehan-Shays is the best 
possible bill.
  We must keep our single-minded focus. We must reject any alternative 
to Meehan-Shays, no matter how much we agree with it. I urge the 
supporters of this Amendment to vote ``present,'' and to redouble our 
efforts to pass Meehan-Shays.
  Mr. BAESLER. Mr. Chairman, I don't know why we are debating this 
Constitutional Amendment. It was not made in order by the Blue Dog 
discharge petition, which led to this debate in the first place.
  I think what's really going on is the Leadership is not dealing in 
good faith.
  If that continues, I would suggest the discharge petition may have to 
be resurrected.
  Whatever the case, I believe a Constitutional Amendment is 
unnecessary to get good campaign reform, especially a soft money ban 
and campaign disclosure.
  Congress has plenty of room under the case Colorado Republican Party 
versus FEC to ban soft money. In the case, the Supreme Court said:

       Reasonable contribution limits advance the government's 
     interests in preventing corruption. Congress might decide to 
     change the campaign laws limitations on contributions to 
     political parties if it decided it needed to.

  And in Buckley versus Valeo the Court said:

       Limiting corruption and the appearance of corruption is a 
     constitutionally sufficient justification for campaign 
     contribution limitations. Political quid pro quos or apparent 
     quid pro quos undermine the integrity of our system of 
     representative democracy.

  But even if I do not think an Amendment is necessary, I don't 
question the original sponsors' motives. In fact, a number of Democrats 
and Republicans have cosponsored such amendments.
  Now, the Kentucky anti-reformers condemn the Amendment. But it's 
worth pointing out that some of the Kentucky anti-reformers have been 
on the other side of the campaign spending Constitutional Amendment 
issue before.
  I enter into the Record an Amendment offered in a previous Congress, 
championed by the anti-reform brain trust that today denounces such 
Amendments as being almost un-American.
  The anti-reformers' inconsistency doesn't need to be beaten like a 
dead horse, but it should be noted that it was the anti-reformers 
themselves who offered more severe Constitutional Amendments limiting 
campaign speech in the past than one being discussed here today.
  So in the future, when the Kentucky anti-reformers give their opinion 
on the First Amendment and campaign reform, and they say they're taking 
a rock solid position, I urge everyone to consider that they have 
changed their position in the past--and weigh the force of their 
arguments accordingly.

               Excerpts From the Record of June 19, 1987


                             s.j. res. 166

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following article is proposed as an amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to 
     all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution, when 
     ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
     States within seven years from the date of its submission to 
     the States by the Congress.


                              ``article--

       Section 1. The Congress may enact laws regulating the 
     amounts of expenditures a candidate may make from his 
     personal funds or the personal funds of his immediate family 
     or may incur with personal loans, and Congress may enact laws 
     regulating the amounts of independent expenditures by any 
     person, other than by a political committee of a political 
     party, which can be made to expressly advocate the election 
     or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for Federal 
     office.
       Section 2. The several States may enact laws regulating the 
     amounts of expenditures a candidate may make from his 
     personal funds or the personal funds of his immediate family 
     or may incur with personal loans, and such States may enact 
     laws regulating the amounts of independent expenditures by 
     any person, other than by a political committee of a 
     political party, which can be made to expressly advocate the 
     election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for 
     State and local offices.''
     
                                *   *   *   *   *


[[Page H4464]]


