[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 80 (Thursday, June 18, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4772-H4807]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN INTEGRITY ACT OF 1997

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 458 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page H4773]]

                              H. Res. 458

       Resolved, That during 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, in the Committee of 
     the Whole House on the State of the Union pursuant to House 
     Resolution 442, all points of order against each amendment 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution are waived if the amendment is offered by a 
     Member designated in the report. An amendment so offered 
     shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I might consume. During consideration 
of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the second resolution defining the rules of 
debate for the campaign finance bill, and it fulfills the promise made 
by the Speaker for a full and open debate on campaign finance reform. 
House Resolution 458 provides for the further consideration of H.R. 
2183, the Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act. The rule makes in order 
amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying this 
resolution to be offered by the Member designated in the report. The 
rule also waives all points of order against those amendments and 
provides that they shall be considered as read.
  I do want to mention that the second rule identifies a certain subset 
of possible perfecting amendments, those printed in the accompanying 
report of the Committee on Rules. For those amendments the second rule 
waives all points of order, thereby partially superseding the terms of 
the first rule, H. Res. 442.
  Mr. Speaker, by way of review, the House passed the rule in late May 
that provided for general debate in consideration not only of the 
constitutional amendment but also provided for the consideration of 11 
amendments in the nature of a substitute with a bipartisan freshman 
reform bill serving as the base text. That rule allowed for the 
consideration of any germane amendment to the 11 substitutes to reform 
our campaign finance laws. Today in order to allow for consideration of 
as many amendments as possible this second rule makes in order every 
amendment submitted to the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot ask for a more fair and open amending process. 
The debate rules will ensure the most open debate process in the 
history of campaign finance reform, as was promised by Speaker Gingrich 
and the Republican majority. Unfortunately the Democrat opponents of 
open debate promised to close down the process, allow consideration of 
only one bill and foreclose all other opinions on this subject. 
Democrats will ironically ask for closed rules or procedures that they 
used for 40 years to subvert popular legislation and undermine open 
debate, and, in addition, a recent Washington Post editorial expressed 
its distress that the open process may actually permit the substitute 
that has the most support to win. I find it interesting that wide open 
rules are now considered shams when the Democrats are not getting their 
way.
  Let us review the history of campaign finance. When it came time to 
reform these laws the old Democrat Committee on Rules muzzled the 
minority and forced a closed rule upon us. Not only were we allowed to 
offer only one amendment to the entire bill, but the Democrats refused 
to allow us the basic right to offer a motion to recommit with 
instructions. This was not an isolated incident, but rather a pattern 
of suppressed debate on this issue in Democrat Congresses. In the 102nd 
Congress Democrats again stifled open and free debate with a similarly 
closed gag rule.
  Mr. Speaker, rather than suppress debate, the Republican Congress has 
offered a wide open rule. Only weeks ago leading proponents of campaign 
finance reform were celebrating. Now apparently they only want to 
debate their own proposals. It is not enough that they want us to pass 
laws to limit and regulate political expression and free speech, but 
they also want to limit it and restrict free speech here in the House 
when we debate and consider these bills.
  Up in the Committee on Rules we listened to testimony from Members 
requesting that we make their amendments in order. What did we do? We 
granted their requests and made their amendments in order. Now it 
strikes me as rather disingenuous and somewhat hypocritical for Members 
to submit these amendments to the Committee on Rules and then oppose 
the rule after we made their amendments in order. I have concluded that 
many Members on the other side of the aisle have decided that they just 
do not want to vote on some particular amendments. We are going to have 
a vote on banning contributions from noncitizens, prohibiting fund-
raising on Federal property, prohibiting solicitation to obtain access 
to the White House or Air Force One and establishing penalties for 
violating the prohibition against foreign contributions.
  While I understand why the Democrats would not want to vote on these 
issues, each of these amendments deserves consideration. This rule 
allows us to debate these important issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think we need a massive overhaul of our 
campaign finance laws, but I do have concerns about campaign financing. 
These concerns are about illegal money from the People's Liberation 
Army, illegal campaigning in Federal property and illegal campaign 
donations from Buddhist monks. We have laws that prevent that already, 
and I believe it would be more useful if we can get some kind of 
assurance that the current laws that we have on the books are going to 
be honored. These new campaign proposals will do nothing to stop the 
kind of shameless disregard for that law that we saw in 1996.
  Mr. Speaker, let us enforce the current laws, and if it is necessary 
to consider more campaign legislation, let us have an open process that 
allows for a full debate on all pertinent issues. This rule provides 
for that kind of open debate.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rules so we may proceed with 
consideration of each of the substitute campaign finance reform bills 
and any amendment which is offered.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Armey).
  Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I would like to 
make a statement before the body.
  I have had the opportunity to discuss this work with so many 
interested Members, and indeed there are a great many interested 
Members. I am particularly responding here relating to the discussions 
I had with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) 
and discussions with members on the leadership, including the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and others, and I want to give the body every 
assurance that while, one, we appreciate the cooperation and interest 
everyone has in this bill, they should be assured that this bill will 
be completed.
  Proceedings on this bill in this House will be completed in their 
entirety by the August recess, and I would implore all Members of the 
body to be willing to work with the floor managers. We will make the 
time available. Work with the floor managers, restrain yourselves from 
deleterious taxes, let us keep our attention on this bill. We will make 
ample time available, and we will be done with House proceedings on 
this bill by the August recess with a good spirit of cooperation by all 
interested parties.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My friend from Texas is leaving the Chamber. He has just committed 
that we will complete consideration 7 weeks from today. If I understand 
what he just said, 7 weeks from today.
  Mr. Speaker, if the first campaign finance reform rule reported from 
the Committee on Rules were not proof enough, I bring to my colleagues' 
attention rule No. 2. This rule is proof positive that the Republican 
leadership has absolutely no intention of letting Members of the House 
decide if we do

