[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 79 (Wednesday, June 17, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4679-H4694]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1638
               BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN INTEGRITY ACT OF 1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ney). 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 further consideration of 
the bill, H.R. 2183.

                              {time}  1639


                     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 further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2183) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
to reform the financing of campaigns for elections for Federal office, 
and for other purposes, with Mr. Pease (Chairman pro tempore) in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). When the Committee of the Whole 
House rose on Friday, May 22, 1998, all time for general debate had 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 442, the bill is considered read for 
amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 2183 is as follows:

                               H.R. 2183

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Bipartisan Campaign 
     Integrity Act of 1997''.
  TITLE I--SOFT MONEY AND CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES OF POLITICAL 
                                PARTIES

     SEC. 101. BAN ON SOFT MONEY OF NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTIES AND 
                   CANDIDATES.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:


``ban on use of soft money by national political parties and candidates

       ``Sec. 323. (a) National Parties.--A national committee of 
     a political party, including the national congressional 
     campaign committees of a political party, and any officers or 
     agents of such party committees, may not solicit, receive, or 
     direct any contributions, donations, or transfers of funds, 
     or spend any funds, which are not subject to the limitations, 
     prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act. This 
     subsection shall apply to any entity that is established, 
     financed, maintained, or controlled (directly or indirectly) 
     by, or acting on behalf of, a national committee of a 
     political party, including the national congressional 
     campaign committees of a political party, and any officers or 
     agents of such party committees.
       ``(b) Candidates.--
       ``(1) In general.--No candidate for Federal office, 
     individual holding Federal office, or any agent of such 
     candidate or officeholder may solicit, receive, or direct--
       ``(A) any funds in connection with any Federal election 
     unless such funds are subject to the limitations, 
     prohibitions and reporting requirements of this Act;
       ``(B) any funds that are to be expended in connection with 
     any election for other than a Federal office unless such 
     funds are not in excess of the amounts permitted with respect 
     to contributions to Federal candidates and political 
     committees under section 315(a) (1) and (2), and are not from 
     sources prohibited from making contributions by this Act with 
     respect to elections for Federal office; or
       ``(C) any funds on behalf of any person which are not 
     subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 
     requirements of this Act if such funds are for the purpose of 
     financing any activity on behalf of a candidate for election 
     for Federal office or any communication which refers to a 
     clearly identified candidate for election for Federal office.
       ``(2) Exception for certain activities.--Paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply to--
       ``(A) the solicitation or receipt of funds by an individual 
     who is a candidate for a non-Federal office if such activity 
     is permitted under State law for such individual's non-
     Federal campaign committee; or
       ``(B) the attendance by an individual who holds Federal 
     office at a fundraising event for a State or local committee 
     of a political party of the State which the individual 
     represents as a Federal officeholder, if the event is held in 
     such State.
       ``(c) Prohibiting Transfers of Non-Federal Funds Between 
     State Parties.--A State committee of a political party may 
     not transfer any funds to a State committee of a political 
     party of another State unless the funds are subject to the 
     limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this 
     Act.
       ``(d) Applicability to Funds From All Sources.--This 
     section shall apply with respect to funds of any individual, 
     corporation, labor organization, or other person.''.

     SEC. 102. INCREASE IN AGGREGATE ANNUAL LIMIT ON CONTRIBUTIONS 
                   BY INDIVIDUALS TO POLITICAL PARTIES.

       (a) In General.--The first sentence of section 315(a)(3) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     441a(a)(3)) is amended by striking ``in any calendar year'' 
     and inserting the following: ``to political committees of 
     political parties, or contributions aggregating more than 
     $25,000 to any other persons, in any calendar year''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 315(a)(1)(B) of such Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``$20,000'' 
     and inserting ``$25,000''.

     SEC. 103. REPEAL OF LIMITATIONS ON AMOUNT OF COORDINATED 
                   EXPENDITURES BY POLITICAL PARTIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 315(d) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(d)) is amended by 
     striking paragraphs (2) and (3).
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 315(d)(1) of such Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 441a(d)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(d)(1)'' and inserting ``(d)''; and
       (2) by striking ``, subject to the limitations contained in 
     paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection''.
                 TITLE II--INDEXING CONTRIBUTION LIMITS

     SEC. 201. INDEXING CONTRIBUTION LIMITS.

       Section 315(c) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 441a(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(3)(A) The amount of each limitation established under 
     subsection (a) shall be adjusted as follows:
       ``(i) For calendar year 1999, each such amount shall be 
     equal to the amount described in such subsection, increased 
     (in a compounded manner) by the percentage increase in the 
     price index (as defined in subsection (c)(2)) for each of the 
     years 1997 through 1998.
       ``(ii) For calendar year 2003 and each fourth subsequent 
     year, each such amount shall be equal to the amount for the 
     fourth previous year (as adjusted under this subparagraph), 
     increased (in a compounded manner) by the percentage increase 
     in the price index for each of the four previous years.
       ``(B) In the case of any amount adjusted under this 
     subparagraph which is not a multiple of $100, the amount 
     shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.''.
    TITLE III--EXPANDING DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE INFORMATION

     SEC. 301. DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN COMMUNICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Any person who expends an aggregate amount 
     of funds during a calendar year in excess of $25,000 for 
     communications described in subsection (b) relating to a 
     single candidate for election for Federal office (or an 
     aggregate amount of funds during a calendar year in excess of 
     $100,000 for all such communications relating to all such 
     candidates) shall file a report describing the amount 
     expended for such communications, together with the person's 
     address and phone number (or, if appropriate, the address and 
     phone number of the person's principal officer).
       (b) Communications Described.--A communication described in 
     this subsection is any communication which is broadcast to 
     the general public through radio or television and which 
     mentions or includes (by name, representation, or likeness) 
     any candidate for election for Senator or for Representative 
     in (or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to) the Congress, 
     other than any communication which would be described in 
     clause (i), (iii), or (v) of section 301(9)(B) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 if the payment were an 
     expenditure under such section.
       (c) Deadline for Filing.--A person shall file a report 
     required under subsection (a) not later than 7 days after the 
     person first expends the applicable amount of funds described 
     in such subsection, except that in the

[[Page H4680]]

     case of a person who first expends such an amount within 10 
     days of an election, the report shall be filed not later than 
     24 hours after the person first expends such amount. For 
     purposes of the previous sentence, the term ``election'' 
     shall have the meaning given such term in section 301(1) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
       (d) Place of Submission.--Reports required under subsection 
     (a) shall be submitted--
       (1) to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, in the 
     case of a communication involving a candidate for election 
     for Representative in (or Delegate or Resident Commissioner 
     to) the Congress; and
       (2) to the Secretary of the Senate, in the case of a 
     communication involving a candidate for election for Senator.
       (e) Penalties.--Whoever knowingly fails to--
       (1) remedy a defective filing within 60 days after notice 
     of such a defect by the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk 
     of the House of Representatives; or
       (2) comply with any other provision of this section,

     shall, upon proof of such knowing violation by a 
     preponderance of the evidence, be subject to a civil fine of 
     not more than $50,000, depending on the extent and gravity of 
     the violation.

     SEC. 302. REQUIRING MONTHLY FILING OF REPORTS.

       (a) Principal Campaign Committees.--Section 
     304(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(2)(A)(iii)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(iii) monthly reports, which shall be filed no later than 
     the 20th day after the last day of the month and shall be 
     complete as of the last day of the month, except that, in 
     lieu of filing the reports otherwise due in November and 
     December of the year, a pre-general election report shall be 
     filed in accordance with clause (i), a post-general election 
     report shall be filed in accordance with clause (ii), and a 
     year end report shall be filed no later than January 31 of 
     the following calendar year.''.
       (b) Other Political Committees.--Section 304(a)(4) of such 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(4)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(4)(A) In a calendar year in which a regularly scheduled 
     general election is held, all political committees other than 
     authorized committees of a candidate shall file--
       ``(i) monthly reports, which shall be filed no later than 
     the 20th day after the last day of the month and shall be 
     complete as of the last day of the month, except that, in 
     lieu of filing the reports otherwise due in November and 
     December of the year, a pre-general election report shall be 
     filed in accordance with paragraph clause (ii), a post-
     general election report shall be filed in accordance with 
     clause (iii), and a year end report shall be filed no later 
     than January 31 of the following calendar year;
       ``(ii) a pre-election report, which shall be filed no later 
     than the 12th day before (or posted by registered or 
     certified mail no later than the 15th day before) any 
     election in which the committee makes a contribution to or 
     expenditure on behalf of a candidate in such election, and 
     which shall be complete as of the 20th day before the 
     election; and
       ``(iii) a post-general election report, which shall be 
     filed no later than the 30th day after the general election 
     and which shall be complete as of the 20th day after such 
     general election.
       ``(B) In any other calendar year, all political committees 
     other than authorized committees of a candidate shall file a 
     report covering the period beginning January 1 and ending 
     June 30, which shall be filed no later than July 31 and a 
     report covering the period beginning July 1 and ending 
     December 31, which shall be filed no later than January 31 of 
     the following calendar year.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 304(a) of such Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 434(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (8).
       (2) Section 309(b) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 437g(b)) is 
     amended by striking ``for the calendar quarter'' and 
     inserting ``for the month''.

     SEC. 303. MANDATORY ELECTRONIC FILING FOR CERTAIN REPORTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 304(a)(11)(A) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(11)(A)) is 
     amended by striking the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``, except that the Commission shall require the 
     reports to be filed and preserved by such means, format, or 
     method, unless the aggregate amount of contributions or 
     expenditures (as the case may be) reported by the committee 
     in all reports filed with respect to the election involved 
     (taking into account the period covered by the report) is 
     less than $50,000.''.
       (b) Providing Standardized Software Package.--Section 
     304(a)(11) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(11)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) The Commission shall make available without charge a 
     standardized package of software to enable persons filing 
     reports by electronic means to meet the requirements of this 
     paragraph.''.

     SEC. 304. WAIVER OF ``BEST EFFORTS'' EXCEPTION FOR 
                   INFORMATION ON OCCUPATION OF INDIVIDUAL 
                   CONTRIBUTORS.