       Mr. McConnell. Mr. President, we have been on S. 2 for 2 
     weeks and 2 days.
       Clearly, it is possible for the Senate to pass a meaningful 
     campaign finance reform bill. The distinguished majority 
     leader has indicated that his side is willing to talk, and I 
     reiterate the observations of the Republican leader 
     yesterday, that the leadership group on this side consisting 
     of Senator Stevens, Senator Boschwitz, Senator Packwood, and 
     myself, has been saying for some 2 weeks and 2 days that we 
     would like to sit down with those on the other side of the 
     aisle and have a discussion on formulating a truly meaningful 
     campaign finance reform bill.
       There are a number of areas upon which we can agree. The 
     Senator from Oklahoma and I yesterday discussed ``soft 
     money.'' We discussed independent expenditures. We discussed 
     the need for effective controls on PAC's. We have discussed 
     over the weeks the problem of the millionaire's loophole. 
     These are the real problems that our constituents have spoken 
     against, in letters, in calls, and even in editorials 
     supplied by Common Cause. As I mentioned yesterday, only a 
     very small percentage of these editorials that pile up on our 
     desks advocate public financing and spending limits to bring 
     down overall spending. Most just want to control the PAC's.
       But today, I'm going to talk about the millionaires' 
     loophole and independent expenditures, under current law, 
     under S. 2, and under McConnell-Packwood. I am proposing 
     today a constitutional amendment to deal with these campaign 
     finance abuses, and I might add that we usually think that 
     constitutional amendments take a long time to pass.
       The constitutional amendment that I will be introducing is 
     simple, direct, and strongly supported in this body. It would 
     grant to this body and to the various State legislatures the 
     authority to regulate what an individual could put into his 
     own campaign from personal funds, just as we have the 
     constitutional authority to regulate what any of us can put 
     into somebody else's campaign from personal funds. It would 
     also grant to the Congress and to the various State 
     legislatures the authority to regulate the independent 
     expenditures.
       In the course of the debate on campaign finance reform, 
     Members on both sides of the aisle have decried the ease with 
     which wealthy candidates can virtually purchase congressional 
     seats, and the surge of independent expenditures in 
     campaigns.
       Both of these campaign abuses are the result of loopholes 
     in the Federal election law, carved out by the Supreme Court 
     decision in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). In that 
     decision, the Supreme Court held that restrictions on 
     campaign expenditures from personal funds and on independent 
     political expenditures are violations of the first amendment 
     guarantee of freedom of speech. Thus, the ``millionaires' 
     loophole'' and the independent expenditure loophole are 
     constitutional problems, and will not be corrected by any 
     clever statutory incentive or spending of public moneys.
       That is why I introduce today a joint resolution to amend 
     the Constitution, to allow Federal, State, and local 
     governments to restrict the spending of personal funds in 
     campaigns, and the amount of independent expenditures in 
     election cycles. Unlike a broad amendment to limit all 
     campaign spending, this amendment would quickly pass through 
     the Senate and be ratified by the State legislatures. It is a 
     measure for which I have heard nothing but unqualified 
     support.
       I do not dispute that my earlier campaign finance reform 
     bill, S. 1308, offers only imperfect solutions to the 
     millionaires' loophole and independent expenditure problems. 
     It is true, for example, that wealthy candidates could spend 
     up to $250,000 in personal funds before S. 1308 would provide 
     relief to opponents. And although my earlier bill 
     incorporates the same restrictions and reporting requirements 
     that S. 2 applies to independent expenditures, it is unlikely 
     that any of these administrative constraints will curb the 
     negative practices of independent expenditures.
       S. 2, the taxpayer campaign finance bill now before the 
     Senate, tries to address these two problems by spending the 
     taxpayers' money. Candidates, facing wealthy opponents or 
     negative ads financed by independent expenditures, would be 
     armed with additional public funds--funds that would be 
     diverted from farm programs, Social Security, education, and 
     our antidrug war. Yet, S. 2 would probably not discourage 
     wealthy candidates from sinking their personal fortunes into 
     campaigns, particularly since S. 2 doesn't give the opponent 
     much to compete with. Under S. 2, a candidate from the State 
     of Arkansas would get a maximum of $1,727,200 to do battle 
     with a millionaire. An Oklahoman would get $1,989,500, and a 
     Coloradan would get $1,998,000. This is a lot of money to our 
     taxpayers, but not much at all to a millionaire, unless he's 
     a rather poor millionaire.
       Further S. 2 hopes to limit independent expenditures by 
     compensating each attacked candidate for the full amount 
     spent against him or her. This candidate compensation fund 
     again comes from the American taxpayer. Last year, 
     independent expenditures totaled nearly $5 million in Senate 
     races; thus, we can safely tack another $5 million onto S. 
     2's $100 million price tag, and another $5 million onto the 
     overall amount of campaign spending allowed under S.2.
       Will those who now spend hundreds of thousands of dollars 
     to express their political views independently be deterred 
     simply by the spending of taxpayers' money against them? Mr. 
     President, I think not. Will candidates be compelled to tap 
     the public till every time they believe they are being 
     unfairly treated in an independent ad? Mr. President, I hope 
     not. It is apparent that S. 2's independent expenditure 
     provision is just another loophole to funnel more of the 
     taxpayer's money into our reelection campaigns.
       Another $5 million every election year is obviously not 
     very much to those who seek to dominate the political debate 
     with independent expenditures--but it is a lot of money to 
     the American taxpayer, and we shouldn't be throwing it away 
     on a proposal that won't benefit anyone except broadcasters.
       Neither administrative constraints nor government 
     entitlements will prevent well-heeled individuals and groups 
     from independently trying to influence elections. Nor will 
     wealthy candidates be deterred from trying to purchase 
     congressional seats merely by S. 2's costly but ineffective 
     millionaires' loophole provision.
       There are constitutional problems, demanding constitutional 
     answers. This Congress should not hesitate, nor do I believe 
     that it would hesitate, nor do I believe that it would 
     hesitate, to directly address these imbalances in our 
     campaign finance laws. I offer this constitutional amendment 
     in the sincere hope that the Senate will begin to turn its 
     attention to the real abuses in campaign finance--the 
     millionaires' loophole, independent expenditures, political 
     action committee contributions, and ``soft money''--and 
     develop simple, straightforward solutions, rather than 
     strangle the election process with overall spending limits 
     and a larger political bureaucracy.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Mr, McConnell. Mr. President, these two areas have 
     repeatedly been agreed by both sides to be at the crux of the 
     problem. What distorts the process, of course, is the ability 
     of an individual of unlimited wealth to put literally 
     everything he has into his own campaign; whereas, if he were 
     contributing to anyone else's campaign, he would be limited 
     to $1,000 in the primary and $1,000 in the general election. 
     That is clearly unfair, and we ought to cure it. We can cure 
     it, however, only with a constitutional amendment.
       Another unfairness that we all agree on is the independent 
     expenditure, again a constitutionally protected area of 
     expression, according to the Supreme Court decision in 
     Buckley versus Valeo.
       This constitutional amendment that I propose would grant to 
     the Congress and to the various State legislatures the right 
     to deal with that problem.
       Mr. President, if we dealt with three areas of great 
     concern: The closing of the millionaires' loophole, the 
     ability to regulate independent expenditures, and the cost of 
     broadcast time, which we can address simply by statute, we 
     would have passed in this body the most meaningful campaign 
     finance reform since Watergate.
       The third area I just referred to, Mr. President, is the 
     cost of television. What has driven up the cost of campaigns 
     in the last several years has been the cost of television 
     advertising. Candidates have to use television because it is 
     the most effective day to reach our people and communicate 
     ideas. That is particularly true in the large States. My 
     colleagues from New York, California, Texas, and Florida 
     could shake hands all day, every day, for the rest of their 
     lives, and never make a dent in the huge populations in their 
     States, let alone discuss the issues that concern the 
     citizens of those States. Clearly, both incumbents and 
     challengers should be able to use television to reach our 
     people.
       What has happened, Mr. President, is that the broadcast 
     stations in America have raised the rates they charge during 
     key times in political campaigns, and have made handsome 
     profits on the candidates, in terms of the cost of 
     advertising.
       We could in this body pass legislation that would, for 
     example, require television stations to grant to candidates 
     television time at the lowest unit rate of the previous year, 
     for the class of time purchased. This would dramatically 
     lower the cost of campaigns, and give us all an ability to 
     afford the broadcast time which is absolutely essential to 
     modern political communication.
       What happened in Kentucky last May, just last month, is 
     typical of what goes on all over America. The lowest unit 
     rate skyrocketed just prior to the election, such that the 
     ``discount'' given to candidates amounted to nothing--it was 
     like offering a 25-percent-off sale after a 100-percent price 
     increase. That problem, Mr. President, could be solved by 
     legislation.
       These are the kinds of agreements that we can reach 
     together. I hope we can work together on direct, simple 
     solutions to the real problems that plague our campaign 
     finance system.
       The Acting President pro tempore. The time of the Senator 
     from Kentucky has expired.
       Mr. McConnell. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 
     more minute.
       Mr. Byrd. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished 
     Senator from Kentucky 1 minute from our side.
       The Acting President pro tempore. The Senator from West 
     Virginia has yielded 1 minute to the Senator from Kentucky.
       Mr. McConnell. I thank the distinguished majority leader.
       The Senate could solve these key problems by the passage of 
     the kind of constitutional