[[Page H4774]]

or do not want campaign finance reform this year. This rule assures 
that the House will never be able to come to a conclusion on this issue 
despite the assurances of the majority leader that we will do it in the 
next 7 weeks.
  In the name of free and open debate the Republican leadership has 
perverted the process into a cynical exercise. That is fine, Mr. 
Speaker, just as long as everyone understands what is happening here. 
As my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, when I was first learning about 
rules and procedure in the House, I was told the story of how one 
European parliament was never able to reach a decision because it did 
not have the parliamentary device of the previous question. It was 
unable to end debate, and consequently that parliament failed in its 
attempt to do its business. It seems to me that this rule puts this 
body at the dawn of the new millennium in the same boat as was that 
parliament. We will be unable to reach a decision.
  In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership is living up 
to its promise that the House will consider campaign reform, campaign 
finance reform, but they are doing that by assuring that the House will 
consider campaign finance reform a very, very, very long time, and that 
if we should by chance finish this legislation 7 weeks from now, of 
course it will be so late in the session that it will be impossible for 
the other body to act.
  No longer will the Senate be able to lay sole claim to ownership of 
the filibuster. The Republican leadership has devised a new and 
original form of filibuster which we will all be able to participate in 
over the course of the next 7 weeks at a very minimum. If we awarded 
points around here for originality, the Republican leadership would 
certainly rate a 10.
  But that is not all, Mr. Speaker. The amendments made in order by 
this rule are totally nongermane to the issue of reforming the campaign 
finance laws in this country. Let me give my colleagues just a sample 
of the amendments made in order in the name of free and open debate.
  First, an amendment which would require unions to report their 
financial activities by functional category and which would require 
those reports to be posted on the Internet. Or how about this amendment 
that would require the President to post on the Internet the name of 
any passenger on Air Force One or Air Force Two within 30 days of the 
flight.
  The rule makes in order many other amendments, but can someone please 
tell me what this amendment has to do with campaign finance reform? The 
rule entitles the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) to offer an 
amendment to each and every substitute which seeks to repeal motor 
voter. The point is, Mr. Speaker, this rule, like the first campaign 
finance rule, is specifically designed to ensure that the House will 
never get a clean up or down vote on Shays-Meehan. We will go through 
the futile exercise of amending 11 substitutes that are germane and 258 
nongermane amendments, and only then, after we go through the entire 
process, will we be able to determine if there is in fact a winner. 
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, this process does not allow for a winner. 
It makes us all losers.
  The Republican leadership has kept its promise to allow debate on 
campaign finance reform, but this process is too clever by half. This 
is a ruse, and none of us should forget it for a moment.
  In order that the House might have the opportunity to actually reach 
a decision it is my intention to oppose the previous question on this 
resolution. Then, Mr. Speaker, should the House defeat the previous 
question, it will be my intention to offer a rule which mirrors the 
rule proposed in the original discharge petition on campaign finance. 
That rule, of course, was designed to allow the House to actually reach 
an end to the debate on the question of campaign finance reform. The 
substitute rule will allow for 1 hour of debate on each of 11 
substitutes. It will allow the House to choose under a most-votes win 
procedure which of the substitutes is a preferred vehicle for further 