       Section 302(i) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 432(i)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(i) When the treasurer'' and inserting 
     ``(i)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), when the 
     treasurer''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to 
     information regarding the occupation or the name of the 
     employer of any individual who makes a contribution or 
     contributions aggregating more than $200 during a calendar 
     year (as required to be provided under subsection (c)(3)).''.
                        TITLE IV--EFFECTIVE DATE

     SEC. 401. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall apply 
     with respect to elections occurring after January 1999.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Before consideration of any other 
amendment, it shall be in order to consider the amendments in the 
nature of a substitute specified in House Report 105-545. Each 
amendment shall be considered in the order specified, may be offered 
only by the Member who caused it to be printed in the Congressional 
Record or his designee, shall be considered read, and shall not be 
subject to a substitute amendment or to a perfecting amendment carrying 
a tax or tariff measure.
  Consideration of each amendment specified in the report shall begin 
with an additional period of general debate, which shall be confined to 
the subject of the amendment and shall not exceed 1 hour, equally 
divided and controlled by the Member causing the amendment to be 
printed in the Congressional Record or his designee and an opponent.
  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.
  If more than one of the amendments specified in the report is 
adopted, only the one receiving the greater number of affirmative votes 
shall be considered as finally adopted. In the case of a tie for the 
greater number of affirmative votes, only the last amendment to receive 
that number of affirmative votes shall be considered as finally 
adopted.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a 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.
  It is now in order to debate the subject matter of the amendment 
printed in the Congressional Record as number 16.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 442, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
White) and a Member opposed each will control 30 minutes.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill and 
claim the 30 minutes in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
  Members will record their presence by electronic device.
  The call was taken by electronic device.
  The following Members responded to their names:

                             [Roll No. 240]

                       ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--392

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham

[[Page H4681]]


     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                              {time}  1705

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Three hundred ninety-two 
Members have answered to their names, a quorum is present, and the 
Committee will resume its business.
  It is now in order to debate the subject matter of the amendment 
printed in the Congressional Record as Amendment Number 16.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 442, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
White) will control 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson) will control 30 minutes.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) control 7 minutes of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) will be 
recognized for 7 minutes, and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson) will be recognized for 23 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White).
  Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I waited for this day for a long time, and I think many 
of us in this Chamber have waited for a long time for the day where we 
would have a full, fair and open debate on campaign finance reform. I 
feel like I have waited a particularly long time though because the 
bill that we are considering now, my substitute to the base bill, was 
the first bill I introduced as a Member of Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, it was about 3 years ago that a group of citizens from 
my district came into my office and said, ``You know, you guys just 
don't get it back in Washington, D.C. There is so much disgust at the 
way this process develops. We need to take a better approach to 
campaign finance reform, and you need to introduce a bill.''
  So we did something that probably was unusual at the time. I was a 
new Member of Congress; I really did not know any better; so we went 
out and tried to find all the people we could who knew something about 
campaign finance reform, and we talked to a bunch of academics, we 
talked to people at the Federal Election Commission, talked to lots of 
different people, and at the end of the day we came up to a conclusion 
that has guided everything I have done since that time and guides this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, that is the fact that the last people we can trust to 
reform our campaign laws are the Members of this body, the Members of 
the Senate, the people who got elected under the very laws we are 
trying to change.
  Mr. Chairman, when we made that discovery, one that was not really a 
surprise to any of us, we drafted a bill that would take the power away 
from this Chamber to a bipartisan-nonpartisan group to recommend to us 
how we should reform our campaign finance laws. That was the commission 
bill. I introduced it with great pride and fanfare in 1995, and at the 
end of the 104th Congress, about a year later, I had two cosponsors of 
that bill. It was not really a very good effort in the last Congress.
  So when we came back in this Congress, in the 105th Congress, we 
decided to take a different approach. We talked to everybody who had 
any sort of commission bill of any kind that they had ever introduced 
or ever cosponsored, we got together with lots of Democrats and lots of 
Republicans, and we put together one joint commission bill among 
Republicans and Democrats that all of us could support. That process 
took us a while.
  Once we got the bill that we could agree on, we went out and started 
getting cosponsors, and I am proud to say, Mr. Chairman, that as of 
today we have 119 cosponsors of our bill, more bipartisan cosponsors 
than any other bill in the House.
  That is a record of progress.
  But, Mr. Chairman, a funny thing happened on the way to this floor 
because a bill that was designed to take politics out of this process, 
to give it to a neutral body, all of a sudden started to become perhaps 
a victim of politics, and there are lots of editorial boards, lots of 
special interest groups who said,

       You know what? We don't like the commission bill. We've got 
     a bill that we like better. In fact, we know how to write the 
     campaign finance laws better than a commission would, we 
     don't want to give up that control, and so we think that not 
     only do we want to change our mind about voting for the 
     commission bill, we want to oppose any bill except our 
     particular way of doing it.

  And we heard from a number of our cosponsors that they decided not 
only not to speak for our bill, not only not to vote for our bill, but 
that they are going to vote present for our bill, kind of as a matter 
of protest, and we will have some more discussion about that later.
  Let us talk for a moment about what this bill would do. As I said, 
the entire premise of this bill is that we cannot let Members of this 
House or of Congress write the rules that govern their own election. It 
is a fairly simple concept. The personal self-interest of every single 
Member of Congress is at stake, and it is frankly asking a lot of 
anyone, especially a Member of Congress, to write the rules in a way 
that would make it easier for them to lose their jobs.
  So it is a recognition of reality. Let us set up a commission of 
independent people to make this choice.
  Now who would be on this commission? Well, we have four Republicans,

[[Page H4682]]

four Democrats and four independents composing the commission of 12 
people who would have 180 days to sit down and write a bill with their 
recommendations for what our campaign finance bills would be like. We 
have a procedure for picking the members of this commission that is 
very similar to the Base Closure Commission process designed to be as 
neutral as we can be in this town. We have some Republicans making some 
decisions, some Democrats making some decisions, the President making 
some decisions, but each one of them has to at least name one 
independent to the commission so we really do come up with an 
independent body.
  As I said, once that happens, the commission has 180 days after the 
adjournment of this Congress to come back with recommendations to this 
House, and at that time this House and the Senate both have to vote up 
or down on the commission's recommendations. No amendments are allowed.

                              {time}  1715

  And I have to tell my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that of all of the 
proposals that are out there, this is the only one that is going to 
give us real reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  (Mr. GEJDENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, we are in a process, trying to avoid a 
straightforward discussion of campaign finance reform. I know there are 
some people that believe in a commission, and commissions are not the 
worst things in the world, but we all get paid a salary and we are 
elected here to make decisions about legislation, and if we believe in 
representative government, we are here to represent our constituents to 
try to address one of the fundamental issues gnawing at the confidence 
of how their government operates by the American people.
  Now, 157 weeks ago the Speaker of the House shook hands with the 
President of the United States and says, we are going to do campaign 
finance reform. Mr. Chairman, 157 weeks of dodging and weaving to try 
to avoid a vote. And then we had one day where we had this sham set up 
that all the papers basically wrote off as a sham, and then we came up 
with as convoluted a process as we could possibly come up with, and 
here we are today. We are passing rule upon rule, we are doing a 
section of debate today and a section tomorrow. Some people may validly 
believe in a commission, but a vote on a commission today is a vote to 
end the process of stepping forward with campaign finance reform.
  I think Shays-Meehan, or McCain-Feingold is wholly inadequate. It 
does not have spending limits; it does not address some of the 
fundamental issues that I think are important. But in a legislative 
process, we either go forward or we kill the process and stop dead in 
our tracks.
  The Republican leadership is intent on stopping the campaign finance 
reform process. It is astounding that they could go to such lengths, 
because we have to remember, they have been able to filibuster the bill 
to death in the Senate. So even if by some miracle we are able to get 
through this Congress, we are confronted with a continuing filibuster 
in the other body.
  Mr. Chairman, 157 weeks, and what we want here is a straight up-and-
down vote to at least address some of the fundamentals; the 
fundamentals on soft money, on independent expenditures. I think we 
ought to be doing more on all of these. I think the Democratic record 
here is one we can be proud of. We established the FEC. The Federal 
Elections Commission, as inadequate as that body is, there was no real 
review until we overrode Richard Nixon's veto.
  Democrats put forth and passed the 1974 Campaign Act. Was it not for 
a wrong-headed Supreme Court decision, we would have better law on the 
books today.
  In the 102nd and 103rd Congress I had the privilege of passing bills 
that limited PACs, that limited the amount of contributions wealthy 
people could give, and that limited campaign spending, one vetoed by 
President Bush, one filibustered to death by the Republicans in the 
Senate. The American people want campaigns to go back to a debate of 
what we believe in, of what we stand for, of what we have done, and not 
a race for dollars.
  I had a candidate tell me a couple of days ago that he was informed 
by a member of the Republican Party in a race that they actually spent 
3 times the money that was published in the FEC by using independent 
expenditures and issue advocacy. The American people want an honest 
accounting. They want to know where the money comes from, and they want 
to hear us talk about what we believe in, and not have Members of 
Congress spending inordinate amounts of time trying to raise money.
  Defeat this proposal. Go forward with the only thing that keeps the 
process going.
  Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself just 1 minute to respond to 
the gentleman from Connecticut.
  I would simply make 2 points. The gentleman said that we are paid a 
salary to make decisions and that is absolutely right, so why in the 
world would anyone vote present on this bill? I ask that question. 
Number 2.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer that 
question.
  Mr. WHITE. Regular order, Mr. Chairman. Regular order.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I thought the gentleman asked me a 
question and wanted an answer. I am sorry.
  Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman can respond on his own time.
  I actually agree with the gentleman from Connecticut, there actually 
was a handshake between the President and the Speaker, but it was a 
handshake on setting up a commission. If we want to do what the 
President and the Speaker agreed to, we have to vote for this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Franks).
  (Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope that the 
process that we have begun this week will result in us delivering to 
the American people a campaign finance system that they can trust. The 
public is tired of talk and is demanding action.
  Since the first day that I entered this House some 6 years ago, there 
is no other issue that has been the subject of more discussion off this 
floor than the need to change the rules under which congressional 
campaigns are financed. My colleagues have regularly told me they spend 
too much of their time raising money. They say they do not like relying 
so heavily on PAC contributions, and most importantly, they hate going 
back home and having constituents question whose agenda is at work in 
the Nation's capital, theirs or the special interests.
  Our failure over some 20 years to meaningfully address this issue 
hurts all of us. It undermines public confidence in this institution 
and casts a cloud over every action that we take.
  We now have an opportunity to put this issue behind us and begin 
restoring public confidence. But first, we all need to face a harsh 
reality. When it comes to an issue like this one, one in which all of 
us as Members have a vested interest in the outcome, the traditional 
legislative process just will not work.

  Let us take a look at the long and sorry history of congressional 
efforts at campaign finance reform. Between 1987 and 1996, there have 
been 6,742 pages of hearings on campaign finance reform. There have 
been 3,361 floor speeches, and 29 sets of hearings have been held by 8 
different congressional committees. Yet, after all of this, we find 
ourselves today back where we first began, talking about the need to 
change the system of financing campaigns.
  Even on those rare occasions when this House has gone so far as to 
actually pass a campaign reform bill, we often acted knowing full well 
that it would never see the light of day in the other body.
  Mr. Chairman, today we find ourselves at a crossroads. We can once 
again follow the failed path of relying on the traditional legislative 
process and hope that in contrast to all past history, this time we 
will be successful, or, we can bravely follow a new path.
  Our independent commission would develop a legislative package of 
reforms that must be voted upon by both

[[Page H4683]]

Houses, up or down, no amendments, no tricks, no procedural barriers. 
There could be no delay, no stalling tactics. Our bill establishes a 
strict time frame for the commission to deliver its recommendations and 
for both Houses to actually vote on it. The commission would have 180 
days from the adjournment of this Congress to deliver a legislative 
proposal to the floor of this House.
  Some have called the commission approach a cop-out, an effort to 
thwart what some call real reform. Nothing could be further from the 
truth. In fact, the Reform Party led by Ross Perot, the man who more 
than any other American brought this issue to the forefront of the 
public's agenda, has endorsed our bill creating an independent 
commission.
  Let me read from a letter we recently received, and I quote:

       The Reform Party agrees that true reform can only come when 
     an outside body is convened to draft meaningful, 
     comprehensive legislation to fix a system that is frequently 
     abused. Current Members of Congress are too often unwilling 
     or unable to fix this system and form the consensus needed to 
     reform it, this system that they alone benefit from.