[[Page H4465]]

     amendment I outlined earlier. I believe that this resolution, 
     unlike most constitutional amendments, would zip through this 
     body and zip through the State legislatures; I believe that, 
     by passing a statute that did something meaningful about the 
     cost of television, we would bring down the cost of campaigns 
     without deterring public participation through contributions.
       Those accomplishments would be real reform, Mr. President, 
     and we stand ready on this side to sit down with the leaders 
     on the other side at any time, to work out the kind of 
     bipartisan reform package that we all know will have to be 
     reached, in order to pass any meaningful campaign reform 
     legislation in 1987.

  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong and stringent 
opposition to the amendment offered by Congressman Tom DeLay of Texas. 
This amendment would modify our beloved Constitution to make it allow 
for the future enactment of mandatory spending limits in campaigns. The 
Supreme Court has found such limits unconstitutional. It would also 
give Congress and the state authority to define those expenditures 
deemed to influence elections, and to prohibit any regulation of the 
content of elections.
  As a member of the House Oversight Committee, I have heard the 
testimony of over 40 of our colleagues on the issue of campaign finance 
reform. The issue of a Constitutional Amendment regarding spending 
limits was not considered during these hearings. As a new Member of 
Congress, it is no wonder why the taxpayers of our country view us with 
such cynicism and spite when my colleagues offer amendments that they 
cannot or will not support themselves. This amendment is exhibit number 
one of such an example.
  It is time for Congress to stop wasting the people's money. It is 
time for us to get campaign finance reform under control. As I said in 
remarks that I made on the floor just last week, real campaign finance 
reform does three things: it bans soft money; it requires full 
disclosure of contributors, and it cleans up expenditures from special 
interest groups. We need to restore the faith of the American people in 
our system of government. We need to ensure the accountability of those 
who participate in and contribute to candidates. The Shays/Meehan bill 
does just that.
  In closing, I implore my colleagues to stop wasting time and the 
people's money. It is time for us to bring to a clean, up-or-down vote, 
the Shays/Meehan bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to the joint 
resolution?
  If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Barrett of Nebraska) having assumed the chair, Mr. Watts of Oklahoma, 
Chairman pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 119) proposing an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit campaign 
spending, pursuant to House Resolution 442, he reported the joint 
resolution back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, further 
proceedings on the question of the passage of the joint resolution are 
postponed until tomorrow.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________