amendment. Once the House makes that choice, there would be 10 hours to 
consider germane amendments. The rule I propose, Mr. Speaker, would 
place a reasonable time frame of consideration of campaign finance 
reform.
  That being said, Mr. Speaker, I would urge every Member of the House 
to oppose the previous question and to support the rule which I will 
offer.
  In any case, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to 
notice my intention to support an important germane amendment to the 
Shays-Meehan substitute. As Members who have studied the history of 
campaign financing are aware, when the Supreme Court handed down its 
decision in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, it struck down one of the four 
essential pillars of the campaign legislation passed by the Congress 
and, as a result, left an unbalanced and unstable package standing. 
Because the entire act was designed to be a package, when the Court 
struck down one part, the campaign finance laws were left without an 
essential component which had been envisioned as critical to making 
those reforms work.
  Therefore, it is my strong belief that if we are going to create new 
campaign finance laws, it is critically important that any legislation 
should include a nonseverability clause so that the entire package will 
stand or fall even if one component might later be struck down by the 
courts. Should this happen, Mr. Speaker, without a nonseverability 
clause, we will be right back where we are today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take a moment to point 
out that the gentleman who just spoke is supporting all kinds of 
campaign finance reform except that which would include regulating 
labor union contributions from whom he received $427,000 in the last 
campaign cycle.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), the majority whip of the House.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote for an open and honest debate.
  Mr. Speaker, my response to the gentleman from Texas who just spoke 
is, what chutzpa. What chutzpa. The gentleman is now against the rule 
after calling for open and honest debate, because this rule does not 
reflect exactly the way that he wants the rule to reflect; therefore, 
we need an open and honest debate.
  Let me put this into perspective. After the last election, the 
Clinton administration violated campaign laws. Most people understand 
that, most people have seen it, using the Air Force One, Lincoln 
bedroom, raising money on telephones, going to temples, all of these 
kinds of things. In order to cover that, his party decided to call for 
campaign finance reform and have, for now well over a year, wanting 
open and honest debate right down here on the floor in this well.
  They have called for open and honest debate. They want open and 
honest debate. Well, this rule grants us the opportunity to have that 
full and complete debate on the state of our campaign laws.
  We feel that we ought to look at more than just limiting free speech, 
as the minority wants to do, but we ought to look at all of our 
campaign laws, those that have been broken, those that have the 
potential to be broken; look at everything about a campaign, not just 
finances.
  Some of my colleagues are now complaining, complaining that the 
debate will be too open, too comprehensive, too complete. Well, when we 
first announced that we would have an open rule, some of these 
colleagues were exuberant. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) on the 
other side of the aisle said, this is great, this is exciting, after he 
learned that we would bring an open rule to the floor. My friend, the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) said it was a great day for 
democracy. Fred Wertheimer, Fred Wertheimer of Common Cause said it was 
a real breakthrough. But now the so-called reformers are complaining 
because this debate will be too open for their taste.
  Well, apparently, the only kind of open debate they want is the 
debate on their proposals. In their minds, the only reforms worth real 
discussion are their reforms.
  Well, I think this attitude is typical of the wider debate. The 
reformers believe that the campaign system is so