  Our commission bill would force both Houses to act on precisely the 
same measure. It holds out the only real hope that we can achieve 
comprehensive campaign reform. For this House to pass only a proposal 
that has already been rejected by the Senate does not qualify us as 
reformers. Under that scenario, Members would go back home and take 
credit for addressing the issue, but in reality, they will have voted 
merely to place campaign finance reform in eternal limbo between 2 
legislative bodies.
  If we are really serious, let us stop playing the same old game, 
which only serves to fuel cynicism and contempt among those who are 
concerned about the integrity of our electoral process.
  This Congress has answered a similar call in a similar situation a 
number of years ago when we faced another politically sensitive issue: 
the need to close military bases. While we all agreed with the goal of 
eliminating surplus military bases, no Member wanted to be in the 
position of voting to close down a facility in his or her district. By 
creating an independent base realignment and closure commission, 
Congress successfully completed that important mission.
  The independent commission approach works. It is the best hope of 
restoring sanity to our campaign finance system and rebuilding public 
trust in this institution.
  With more bipartisan cosponsors than any other campaign finance bill, 
the independent commission is the last, best chance for real reform in 
this Congress.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege and pleasure to yield 
3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority 
leader of the House.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to state that this is a good idea. 
The commission has much to be said for it. I have been for this 
proposal in the past, and I would hope that we could add this to the 
Shays-Meehan bill, which I believe we will be able to do. But I also 
rise to say that the way this procedure as written, if this bill gets 
the most votes, it would in effect defeat the Shays-Meehan proposal.
  So I rise tonight to ask Members on both sides of the aisle to vote 
``no'' on this proposal, because we will get a chance to add it, if we 
get that far, to the Shays-Meehan proposal, so it rightly could be 
added to that proposal. All of us know that while Shays-Meehan is good 
reform and has a lot of the elements that we think is the first big 
step of reform, there is a lot more that needs to be done, and this 
commission could start as we pass Shays-Meehan and could look at other 
reforms that we could do in the future.
  I want to especially commend the Members in the Republican Party who 
have worked so hard with Members in our party to try to get Shays-
Meehan to be the bill that comes out of this process. As the last 
speaker said, campaign reform is hard to do. It is complicated. 
Everybody is an expert here because we all run in our own campaigns, 
and we all have a little bit different idea of what the right reforms 
are.
  But in my mind, I believe that Shays-Meehan is the best bill that we 
can do at this point in time. It is supported by many, many outside 
organizations. It does attack both soft money and independent 
expenditures which I think most Members and observers believe are the 
major areas that have been abused.
  We can do it now. We can do it this month. We can get it off to the 
Senate and try to get a bill out of the Senate that would be similar. 
By voting ``no'' on the commission or voting ``present,'' we are not 
really voting ``no'' for it on the last chance we will have. We can put 
it onto the Shays-Meehan bill and have the best of both worlds.
  So in the spirit of bipartisanship, in the spirit of reform, in the 
spirit of getting something meaningful done, which I think the American 
people desperately want us to do in this Congress, I urge Members to 
vote ``no'' or ``present'' on this very good commission proposal; I 
urge Members to add it to the Shays-Meehan bill when we get the chance, 
and I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote for Shays-Meehan 
to give it the greatest vote so that under this process, it is the bill 
we vote on last and it is the bill that we send to the Senate.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, it was very interesting to listen to the previous 
speaker, and I recognize his sincere desire to try to reform the 
campaign finance laws. But I would say to the gentleman, and I would 
say to the Members on the other side, it is a perfect example of the 
reason we will not have campaign finance reform because the reason he 
wants to vote ``present'' on this bill, or even against it, is because 
he wants to do it his way. He cannot bear to give up the ability to 
write the rules himself, to write the rules in this House so that we 
get to control the process by which we get elected.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been down that path so many times before. The 
list of failed efforts at campaign finance reform that we have had 
since 1974 fills a whole column in the Washington Post.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following list:

     Failed Efforts--Summary of Attempts at Campaign Finance Reform

       1974.--Reacting to Watergate abuses, Congress passed bill 
     that set contribution and spending limits for candidates in 
     federal elections and provided for public financing of 
     presidential elections. Signed by President Gerald R. Ford.
       1976.--The Supreme Court ruled that the 1974 law's spending 
     limits violated the First Amendment.
       1977.--President Jimmy Carter's proposal for spending 
     limits and public matching funds for congressional elections 
     was blocked by a Senate filibuster and House committee 
     opposition.
       1979.--Legislation to limit contributions from political 
     action committees (PACs) was passed by the House but stalled 
     in the Senate, threatened by a Republican filibuster. Public 
     funding legislation died in the House.
       1985.--Sens. David L. Boren (D-Okla.) and Barry Goldwater 
     (R-Ariz) proposed legislation to limit PAC contributions; the 
     Senate delayed action on it.
       1986.--The Senate approved the Boren-Goldwater proposal as 
     part of legislation that failed to pass.
       1987.--A broader bill was introduced by Boren and Majority 
     Leader Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va), calling for voluntary 
     spending limits, some public funding and restrictions on PAC 
     contributions. Republicans filibustered, and Democrats failed 
     in seven attempts to end the stalling tactics.
       1988.--The bill was shelved after Democrats failed in an 
     eighth attempt to end the GOP filibuster.
       1990.--The House and Senate passed separate bills with 
     voluntary spending limits, public funding and limits on 
     contributions from special interests, including PACs. House-
     Senate conferees never met.
       1991.--Both houses again approved separate bills, and 
     President George Bush promised a veto, saying the legislation 
     would favor Democrats.
       1992.--The House and Senate agreed to a compromise on the 
     1991 bill and passed it, but it was vetoed by Bush. The veto 
     was sustained.
       1993.--President Clinton supported reform efforts but did 
     not give them high priority. Both houses once again passed 
     different bills, with the Senate favoring stronger PAC curbs 
     than the House did.
       1994.--House Democrats delayed an agreement with the Senate 
     on the 1993 bill until fall, and Senate Republicans 
     filibustered it to death.
       1996.--A bipartisan group of senators introduced a scaled-
     back bill, including voluntary spending limits, a ban on PAC 
     contributions and other curbs on special-interest giving

[[Page H4684]]

     but without any provision for public funding. It was killed 
     by a Republican filibuster June 25. House action on an even 
     more limited bill is possible later this month, but chances 
     of reconsideration by the Senate are dim.

  Mr. Chairman, I would implore this House not to miss the opportunity 
to at least try to do the right thing. The fact is, we are going to 
have lots of debate on lots of different campaign finance bills. Lots 
of them are going to be designed simply to hurt the other party or to 
hurt challengers so that incumbents' positions are safer.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friends, go ahead and have those 
fights. Go ahead and try to do it their way. Go ahead and try to get 
218 votes to do it their way to make sure incumbents stay in and that 
we get to write the rules. If it turns out their position wins, that is 
fine.
  But, I would tell them, do not miss the opportunity to actually do it 
the real way. Do not miss the opportunity to actually have a fair bill. 
The opportunity, for once, to have somebody who does not have an axe to 
grind, who is not part of the inside-the-Beltway circle to write some 
rules that will be fair to everyone.
  Mr. Chairman, I would implore all Members on both sides of the aisle 
not to miss the one opportunity we have today for real campaign finance 
reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ney) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to state that I rise in opposition to the 
commission bill, but I want to express my deep appreciation to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. White), my friend, for his leadership on 
this issue. I believe that he has been unfairly attacked by people who 
say that he is not genuine about reform. I do not believe there is 
anyone more genuine in this body about campaign finance reform than the 
gentleman from Washington. I want to thank him for his commitment to 
this issue, his dedication, and his hard work.
  Mr. Chairman, under any other circumstances, I would be supporting 
the gentleman's bill. But they used to call Reggie Jackson ``Mr. 
October,'' because he hit home runs in October. This is an October 
bill, and yet this is June and we still have time to accomplish reform 
in this Congress. For that reason, I do not want to give up a present 
opportunity for a promise down the road.
  I do believe that the commission bill is a recipe for reform, but it 
is a very slow-cooking recipe. And so let us not make excuses for 
inaction today by saying that we are going to work on it in the future 
or we are going to give this responsibility to a commission.
  If we look at what can happen down the road if we enact the 
commission bill, the Senate might not pass it, which is a danger in any 
legislation. But whenever the commission is created, the commission 
members may not agree. But, most significantly, when the result is 
finished by the commission, it comes back to this body which could once 
again reject the reform which is offered by the commission.
  So here at the present time, at this moment in history, we have a 
present alternative, an alternative we can vote on. It is on this floor 
for a vote. And so when we have reform on this floor for a vote, you do 
not take it off and indicate we are going to give it all to a 
commission.
  Mr. Chairman, the American public expects us, this body, the elected 
representatives in this country, to take action. And the present 
alternative is the base bill, the Hutchinson-Allen freshman bill. It 
does a number of good things. It bans soft money. It strengthens the 
role of the individual in our political process. It provides for more 
disclosure, more information to the public. But, very importantly, it 
is constitutional. It respects free speech. It does not federalize 
State elections, and it is bipartisan.
  For that reason, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) indicated 
that he wanted everybody to vote for Shays-Meehan. I think it is 
important to remember that there are going to be a couple of 
significant reform votes as we go along in this process. And it might 
not be tomorrow, but the end game of this reform process is the 
freshman bill which will be voted on in the final vote.
  Mr. Chairman, we hope that people who are committed to reform will 
respect the Constitution, will respect the role that we have in the 
Federal elections process and vote for the Hutchinson-Allen freshman 
bill.
  Let me say a word about the process. I hope that we have an open 
debate. I think we are going to have that. I do not believe we ought to 
complain about this open debate. But I hope that we who are interested 
in reform will withdraw the amendments that we have offered to the 
various bills so that we can move this process through a little bit 
quicker and save some floor time. This is true for the Republicans and 
the Democrats.
  Mr. Chairman, I noted that the Democrats requested before the 
Committee on Rules 74 amendments to the different substitutes that have 
been offered. I think that we ought to calm down. We ought to pull the 
requests down. Let us speed up the process. Let us work together to get 
a vote on the main substitutes that are being proposed.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White), compliment 
him and respectfully ask my colleagues to vote against the commission 
bill and support the freshman bill, the Hutchinson-Allen bill, which 
represents constitutional but real reform.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my 
own bill. As one of the principal sponsors of the commission bill, I 
really am asking all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
vote against the bill, or to vote ``present,'' because it is now in 
competition with the Shays-Meehan bill, a real reform bill that will 
accomplish many of the things that many of us wanted to accomplish 
through a commission bill.
  First of all, I would like to thank all of my colleagues who worked 
very hard on this legislation, particularly the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Dingell), who is a leader not only on campaign finance, but so 
many important issues before this body. He has often said that the best 
legislation is bipartisan, and we had a sincere bipartisan effort.
  I also thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White), the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Horn), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Franks) for all their hard work and commitment.
  But what has happened with the way the rule is in place, the 
prospects for passage of Shays-Meehan is weakened with each competing 
vote. And now the commission bill is in competition with Shays-Meehan.
  I have always called the commission bill a fall-back position, one 
that we would go to if we could not achieve a vote in this Congress on 
meaningful reform.
  But Shays-Meehan is a strong vehicle for change. It addresses two of 
the greatest abuses. It bans soft money and brings into accountability 
the so-called independent expenditure groups. And so now is not the 
time to vote for a fall-back position, but to vote for real reform.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot let the commission bill be used as a trump or 
a way to kill Shays-Meehan. We have an historic opportunity to pass 
real reform. That is Shays-Meehan. I call upon my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to vote ``present.''
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I got this sheet from my colleague here. 
It is interesting. In 1974, it starts, the Democrats passed campaign 
finance reform. In 1979, it is a Republican filibuster. In 1988, it is 
a GOP filibuster. In 1991, Bush promises a veto. In 1992, Bush vetoes. 
In 1993, Senate Republicans filibuster. In 1996, Republicans 
filibuster.
  There is a difference in the two parties. Democrats have generally 
been for this. Not perfect, but for this. And the very sheet my 
colleague brought up

[[Page H4685]]

here time and time again talks about Republicans filibustering and 
killing the process, and I would say the gentleman's bill would kill 
the process again.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what I am talking about. This is not a 
political issue. Why do we always make it a political issue? It is not 
about Republicans and Democrats. It is not about who killed it last 
time. It is not about who brought up the bill and passed it, when they 
knew that the President would veto it.
  It is about trying, for once, to get a real fair bill done, not 
pointing fingers at other side, simply voting for a bill that is 
designed to take politics out of this system.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, all of us have been clamoring for debate 
on campaign finance for some time. In fact, that has been the issue 
that most people have been talking about, particularly on that side of 
the aisle, since the beginning of this Congress, and rightfully so.
  But I find it interesting that every time they talk about we need 
full and open debate on all these issues, so we have time to talk about 
every issue, and yet in a minute we may vote on a rule that would allow 
us also to address some nongermane amendments to Shays-Meehan. And that 
is really where the problem began in the first place because, for 
example, the way the presidential elections are financed, that is where 
all of this problem started.
  If my colleagues will remember, the Clinton-Gore campaign came close 
to violating about every Federal election law there is to violate. I am 
reading from the Washington Post, the Federal page, and it talks about 
campaign finance probe, 94 witnesses who will not talk, 94 witnesses 
who take the Fifth Amendment. Many of them, it has been verified, have 
broken campaign finance laws. Yet this rule is going to be coming up, 
and I bet everyone on that side of the aisle will vote against the 
rule, even though we need also, if we are going to have full disclosure 
and full debate, we need to look at nongermane amendments as well as 
germane amendments.
  So, Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of the way my Democrat colleagues 
were talking and asking for full and open debate, I would urge them to 
vote for this rule that we will be considering a little bit later.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), a leader of this House and a 
leader on this issue.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Gejdenson) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the amendment before us is a 
good one. And I want to commend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
White) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) for their efforts 
on behalf of this, as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) 
and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). They had the vision 
to understand that this is a good approach. It is one which affords us 
an opportunity for doing something.
  Unfortunately, the way the situation has been crafted, we now find 
that we have another very important opportunity, and that is one which, 
in my view, is a better opportunity to address quickly the real 
problems we confront in terms of campaign financing.
  For that reason, I am going to vote ``present'' on the amendment that 
is offered by my good friends, and I do it with a great deal of regret. 
I have never done this in all the years that I have had the privilege 
of serving in this body, and it is with profound regret that do I that. 
But it is my view that Shays-Meehan is the best and most immediate tool 
that we have that is possible for us to use to correct the serious 
problems that we confront with regard to campaign financing.
  A little history: When I first ran for Congress some 40 years ago for 
$19,000, I beat 23 candidates, one of whom was former mayor of Detroit, 
and a sitting city councilman, a past Commander of the American Legion, 
and a large number of other influential citizens. Ten years later I 
beat an incumbent in his own district with $35,000.
  There is no way on God's green Earth, unless we reform this 
intolerable situation of campaign financing, that anybody will ever 
have that opportunity to do those kinds of things again. One of the 
most disgusting and degrading events that takes place in our life is 
the tremendous amount of money that we have to raise to hold this job.

                              {time}  1745

  That is not something which I applaud.
  I think all my colleagues find this same thing equally distressing. I 
would tell my colleagues I intend to vote for the rule when it comes 
up, and I intend to support the idea that we should be able, at that 
time, to offer the commission bill to Shays-Meehan.
  Shays-Meehan offers us, with that amendment and without it, a superb 
opportunity to do something immediate about cleaning up the mess that 
is campaign financing in the United States.
  I want to commend my colleagues who worked with me on the commission 
bill. It was a bipartisan effort. Shays-Meehan is a bipartisan effort. 
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in a bipartisan effort to clean 
up the campaign situation in this country at the earliest possible 
moment and to do so through the device of supporting Shays-Meehan and 
then later to also support the rule and to support the bill with an 
amendment which we will offer, which will be supported by its sponsors, 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) to add the commission to it so that we can 
expand further what needs to be done in terms of cleaning up the 
campaign situation in this country.
  I do not want any of my colleagues to feel that in any way they are 
demeaned by this. This is one of the unfortunate choices that Members 
of Congress have to make because of the way the rules work in a 
situation where we have a large body, where the process is disorderly, 
and where, unfortunately, constraints and time are necessary in order 
for us to serve the public good.
  Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Washington, for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, let me relate an incident in Louisiana where I once 
asked a local politician why he thought we spent so much money in 
political campaigns. His answer was, well, you know, Billy, the other 
candidate always goes on television before you are ready to go on 
television. They start telling lies about you, and then you have got to 
go on television to answer those lies much sooner than you wanted to go 
on television or you probably could afford to go on television.
  Then as the campaign draws closer to election day, they go back on 
television, and they start telling the truth about you, and then you 
have really got to spend a lot of money to answer those ads.
  The bottom line is, whether that is true or not, we spend an 
extraordinary amount of money in campaigns across America for State, 
local, and Federal elections. The rules by which we raise that money 
and spend it inevitably get written by whom, by the incumbents, by 
those of us who have been fortunate enough to win an election and to 
serve in public office.
  Inevitably, the campaign practice rules we write in the State 
legislatures and here on the floor of the House and in the Senate, 
inevitably, those rules are suspect. People always believe those rules 
must have been written to favor incumbents.
  Inevitably, when Democrats propose a campaign practice reform or when 
Republicans propose a campaign practice reform, those reforms are 
suspect, because people believe, quite naturally, that one party must 
have written the rule to gain a fair or perhaps even an unfair 
advantage over the other party in the coming election.

[[Page H4686]]

  So the question we should be thinking about as we once again debate 
another round of campaign practice reform laws is whether we should be 
the ones proposing those reforms or whether, in fact, an independent 
commission on which no incumbent Members of Congress can serve should 
be proposing those reforms while we in the end endorse those reforms by 
a single up or down vote. That is the concept between a single 
commission approach.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) and 
others who have worked on it for the thought here. The thought is that 
if you want a credible campaign practice law that has in it no 
suspicion that it favors incumbents, no suspicion that it was drafted 
to make the Democratic Party more advantageous in the election than the 
Republican Party or some independent third party.
  To give any one a better chance than the other in raising the funds 
and spending the funds in the campaigns of America, then why not this 
commission approach? It makes an awful lot of sense.
  It preserves to the Congress the ultimate authority to vote up or 
down on the recommended reforms, but it leaves the meticulous 
fashioning of those reforms to an independent commission composed of 
nonincumbents. It leaves literally to nonincumbents the duty of 
fashioning the intricate details of campaign practice reform law.
  Let me tell you where I come down quickly. I would hope, whatever we 
do in the context of this debate, that we remember in the end it is the 
citizens of this country that are most benefited if we do two simple 
things: that we make sure that there are reasonable limits to donations 
in all cases, and secondly, there is full disclosure to the American 
public.
  If the American public knows how campaign money is raised and knows 
how it is spent, all under reasonable limits, I think it will have 
provided the best reforms we can provide with the least amount of 
suspicion that we did it simply to favor ourselves or to favor one 
party or the other.
  How do we get there from here? I recommend the commission form.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I say, where are these commissioners coming from? They 
are being nominated by the Republican and Democratic leaders of the two 
Houses. Mother Teresa has passed away. These are going to be political 
people on this commission.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Adam Smith).
  Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, confusion has been as big 
an opponent of campaign finance reform as outright opposition. There 
seem to be 100 different plans, 100 different ideas out there, and that 
confusion has stopped us from getting the consensus we need to pass a 
bill until now; the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), through a number of years of 
hard work, brought us that consensus with the Shays-Meehan bill that we 
now have the option of voting on.
  I think we should seize on that consensus and pass that bill. It was 
crafted in a bipartisan way. Unfortunately, the way the rules were set 
up, a vote for the commission bill is a vote against Shays-Meehan. So 
we need to vote against the commission bill and give our full support 
to Shays-Meehan, a bill with meaningful reforms.
  I have listened to the opposition to Shays-Meehan and support for the 
commission bill, but what I have not heard are any specific complaints 
about Shays-Meehan. It makes perfect sense to do as the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) suggested, to pass Shays-Meehan and add the 
commission bill to it. That gives us the best of both worlds.
  Basically, if there is something more that needs to be done, great, 
we can do the commission. But what in Shays-Meehan is so bad? I have 
not heard that from the proponents of the commission bill because there 
is nothing bad about it.
  It bans soft money. It limits independent expenditures. I think 
perhaps as important as anything else, it gives the Federal Elections 
Commission more enforcement authority to actually enforce the rules 
that exist. Those are good things.
  Somebody has got to say why they are in opposition to Shays-Meehan.
  We have got a great opportunity here to pass a bill that has 
consensus and makes meaningful reform. We are arguing against it 
without even saying why. What is wrong with Shays-Meehan?
  One final point, we have heard that the Senate may not pass Shays-
Meehan. If that is the criterion, we should go ahead and stop right 
now, because the Senate is not going to pass the commission bill 
either.
  We have an opportunity to lead here in the House with Shays-Meehan, 
with meaningful reform, that does things that we all claim to support. 
Why do we not support them with our vote as well as with our rhetoric?
  Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to my 
colleague from the Puget Sound area and to others who have spoken to it 
before. We have heard a lot of complaints blaming it on the rule, 
blaming the need to vote ``present'' on the rule.
  The fact is, we cannot blame the rule for how you are going to vote 
on this bill. This is about the most open process we could possibly 
decide. We have got to take blame ourselves. That is what this House is 
about. We have got to vote for or against this bill. If we are not 
voting for it, we have got to be prepared to take the heat.
  I think it is a mistake to suggest that it is the fault of the rule 
that these people have to vote ``present.'' The fact is they either 
want a bill that does it their way, and many of them think that is the 
Shays-Meehan bill, or they want a bill that does it the fair way, which 
is what the commission bill does.
  I would also say to my friend from Washington who asked what is wrong 
with the Shays-Meehan bill, I will tell you what is wrong with it. It 
is not comprehensive. It kind of nudges around the edges of campaign 
finance reform.
  We have already got a system like that. The system we adopted now was 
ruled partially unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, so we have 
already got half a system. We do not need another half a system to make 
the process even worse. That is what is wrong with the bill. Only the 
commission gives you a comprehensive package.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 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, there is so much that is wrong with the 
present system, but the Democrats gave us this system. We had a 
Republican President who, unfortunately, signed it into law. It is a 
disastrous system. Before this system came into being, most people had 
never heard of PACs or of soft money or hard money or issue advocacy or 
all of these wonderful permutations that come as a direct result of the 
big government regulation that you Democrats gave us, that you love, 
that is so unconstitutional, so undesirable, and so unworkable.
  By the way, that is what is wrong with Shays-Meehan. It is more of 
the same old rehash, more rules, more regulations, more bureaucratic 
czars, more of everything that is ruining our political system. It is 
terrible.
  Here, this is like having a patient that has been misdiagnosed by the 
physician. The sicker the patient gets, the heavier the dosage of 
medicine. What is the medicine? Government regulation. Obviously, we do 
not have enough, let us have some more.
  Let us take Shays-Meehan. Let us have the Allen-Hutchinson freshman 
bill. Let us have more of these awful proposals that are so contrary to 
the whole history of America that have produced this mess that 
frustrates people, that makes them wonder what is going on in 
Washington, D.C.
  What we need to do is step back, get a new diagnosis, and find out 
what the problem really is.
  The problem is government regulation of political speech. What could 
be more clear than the First Amendment, which says Congress shall make 
no law abridging the freedom of speech? Yet, Shays-Meehan, Allen-
Hutchinson or Hutchinson-Allen, and many of these proposals that are 
coming before us are precisely that, abridgements of the

[[Page H4687]]

freedom of speech, all in the name of some greater good, fairer 
campaigns or whatever it is.
  I think that we have a real problem here. At least the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. White) is giving us a bill that has the potential of 
producing some improvement. I do not think it is perfect, but few bills 
are perfect that come before this House. At least it offers the 
opportunity to do something.
  To the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), we hear all this 
talk about big money. The last campaign, I see the gentleman raised 
$1,177,000 according to the official FEC records. So the gentleman has 
got some big money in there himself.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, what preceded this system that is bad 
and needs fixing was a ``cashocracy''. People came to Members of 
Congress and presidential candidates with bundles full of cash. I think 
that was a worse system. We are not perfect today, but we are better 
than a system where people used to come in to Members of Congress 
offices with envelopes of $100 bills.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, the system we have now is not better 
than the one we had. One wrong does not make a second wrong. All we 
would need to do is have full disclosure in a very timely fashion like 
one of the proposals before us will do, and you would let the 
electorate judge. Then you would not have the heavy hand of regulation. 
Let the electorate do it. The Founders did not want a government czar 
regulating our freedom of speech.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, only those with enough money to buy the 
megaphone would get to speak. Yes, the rich would be heard. But the 
average person, he might be able to read about which rich person is 
being heard, but he could not express himself if the almighty dollar is 
how you buy access to television and radio and speech.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me respond. I respectfully submit 
that is utter nonsense. The Supreme Court itself observed in the 
Buckley case that there is no obligation for the government to fund 
people in making their speech, but we all have the right to make the 
speech we want to make.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have 5 more minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The rule on this bill limits 
debate. Unanimous consent is out of order at this time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, there would be nothing to preclude the 
gentleman and I continuing our discussion following the allotted time 
in making a statement at that point. So the gentleman could get 
additional time at the end.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the 5-minute rule, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) or the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Doolittle) could request additional time.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, we will carry on at that point.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I am now privileged to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), the author of the 
legislation that should be before us and is the most significant reform 
bill before the Congress today.
  (Mr. MEEHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I take the floor today certainly not to 
defend the status quo or the present system we have, but rather to rise 
and thank my colleagues, especially the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), and all of the 
other sponsors, my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks), 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn), who have been fighting for the commission bill.

                              {time}  1800

  And I also want to suggest that by voting ``present'' rather than 
``yes'' on their own amendment, both the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn Maloney) will 
help us shore up the necessary majority to pass the Shays-Meehan bill.
  Three years ago Frank MacConnell stood up at a town meeting in 
Claremont, New Hampshire and asked Speaker Gingrich and President 
Clinton to commit to passing a campaign finance reform bill. The 
Speaker and the President shook hands on that. One year later, after no 
commission, Frank MacConnell came to Washington to ask Speaker Gingrich 
and President Clinton to commit to passing the McCain-Feingold, Shays-
Meehan bill rather than establishing a commission.
  The bottom line is that voting to solely establish a commission 
rather than a commission as part of the Shays-Meehan bill will further 
delay action on campaign finance reform until next year, despite the 
fact that we have an historic opportunity to pass real campaign finance 
reform now. By incorporating the commission bill into the Shays-Meehan 
bill, we really have the best of both worlds: Number one, we have 
campaign finance reform this year, plus a mechanism through which we 
can look for bipartisan routes to achieve additional reforms down the 
road.
  If my colleagues support campaign finance reform, I am asking them to 
join with the lead Democratic sponsors to vote ``present'' or ``no'' on 
the commission bill as a stand-alone substitute. I believe that we have 
a majority of the Members of this House who are ready to pass real 
campaign finance reform. I believe that that majority is ready to make 
the commission bill part of the Shays-Meehan bill. The only way that we 
can do that under the present rules is if we join together.
  And I am delighted at the way reformers from all parts of the 
country, who have been working over the last several years, are coming 
together to form a critical mass at a critical point in time to 
establish the majority we need to pass real campaign finance reform. 
Let us not miss this opportunity. Let us join together. Vote 
``present'' or ``no'' on this particular stand-alone bill and then let 
us amend the Shays-Meehan bill and get real campaign finance reform.
  Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. White) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ney) has 3 minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, do I understand correctly that the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson) is speaking in opposition. On general debate, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. White) has the right to close.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, this should be a time that I really feel 
great, and I do not, and I have only myself to blame. What I do not 
feel great about is the sense that somehow this is going to be a brutal 
fight and we are going to make lots of enemies in the process.
  For me, I believe with a passion in the Meehan-Shays bill. I believe 
passionately for this bill because it bans soft money, both at the 
Federal and State level, for Federal elections; that it, for once, 
recognizes that the sham issue ads are truly campaign ads and treats 
them as campaign ads and comes under the campaign laws; that we finally 
codify Beck, which makes it clear that a nonunion member does not have 
to pay money in his or her agency fee for political activity; that we 
improve the FEC disclosure and enforcement; that we deal with franking 
and ban it 6 months to an election district wide; and that we make it 
clear that foreign money and raising money on government property is 
illegal, which it is not right now, if it happens to be soft money.
  I believe passionately in this bill. I believe it is bipartisan and I 
believe it

[[Page H4688]]

should pass. I also believe that the commission bill has a role to play 
but it does not have a role to play if it replaces the Meehan-Shays 
bill.
  I heard my colleague, who is a very outstanding Member of Congress 
and has tried to elevate the debate, talk about blame yourself and take 
responsibility. I think when we take responsibility, we take action. 
And action is to ban soft money; to recognize that the sham issue ads 
are campaign ads and treat them that way. I believe that that is taking 
responsibility. I think it is not taking responsibility to say that our 
leaders will appoint members who will supposedly come out with a bill 
that my colleague believes we can all support. I do not know what they 
will do.
  I wish my Speaker had lived up to his word and moved forward with a 
commission bill 3 years ago, because we would now have a commission 
before us and we could vote it up or down. But that was 3 years ago. I 
do not intend to wait another year to take action, because I want to 
take responsibility for my vote. So I encourage my colleagues to vote 
``present'' on the commission bill. I encourage them to vote ``yes'' on 
the rule. I encourage them to vote ``yes'' on Meehan-Shays and oppose 
all amendments except one, attach the commission bill to the Meehan-
Shays proposal.
  Attach the commission bill and we can frankly have the best of both 
worlds: We can take action now on soft money and on these sham issue 
ads and we can deal with all the host of other issues that my colleague 
feels we have not addressed. If my colleague, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. White), feels we have not addressed it, then he too 
should support an amendment to Meehan-Shays that puts the commission 
bill into the Meehan-Shays bill.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Allen), who has played such a major role in campaign 
finance reform since he entered this Chamber.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in opposition to this bill, but not because I do not think it 
has merit. And I commend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White), the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for their 
efforts on behalf of campaign finance reform. But we need reform now, 
not later.
  As a co-chair of the freshman bipartisan task force, I want to say 
that one of the appealing things about this bill is that it reflects 
very much the process that we went through as freshmen. There were six 
Republicans and six Democrats. We sat down, we learned together, we all 
shared the experience of the 1996 campaign when the airwaves were 
flooded with the results of more soft money than had ever been raised 
or spent in any cycle and with more issue advocacy money than had ever 
been raised or spent in any cycle. So I understand the importance of 
this bipartisan process. But the way the commission bill is coming up 
now is this: It will, if passed, if it gets enough votes, block a 
chance to ban soft money now. It is reform later, not reform now. It 
will block a chance to get real control over issue advocacy now, not 
later.
  Both the Shays-Meehan bill and the Hutchinson-Allen freshman bill 
deserve to come up for a debate and deserve to have a real vote. They 
represent real reform. They represent reform now; the kind of bill we 
could send to the Senate and expect them to act on during this session. 
So I want to urge everyone who may support the commission bill to vote 
``no'' or ``present'' and to give real reform a chance.
  Finally, I would say this. An earlier speaker, the gentleman from 
California, said the problem is government regulation. I disagree. The 
problem is big money in politics. And whenever we hear the words ``free 
speech'', we have to be careful, because sometimes they mean ``big 
money''. The gentleman from California is a sponsor of a provision that 
would take all the limits off, hard money limits off, so that 
individuals could give $50,000, $100,000, $500,000, $1,000,000 to an 
individual candidate. That is not the law now and it is simply wrong to 
drag the red herring of free speech across this debate when what we are 
really talking about is big money.
  We need to contain the influence of big money in politics and we do 
that by banning soft money and by banning it now.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from the great State of Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand), my 
neighbor, to close for our side.
  (Mr. WEYGAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my neighbor from 
Connecticut for allowing me to close on this very important issue.
  I have to compliment the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) in the 
great effort that they have put forward. When I look and listen to what 
the gentleman has said, it really strikes home.
  But I look at this picture here that was taken 3 years and 1 week ago 
tomorrow, and that was the commitment we had back then. Let us put 
together a commission to truly study the things that the gentleman has 
talked about today. Because when we talk about soft money and all the 
other things that run into this, the people back home, their eyes glaze 
over. They wonder what we are really talking about here in Washington. 
They want true reform.
  And the reason for it is that the average American today can no 
longer run for Congress. What we have done with the system that we have 
today is divorced all Americans, the majority of Americans, from 
running for this Congress. The gentleman's bill today would just 
further extend that divorce. It would further extend it to 4 years or 5 
years by the time we had true reform.
  When we first started this great assembly here, our founding fathers 
said this chamber should have its pulse on the feeling of America, not 
in the pocketbooks of the special interests, which is exactly where it 
is right now. For the average American, they cannot afford $1 million. 
The average American wants a voice in this chamber and they want it 
now. Unfortunately, the great effort that the gentleman has put 
forward, which I believe is wonderful in its intent, will just further 
exacerbate and procrastinate our decision to move forward on true 
campaign finance reform.
  I urge my colleagues and the Members in the House to vote ``no'' or 
simply ``present''. Let us move on with real reform. Let us not 
relinquish our responsibility to do this now. Let us not delay any 
further. Campaign finance reform today, not tomorrow.
  Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Weygand) if he would tell us what is a special interest? 
What does he understand that term to be? I hear that term used a lot.
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WEYGAND. I am sorry, would the gentleman repeat the question?
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Yes. Can the gentleman tell us what he 
means by special interest?
  Mr. WEYGAND. Well, let me ask the gentleman this. When a person has 
to spend a million dollars or $2 million of special interest, including 
the various organizations that have helped them----
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. No, no, I want the gentleman to define--it is my time 
and I reclaim it. What is the definition of special interest? Is all 
the labor PAC money the gentleman got special interest?
  Mr. WEYGAND. The special interest is what controls the Chamber here, 
and the gentleman knows that. And what I am asking the gentleman----
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. So the answer then is yes, it is a special 
interest. The gentleman is receiving money, gobs of it, from special 
interests and he honestly sits here and pretends that does not happen.
  Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I 
think we have had a good example of why we need campaign finance reform 
here.
  I admire the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), I admire a lot 
of

[[Page H4689]]

the people on the other side, and I appreciate the efforts of many of 
the Democrats who worked with us on our bill. And, frankly, I agree 
with the gentleman from Connecticut. I think we need to take personal 
responsibility for this vote. But what all the arguments we have heard 
today really boil down to is, we do not want to do the commission 
because we want to do it our way.
  Now, doing it my way was fine for Frank Sinatra, but when we are 
talking about elected Members of this House, whose personal self-
interest depends on what these rules are, I think it is a little bit of 
a stretch to say we have to do it our way.
  Banning soft money? That would be fine, but are we going to lose the 
opportunity to have real comprehensive, long-term reform, simply so we 
can ban soft money today? It seems to me the balance swings pretty 
heavily in the other direction.
  So let me just go through a little analysis here. Let us say I was 
one of the 94 Democrats who cosponsored my bill and I was now trying to 
figure out, gee, how should I vote on this. The first question I would 
ask myself is: Why would I vote against this bill? Would I vote against 
it because it is fake reform? It is not real reform? No. This is the 
only bill that really gives us independent neutral reform.
  Would I vote against this because it is a political game? It is one 
party trying to stick it to the other party? No. This is the only bill 
that is neutral, the only bill where one party cannot try to stick it 
to the other party.
  Would I vote against this bill because it is only partial reform? It 
is the same thing we have right now? No, I would not, because this is 
the only bill that guarantees us a full package of reform that is 
carefully thought through.
  Would I vote against it because it favors incumbents? No. It is 
probably the only bill we will ever get, the only way we will ever get 
a bill that does not favor incumbents is if it is somebody who is not 
an incumbent suggesting it. So I do not think my colleagues should vote 
``no'' on the bill unless the real reason they are voting ``no'' is 
because they lose the right to write these rules.
  Why would I vote ``present'' on this bill? Well, usually we vote 
``present'' to show we are here. That is a step in the right direction. 
Or maybe someone would vote ``present'' because they cannot decide on 
this bill. But, frankly, the real reason people will vote ``present'' 
on this bill, if they do vote ``present'', is because they are getting 
their arm twisted by the leadership of their party because they want to 
do it their way. And I would suggest that is a mistake.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that the only way to vote on this 
bill is to vote ``yes''. It is the only way we get a fair bill, the 
only way we get an impartial bill, the only way we get a bill that does 
not have politics at its core, and it is the only way we are really 
going to restore some dignity to this House.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). All time having expired, it is 
now in order to consider Amendment No. 16 printed in the Congressional 
Record.


  Amendment No. 16 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. White

  Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment No. 16 in the nature of a substitute offered by 
     Mr. White:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Independent Commission on 
     Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSE OF COMMISSION.

       There is established a commission to be known as the 
     ``Independent Commission on Campaign Finance Reform'' 
     (referred to in this Act as the ``Commission''). The purposes 
     of the Commission are to study the laws relating to the 
     financing of political activity and to report and recommend 
     legislation to reform those laws.

     SEC. 3. MEMBERSHIP OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 12 
     members appointed within 15 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act by the President from among individuals 
     who are not incumbent Members of Congress and who are 
     specially qualified to serve on the Commission by reason of 
     education, training, or experience.
       (b) Appointment.--
       (1) In general.--Members shall be appointed as follows:
       (A) 3 members (one of whom shall be a political 
     independent) shall be appointed from among a list of nominees 
     submitted by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
       (B) 3 members (one of whom shall be a political 
     independent) shall be appointed from among a list of nominees 
     submitted by the majority leader of the Senate.
       (C) 3 members (one of whom shall be a political 
     independent) shall be appointed from among a list of nominees 
     submitted by the minority leader of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (D) 3 members (one of whom shall be a political 
     independent) shall be appointed from among a list of nominees 
     submitted by the minority leader of the Senate.
       (2) Failure to submit list of nominees.--If an official 
     described in any of the subparagraphs of paragraph (1) fails 
     to submit a list of nominees to the President during the 15-
     day period which begins on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act--
       (A) such subparagraph shall no longer apply; and
       (B) the President shall appoint 3 members (one of whom 
     shall be a political independent) who meet the requirements 
     described in subsection (a) and such other criteria as the 
     President may apply.
       (3) Political independent defined.--In this subsection, the 
     term ``political independent'' means an individual who at no 
     time after January 1992--
       (A) has held elective office as a member of the Democratic 
     or Republican party;
       (B) has received any wages or salary from the Democratic or 
     Republican party or from a Democratic or Republican party 
     office-holder or candidate; or
       (C) has provided substantial volunteer services or made any 
     substantial contribution to the Democratic or Republican 
     party or to a Democratic or Republican party office-holder or 
     candidate.
       (c) Chairman.--At the time of the appointment, the 
     President shall designate one member of the Commission as 
     Chairman of the Commission.
       (d) Terms.--The members of the Commission shall serve for 
     the life of the Commission.
       (e) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled 
     in the manner in which the original appointment was made.
       (f) Political Affiliation.--Not more than 4 members of the 
     Commission may be of the same political party.

     SEC. 4. POWERS OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Hearings.--The Commission may, for the purpose of 
     carrying out this Act, hold hearings, sit and act at times 
     and places, take testimony, and receive evidence as the 
     Commission considers appropriate. In carrying out the 
     preceding sentence, the Commission shall ensure that a 
     substantial number of its meetings are open meetings, with 
     significant opportunities for testimony from members of the 
     general public.
       (b) Quorum.--Seven members of the Commission shall 
     constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold hearings. 
     The approval of at least 9 members of the Commission is 
     required when approving all or a portion of the recommended 
     legislation. Any member of the Commission may, if authorized 
     by the Commission, take any action which the Commission is 
     authorized to take under this section.

     SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       (a) Pay and Travel Expenses of Members.--(1) Each member of 
     the Commission shall be paid at a rate equal to the daily 
     equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay payable for level 
     IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, 
     United States Code, for each day (including travel time) 
     during which the member is engaged in the actual performance 
     of duties vested in the Commission.
       (2) Members of the Commission shall receive travel 
     expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in 
     accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (b) Staff Director.--The Commission shall, without regard 
     to section 5311(b) of title 5, United States Code, appoint a 
     staff director, who shall be paid at the rate of basic pay 
     payable for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 
     5315 of title 5, United States Code.
       (c) Staff of Commission; Services.--
       (1) In general.--With the approval of the Commission, the 
     staff director of the Commission may appoint and fix the pay 
     of additional personnel. The Director may make such 
     appointments without regard to the provisions of title 5, 
     United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive 
     service, and any personnel so appointed may be paid without 
     regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of 
     chapter 53 of that title relating to classification and 
     General Schedule pay rates, except that an individual so 
     appointed may not receive pay in excess of the maximum annual 
     rate of basic pay payable for grade GS-15 of the General 
     Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Experts and consultants.--The Commission may procure by 
     contract the temporary or intermittent services of experts or

[[Page H4690]]

     consultants pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United 
     States Code.

     SEC. 6. REPORT AND RECOMMENDED LEGISLATION.

       (a) Report.--Not later than the expiration of the 180-day 
     period which begins on the date on which the second session 
     of the One Hundred Fifth Congress adjourns sine die, the 
     Commission shall submit to the President, the Speaker and 
     minority leader of the House of Representatives, and the 
     majority and minority leaders of the Senate a report of the 
     activities of the Commission.
       (b) Recommendations; Draft of Legislation.--The report 
     under subsection (a) shall include any recommendations for 
     changes in the laws (including regulations) governing the 
     financing of political activity, including any changes in the 
     rules of the Senate or the House of Representatives, to which 
     9 or more members of the Commission may agree, together with 
     drafts of--
       (1) any legislation (including technical and conforming 
     provisions) recommended by the Commission to implement such 
     recommendations; and
       (2) any proposed amendment to the Constitution recommended 
     by the Commission as necessary to implement such 
     recommendations, except that if the Commission includes such 
     a proposed amendment in its report, it shall also include 
     recommendations (and drafts) for legislation which may be 
     implemented prior to the adoption of such proposed amendment.
       (c) Goals of Recommendations and Legislation.--In making 
     recommendations and preparing drafts of legislation under 
     this section, the Commission shall consider the following to 
     be its primary goals:
       (1) Encouraging fair and open Federal elections which 
     provide voters with meaningful information about candidates 
     and issues.
       (2) Eliminating the disproportionate influence of special 
     interest financing of Federal elections.
       (3) Creating a more equitable electoral system for 
     challengers and incumbents.

     SEC. 7. EXPEDITED CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION.

       (a) In General.--If any legislation is introduced the 
     substance of which implements a recommendation of the 
     Commission submitted under section 6(b) (including a joint 
     resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution), 
     subject to subsection (b), the provisions of section 2908 
     (other than subsection (a)) of the Defense Base Closure and 
     Realignment Act of 1990 shall apply to the consideration of 
     the legislation in the same manner as such provisions apply 
     to a joint resolution described in section 2908(a) of such 
     Act.
       (b) Special Rules.--For purposes of applying subsection (a) 
     with respect to such provisions, the following rules shall 
     apply:
       (1) Any reference to the Committee on Armed Services of the 
     House of Representatives shall be deemed a reference to the 
     Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives 
     and any reference to the Committee on Armed Services of the 
     Senate shall be deemed a reference to the Committee on Rules 
     and Administration of the Senate.
       (2) Any reference to the date on which the President 
     transmits a report shall be deemed a reference to the date on 
     which the recommendation involved is submitted under section 
     6(b).
       (3) Notwithstanding subsection (d)(2) of section 2908 of 
     such Act--
       (A) debate on the legislation in the House of 
     Representatives, and on all debatable motions and appeals in 
     connection with the legislation, shall be limited to not more 
     than 10 hours, divided equally between those favoring and 
     those opposing the legislation;
       (B) debate on the legislation in the Senate, and on all 
     debatable motions and appeals in connection with the 
     legislation, shall be limited to not more than 10 hours, 
     divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the 
     legislation; and
       (C) debate in the Senate on any single debatable motion and 
     appeal in connection with the legislation shall be limited to 
     not more than 1 hour, divided equally between the mover and 
     the manager of the bill (except that in the event the manager 
     of the bill is in favor of any such motion or appeal, the 
     time in opposition thereto shall be controlled by the 
     minority leader or his designee), and the majority and 
     minority leader may each allot additional time from time 
     under such leader's control to any Senator during the 
     consideration of any debatable motion or appeal.

     SEC. 8. TERMINATION.

       The Commission shall cease to exist 90 days after the date 
     of the submission of its report under section 6.

     SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Commission 
     such sums as are necessary to carry out its duties under this 
     Act.
       Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to establish the 
     Independent Commission on Campaign Finance Reform to 
     recommend reforms in the laws relating to the financing of 
     political activity.''.

  Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I think we have had a good debate on this 
bill over the last hour. And I hope all our colleagues are listening 
from their offices. I would hope that there will not be any amendments.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The author of the legislation says we cannot have it our way because 
he wants it his way. He is telling us, unless we do it his way, we are 
not for doing it. Well, let us take a look at the history.
  I will venture a guess, and I do not believe in prophecy as a general 
rule from this Chamber anyway, that when you look at the people who 
voted for reform in the past, they will be voting ``no'' or they will 
be voting ``present.'' And for the folks back home, the reason they 
will vote ``present'' or ``no'' is because they know that this is 
simply an attempt at the moment to undercut Shays-Meehan, which will 
give us a more comprehensive shot at reform.
  If somebody who is an original cosponsor of the bill votes ``no,'' 
they are afraid of the 30-second ad that says they voted one way and 
then they voted the other way. And to make sure that nobody can do that 
to anybody on either side of the aisle, we are working to make sure 
that we can add to Shays-Meehan the prospects of adding a commission 
that can do even more good work if they think a commission adds to the 
process.
  But the fundamental debate, the real debate, I think, is between the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) and myself. And I hope the 
gentleman is still here. I enjoy debating with him, because I think he 
honestly speaks what he believes.
  Some of us in this Chamber believe that a society has the right to 
guarantee that those without power, those without wealth have a right 
to speak. I have said this on the floor before. Democracy is a process 
that is evolutionary in its nature.
  The great efforts by the British, starting with the Magna Carta, did 
not provide for democratic opportunity for all their citizens. It 
simply provided rights for the nobility, that the nobility in their 
dealings with the king would have a right to have a process so their 
property would not be taken away.
  With the revolution that occurred on these shores, our great Founding 
Fathers took another step forward. They said that we did not have to be 
noblemen to have rights in this process; if we simply were men and 
owned land, we could vote. And they wrote a Constitution that 
guaranteed that white men who owned property would have the right to 
vote.
  And slowly in this society, we have expanded that right to include 
women and minorities. It was a struggle.
  Today, the struggle is about whether or not electoral politics will 
be about money, that rather than an aristocracy we will be a 
``cashocracy,'' whether or not it will simply be the wealthiest 
individuals who will reach into their pockets and their friends' 
pockets to spend tens of millions of dollars to try to win elective 
office, or whether average citizens have an opportunity to feel they 
are relevant to the political process.
  In California, we saw tens of millions of dollars be the litmus test 
for entry into the race. This country prospers because we include all 
of our citizens. We make sure that everyone gets an education, that 
everybody gets to vote. And if we limit the political process to only 
the wealthy, only those who will curry favor with the wealthy, we will 
see the demise of this great Nation.
  This Nation grows because we expand opportunity and we give everyone 
an equal shot and do not just rig it for the rich.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would just remind the gentleman from Connecticut that in Buckley, 
which is the ruling case on this whole issue, the Supreme Court case, 
it says very clearly in the case, ``The concept that government may 
restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance 
the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First 
Amendment.''
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the 
gentleman makes an excellent point. The Supreme Court in this case is 
dead wrong.
  Remember, we have a Supreme Court that for 50 years said separate and 
equal were okay. Well, people who did not believe in segregation did 
not lie around wringing their hands that we

[[Page H4691]]

had a Supreme Court that believed we could have black kids in a school 
that was falling apart and have a shining, air-conditioned school for 
the white kids. We fought segregation.
  I think the same thing comes here. I respect the separation of 
powers. This Supreme Court thinks rich people have a right not just to 
dominate, but to have exclusive domain in the political process. I 
think that is wrong. I think a real democracy values its citizens and 
their statements even if they have no wealth.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, under the present disastrous system 
which this philosophy has given us, the philosophy of my colleague, the 
only ones who have unlimited rights are the rich. But somebody who is 
not rich, who wishes to go and run for a Federal office, is forced 
under these terrible laws that we have to go and raise money in dribs 
and drabs. They spend all their time doing that instead of addressing 
the issues.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  What I would like to see happen is to deregulate. If you deregulate, 
they are not going to have soft money. It will not be needed. Issue 
advocacy will dramatically drop.
  Look at what went on in the Commonwealth of Virginia in the 
gubernatorial elections, where they had men and women of average means 
running. I think the current governor is the son of a butcher. They had 
the campaigns running. They were able to raise their money. It was all 
reported. Nobody claimed that it was an aristocracy or nobility. No, 
there was no hint of graft in that election, and they do not have these 
regulations.
  Where we have had the present scheme of regulation due to inflation 
over the years, money has had to come in through other ways because the 
hard money has never been adjusted for inflation since 1974. And yet, 
we have had two-thirds of those limits eroded by inflation.
  If I may ask the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), why do 
you folks not agree to adjust those limits at least for inflation?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I would say two things. One is, I fundamentally 
disagree with two of the concepts of my colleague. One is that by 
making everything soft money, basically, under the proposal of my 
colleague, we could have unlimited contributions to individual 
candidates.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Reclaiming my time, let me just say, everything is 
hard money, not soft money.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. If the gentleman would further yield, fine, it is all 
legal in the sense that it is today.
  So, for instance, if somebody in my colleague's district came with a 
double tractor-trailer full of hundred dollar bills for his campaign, 
as long as it was reported, he thinks that is enough?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I think we all stipulate, the present regulation, it 
should not be cash, it should be a check. But, yes, that is enough. 
That is enough because the American people are the judges, not a 
government czar.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. So how does a candidate who does appeal to really rich 
people, where does he get the resources to get heard?
  If the rich people can own the stock in the newspapers, if they can 
own the TV stations, and if they can write $10 million checks to the 
candidate, if they represent poor people, how do they get their voice 
out, how do they get heard, how do they buy TV time unless they also 
find some rich sugar daddy?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. The point is, right now, only the people who are 
personally rich can spend unlimited amounts of money. At least under 
this system, if they are not rich themselves, they can go to those who 
have money and they can contribute to them instead of just the limit of 
$1,000 they are limited to now.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. So my colleague wants to go back to the old system, 
which instead of cash will now be checks from a handful of rich people.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. It is not from a handful at all. It would be from a 
number of people. It would all be reported. And if people think that is 
too much, they would not vote for them in the election.
  What is the matter with that? That is freedom. That is disclosure. 
That is the American system.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. No. The American system has been a system that has 
tempered the free market to make sure that none of our citizens--
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Reclaiming my time, that is the system you liberal 
Democrats gave us. The Democrats took away the American system and gave 
us the government regulation of political speech.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. If the gentleman would continue to yield, that system, 
which you condemn in public education and all these other forums, has 
the highest standard of living in the world, has the biggest economy in 
the world, is the idol of every other economy in the world.
  The countries that followed the model of my colleagues and let the 
wealthy alone control education and the economy and politics have 
fallen by the wayside.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Reclaiming my time, it is the people of my colleague 
who own the New York Times, the Washington Post, every major newspaper 
in this country; and under their system, they can do whatever they 
like.
  And under a Shays-Meehan/Hutchinson-Allen bill, they are the only 
ones who will have the freedom of speech.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Those are Democratic papers?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, they certainly are not Republican papers.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Well, they are not Democratic papers. I read their 
editorials every day.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. My colleagues want more regulation, more government 
and less freedom.
  I might point out that since the 1974 FECA amendments, political 
participation has steadily declined in this country. And then I hear 
the philosophy of the gentleman and bootstrap that to demonstrate why 
we need more government regulation, which would be further reduction.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Members are reminded that they need to 
yield and reclaim time so that only one Member is speaking at a time.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) controls an additional 
30 seconds.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would just say in 30 seconds that my 
colleague talks about giving everyone equal rights; and it is so 
interesting that in the Shays-Meehan bill and the bills that ban soft 
money, they are allowing politicians and their hard money to spend 
more, but they are shutting out other people from speaking on political 
elections by banning soft money, because soft money is simply money 
spent by groups interested in the political process to express their 
views.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PASCRELL. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my friend, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) that, yes, as we have had 
increasing amounts of money spent, participation has gone down. We 
ought to limit spending in campaigns.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, we are back to the beginning if we 
listened to the last two speakers. As in the beginning, we here in this 
House are divided into two groups, one group that says there is too 
much money in campaigns and another group that says there is never 
enough money in campaigns. And the more that you have, the more free 
speech that you have.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) explicitly and 
implicitly stated just a few moments ago what this debate is all about. 
And that is, what he is really after is an unlimited number of dollars 
in campaigns. That is the crux of the debate. Regardless of the 
amendments, regardless of substitutions, that is the crux of the 
debate.
  The issue of campaign finance reform is not the same as base 
closings. In base closings, we had a need for an

[[Page H4692]]

independent commission that could break the impasse that existed, 
because no one wanted to vote to close a base in their own State. There 
is no comparison between the subjects that we discuss today and the 
subjects that were discussed in past Congresses, none whatsoever.
  With campaign finance reform, we are not voting to close a base and 
put anyone out of business, no. Passing campaign finance reform is an 
entirely different subject. The only reason to pass and create a 
commission is to avoid making a hard-choice decision ourselves.
  The people did not send us here to put the hard decision on someone 
else's shoulders, Mr. Chairman. That is not why I came. They sent us 
here to make the decisions in this House. By voting on the freshman 
bill or Shays-Meehan, we have the opportunity to vote for real reform. 
We should not pass our responsibilities off to others.
  Mind you, we are going to select the folks that are serving on this 
commission. No sitting Member can be a member of the commission and 
that group out there is going to make the decision for us to live by in 
our raising dollars so that we can be elected and reelected.
  The people of this country created a commission already. It is called 
the Congress. And the Congress is up for election every 2 years, Mr. 
Chairman.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PASCRELL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman indicated we spend too 
much money on campaigns. I just wonder if he could tell us what is too 
much money or perhaps what is the appropriate amount of money that we 
should spend.
  Mr. PASCRELL. In the debate that we are having here on this floor, 
the two major bills that we are discussing and, according to the 
Speaker of this House, the bill that we are discussing as a base bill 
deals with soft money. That is money that comes into the campaign in 
the last 3 or 4 weeks which if you have not received and collected 
enough hard money, you cannot win that election in the last 3 or 4 
weeks unless you are way ahead. He knows it and I know it. We are 
talking about soft money that we do not know how much is really spent 
in a campaign, and that is true with Democrats and Republicans. This is 
not a partisan issue.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me just ask the gentleman, setting aside for a 
minute soft money, then, since that is somewhat nebulous and it is not 
spent by the candidates themselves, how much hard money is enough?
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I for one agree with the gentleman from 
Connecticut, that there should be caps on how much is spent. Under the 
present Supreme Court decision, that cannot happen. I would say the 
average congressional campaign, if that is what we are talking about 
here, we can look at how much is being spent in hard money across the 
United States of America. I would be willing to discuss that with the 
gentleman.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, the main point is that today, tonight, we can pass a 
bill that will ban soft money from campaigns. That is an important 
achievement.
  Many of us in this body have sat through many hearings on alleged 
campaign abuses. But what was in common in every alleged campaign abuse 
was soft money. So instead of pointing fingers at each other and having 
partisan investigations or hearings, let us work together and actually 
do something about it. This is a very modest proposal. It would ban the 
soft money. It would clean up third-party expenditures. So instead of 
delaying tonight, let us pass hopefully Shays-Meehan, send it to the 
Senate where a majority has already supported it, and a Democratic 
President has come out and said that he will sign it into law.
  So we have an historic opportunity to this night pass meaningful, not 
all that needs to be done, but very meaningful reform, reform that 
other Members, particularly on the other side of the aisle, have been 
most critical of. So instead of criticizing, let us do something. Let 
us ban the soft money. We do not have to wait to do it.
  One of the things that I wanted the commission bill to do was to ban 
soft money. But we do not have to wait for the commission bill to do 
it. We can do it tonight. We do not have to wait 180 days. Quite 
frankly, I did not think that we would be able to get this vote in this 
Congress. That is why I worked so hard on the commission bill, to force 
something to the floor. But right now we have it before us. We do not 
have to wait. We can vote tonight and let our constituents know that we 
are serious about changing the system in a very meaningful way.
  Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to compliment very much my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays), not only for their hard work and their willingness to 
compromise, to really roll back their bill to basically two major 
issues, that of banning soft money and cleaning up third-party 
expenditures. Now, they have generously indicated that they will accept 
an amendment to their bill, Shays-Meehan, which accomplishes a great 
deal, of the commission, which, after we enact and sign into law Shays-
Meehan, will allow 180 days for members appointed by legislative 
leaders on both sides of the aisle to come forward with other important 
proposals. But the main point is we do not have to wait. We can do it 
tonight. And we should.
  I compliment the leadership on the other side of the aisle for moving 
forward, hopefully tonight, with a vote on Shays-Meehan, so that we can 
ban soft money, we can take care of these abuses that so many Members, 
particularly on the other side of the aisle, have been so critical of, 
they have said has been wrong. Let us do something about it. Let us 
take it out of the system and show our constituents that we are serious 
about something that is far more important than our own reelections, 
that of making our campaign system more accountable to the people who 
vote for us by taking out of the system this huge, massive amount of 
money that flows into our campaigns called soft money.
  Mr. Chairman, I can say when I ran for Congress, my opponent outspent 
me five to one. I was one of the few Members who ever gets elected when 
you are outspent in that type of way. The area where most of this money 
flows into campaigns is through the soft money loophole. So even if 
that is all we accomplish, we will have accomplished a great deal.
  Mr. Chairman, I compliment really all of my friends on both sides of 
the aisle for their work on Shays-Meehan. I am hopeful that my leaders 
on the commission bill on both sides of the aisle will join me in 
voting ``present'' on the commission bill, moving quickly towards 
Shays-Meehan so we can send it to the Senate, so they can act on it, so 
we can send it to the President and enact it into law. It is important 
reform. It is meaningful reform. But due to the nature of the rule, a 
vote for the commission bill is a vote against Shays-Meehan. It is in 
effect a vote against Shays-Meehan. That is why we have to vote ``no'' 
or ``present'' on the commission bill. If we pass this amendment, if we 
pass the commission bill, it would prevent us from passing legislation 
to ban soft money, to clean up third-party expenditures and to 
accomplish many very important substantive reforms.
  I ask my colleagues who are cosponsors to vote ``no'' or ``present.''
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White).
  Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana very 
much for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take a few moments to respond to 
the gentlewoman from New York who, I have to say, has been a wonderful 
partner to have in our process of putting together the commission bill. 
I understand that she is torn in this situation and the situation that 
many of us find ourselves in. But I would say the gentlewoman is 
absolutely right to make the point that the Shays-Meehan bill is a 
modest proposal. That is exactly what is wrong with it. It is not a 
comprehensive reform. And we are losing the chance to have a commission 
that

[[Page H4693]]

would develop comprehensive reform simply to do a few modest things 
that frankly are more of the same, more of the same regulations that we 
have had in the past.
  Mr. Chairman, to say that we are going to lose the chance to really 
reform the system so that we can do some modest little things right now 
does not make sense to me.
  I know some people have suggested that we should add the commission 
process to the Shays-Meehan approach, and I would respectfully suggest, 
just what does that mean? What would it mean to say, we are going to 
have a commission that gets to write all the rules, but it is going to 
be appended to a bill that writes some other rules, too. The whole 
point of the commission bill is that we do not get to write these rules 
ourselves. We are too involved. We do not have perspective. We always 
want to do it our way. The whole point of the commission is to let a 
neutral group write fair rules so that we can then vote on it up or 
down and we will still have the right to say ``no'' if we think that is 
what we have to do. But any other approach, no matter how we try to 
slice it, no matter how we try to explain it away, no matter how we try 
to it vote on it under the rule that put us in this difficult position 
where we have to vote against a bill that we really like, the fact is 
that if Members vote against the commission bill, they are voting 
against it because they want to do it their way. I would respectfully 
submit that is the problem we have had with every campaign finance bill 
passed by this Congress. We always do it our way, it always feathers 
our nests, and that is the reason we have gotten ourselves in the 
situation we are in right now.

  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to respectfully respond to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. White) my colleague and really partner on the 
commission bill with whom we went through innumerable hours of work on 
this bill. I would really like to point out that Shays-Meehan will 
accomplish banning soft money and third-party disclosure now, and that 
is very important.
  If my colleague recalls that on our negotiations on the commission 
bill, and believe it or not, it was difficult to reach that fragile 
flower of consensus on the commission bill. One of the things that I 
had in my bill was that the commission should address soft money. Some 
Members on the other side of the aisle objected to that being included 
in the commission bill. So then to argue that Shays-Meehan will not be 
comprehensive enough, in all due respect, I do not believe is a very 
genuine argument.
  I would like to point out to all of my colleagues who are sincere 
reformers on both sides of the aisle, is that we can pass Shays-Meehan 
tonight, banning soft money and other proposals, and enact it into law. 
An amendment that is attached to Shays-Meehan with the commission bill 
will not touch the important reforms in Shays-Meehan but will allow all 
the other many good ideas from the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Doolittle), from the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White), from 
everyone here to be considered and reported back in 180 days. But what 
we have before us tonight is a vote where we can actually accomplish 
something, we can actually pass meaningful reform, banning soft money 
tonight.
  As I say, many of us have sat through so many hearings where alleged 
abuses in campaigns, all of which involved soft money. We now have an 
opportunity, in the best of bipartisan spirit, with Shays-Meehan, to 
actually do something about the abuses that many of my friends on the 
other side of the aisle have been critical of. So by passing Shays-
Meehan, we can ban soft money but we can attach the commission bill and 
discuss all of the other options and report back in 180 days.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. If I could make just one point, Mr. Chairman, I am 
one of those who heard much of the testimony and am looking forward to 
the vote. It is unfortunate that we are making a mockery of the 
process. We have a vehicle before us. We hope that we will pass and 
vote on it soon.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to pose a question to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) if I might. She had spoken 
against soft money and we are desirous of banning it. I just wanted to 
read a quote by Mr. Robert F. Bauer. He is a leading Democrat election 
lawyer and counsel for the Ohio Democratic Party in its current suit 
against the FEC to have a court strike down the FEC's allocation 
formula which deals with soft money because the allocation formula 
requires parties, even though they are engaging in issue advocacy, to 
spend 60 percent of that from hard money funds as opposed to what 
everybody else can do from soft money. What he said was, ``Government 
control over money is control over free speech.'' I just wondered how 
she felt about that. Is that a statement that she agrees with or 
disagrees with?
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I certainly support free 
speech. But I think what we need to focus on is what is in front of us, 
not some letter to the Federal Election Commission. And what is in 
front of us is the opportunity to vote for a good, clean bill, a modest 
bill. Many of us would like to have seen much more in it. That is why 
attaching a commission to it will allow us to do more in 180 days, but 
we do not have to wait 180 days. Tonight we can vote on two very 
important reforms. Let us do it. Let us focus on passing Shays-Meehan 
and let our constituents know that we came here to do something far 
more important than work for our own reelections, that we want to do 
something that is important to them, and, that is, reform the campaign 
system.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Solomon).
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, let me just recall Members' attention to 
the procedure that we are under here now. We had the general debate on 
this bill. Now we are on 1 hour of general debate which we have used up 
on the commission alternative. We are now on the 5-minute rule. The 
intention of the 5-minute rule is to allow Members to offer germane 
amendments to this issue.

                              {time}  1845

  We have been on this for some time now. Some of the debate has been 
interesting, but we are going too far with this, and there are Members 
on their side of the aisle and on ours that say that someone is 
stalling, they want to drag this thing out. We have gone past the 
intended hour of debate, we are now on the amendment process, and no 
amendments are being offered.
  My point is that now we ought to move on. If there are not going to 
be amendments offered, we ought to have a vote on this, and then we 
ought to move on to regular procedure and get this House moving. That 
is regular order.
  Mr. POMBO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to echo the chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  I am one of those dirty dozen that wanted to vote on these issues. 
There is proper discussion, there is proper dialogue, but I would ask 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to remember we are here to 
vote on this issue eventually, so I think the time has come for us to 
be able to do what we say we want to do, and that is vote either for or 
against proposed legislation as it comes up.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I would just observe I do not think any 
of this debate has in any way been improper. I mean this is getting 
right to the heart of what these issues are, and frankly I would just 
want to say that I

[[Page H4694]]

think we are going to have to have this kind of freewheeling debate to 
really bring out the different points of view. I have no desire to 
prolong it, and if there is no desire to offer amendments, I have no 
objection to going to a vote.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). If there are no further 
speakers, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 156, 
noes 201, answered ``present'' 68, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 241]

                               AYES--156

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Bryant
     Burr
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fossella
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jones
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Pappas
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Capps
     Carson
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goode
     Granger
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Luther
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Porter
     Poshard
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Tierney
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--68

     Andrews
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Becerra
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clement
     Cramer
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fox
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Harman
     Hilliard
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Leach
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     McCarthy (NY)
     McHale
     Minge
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rivers
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thurman
     Torres
     Turner
     Wamp
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Cooksey
     Gonzalez
     Greenwood
     Hastings (FL)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kasich
     McNulty
     Schumer
     Sherman

                              {time}  1913

  Mrs. CHENOWETH changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SNOWBARGER, HEFLEY, SHADEGG, and NETHERCUTT changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Messrs. CRAMER, BECERRA and RAHALL changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``present.''
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH and Mr. BOEHLERT, and Mrs. CLAYTON, Mrs. KENNELLY of 
Connecticut and Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri changed their vote from 
``present'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Sununu, 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 bill (H.R. 
2183) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reform the 
financing of campaigns for elections for Federal office, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________