[[Page H4775]]

corrupt, so broken that government has to step in and regulate 
political expression and freedom of speech. They are so convinced of 
the morality of their own position that they refuse to entertain other 
ideas of true reform. Today they want to limit debate on their own 
proposals, rather than open it up to the free market of ideas. And this 
rule allows that free market of ideas to work on this floor. I am 
looking forward to it.
  Now, in my view, the real reason we are having this debate at all is 
because of the abuses of the Clinton campaign in this last election. 
The administration wants to change the subject. They remind me of the 
boy who killed both of his parents and then begged for mercy because he 
was an orphan. The Clinton campaign brazenly broke the campaign laws, 
and then begged for mercy, claiming the campaign system was broken.
  We need to have debate on these laws that were broken. We need to 
have a better understanding of why we are here today so that we can 
better understand where we are headed.
  So I urge my colleagues to support and vote for the previous question 
and vote for this rule so that we can get to the debate.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago Speaker Gingrich and President 
Clinton shook hands on national television, promising to tackle 
campaign finance reform and to restore the American people's faith in 
our electoral system. Since that time, the Republican leadership has 
done everything in their power to block campaign finance reform and to 
keep the spigots of special interest money flowing.
  First, the Speaker and the Republican leadership simply tried to 
ignore the promise that they made to the public. Apparently, a man's 
handshake does not mean what it used to.
  Next, under mounting public pressure, the Republican leadership tried 
to fool the American people with so-called reform that they rushed 
through without debate, and then virtually every major newspaper and 
public interest group called this maneuver a sham.
  Finally, after a discharge petition threatening to force a full and 
an open debate on campaign finance reform, the Republican leadership 
devised a new strategy to kill it, and that is the process we are in 
now. It is called ``Death By Amendment.'' That is right. Instead of 
allowing a clean vote on a bipartisan Meehan-Shays bill, they are 
trying to amend it to death with irrelevant riders and killer 
provisions.
  We say, well, how many amendments? Mr. Speaker, 258 amendments. That 
is right. The Republican leadership has crafted a rule permitting 258 
amendments to divide, to derail, to destroy any possibility of 
substantive, bipartisan reform.
  A lot of these amendments do not even have anything to do with 
campaign finance reform. They are poison pills. They are what we call 
booby traps, and each of these amendments, if adopted, could open a 
floodgate of new amendments. These amendments are the legislative 
equivalent of a ball and chain designed to cripple campaign reform so 
that they can push it overboard and watch it sink.
  The Los Angeles Times calls this Republican strategy a dirty ploy. 
The New York Times calls it GOP trickery. I call it shameful. Polls in 
this country show that 90 percent of Americans think our campaign 
finance system needs fundamental change or to be completely rebuilt. 
But the Speaker has said that the problem with our political system is 
not the lack of reform, but that we do not spend enough money, we do 
not spend enough money on campaigns.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans do not want more special interest money in 
elections; they want less. And they are tired of seeing campaigns that 
cost tens of millions of dollars. They are tired of seeing their TV 
sets flooded with nasty attack ads, and they are tired of outsiders 
turning their communities into war zones where special interest groups 
launch air wars that drown out local candidates, local issues, and the 
voices of individual voters.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people want campaign finance reform. Why do 
you not honor, why do you not honor that handshake?
  Today I call on you and the rest of the Republican leadership to stop 
the cynical charade. Americans want real reform, no more talk, and they 
want it now. They do not want it in 7 weeks, they do not want it on a 
promise. We have heard those promises before. I say to the majority 
leader, we have heard those promises over the last 3 years. Three years 
after your handshake, the time has come. Not for the strategies of ``do 
little, delay, death by amendment,'' but a strategy of real reform. Let 
this House have a clean vote on a bipartisan Meehan-Shays bill and let 
us start to clean up America's political campaign finance system.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question, ``no'' on the rule. We need to go back to the process 
established on the discharge petition with an up-or-down vote on reform 
and time limits on amendments.
  I see the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), the king of raising 
money in this institution, as well as my friend from Texas (Mr. DeLay); 
and he is going to get up and he is going to suggest to those in the 
public that we have been receiving campaign contributions. All of us 
have. Every one of us has. The question is, how are we going to reform 
it now? We stand ready. They do not. That is the difference. Let us get 
on with reform.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. McInnis), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the statement that the 
gentleman from Michigan makes. He talks about the spigots of special 
money flowing. That is a quote from the gentleman from Michigan.
  The gentleman from Michigan takes 57 percent of his money from 
political action committees, and most of that political action 
committee money comes from labor unions. Well, guess what? Some of us 
kind of agree with the gentleman. Maybe there ought to be an amendment 
that addresses that union money the gentleman gets and that PAC money 
he gets.
  But the gentleman from Michigan, in my opinion, stands in front of 
all of us and says, hey, what is this open rule? What do you mean, 
somebody else besides me has amendments? What do you mean, somebody 
else on this floor may be entitled to their opinion on what this bill 
should or should not contain? If it is what I agree with, let us have a 
closed rule. That is the only thing we ought to debate.
  But the gentleman is telling me that Scott McInnis from Colorado 
wants to prevent contributions in a swap to ride on Air Force One? Why 
should Scott McInnis be allowed to offer an amendment on that? I say to 
the gentleman from Michigan, it is all fine and dandy when the 
gentleman gets his bill heard, or when he gets his amendment, but I 
happen to be one of those 270 amendments. In fact, I have several of 
those 270 amendments, and I think I am as entitled to debate that on 
this House floor as the gentleman is.
  I am more than happy, and I am going to put in the Record the amount 
of money I get. I do not think it is rotten money. I think it is a 
right to be an American, a right of being an American to contribute to 
candidates one likes and to contribute against candidates one does not.
  Now, obviously the key is disclosure, and I do not mind disclosing 
every Friday afternoon on the Internet who gave money to me. But do not 
prevent me from being competitive with the Al Checcis of California. If 
someone does not like who contributes to me, vote ``no,'' but do not 
take the money like the gentleman from Michigan and then stand up here 
and say how horrible that money is.
  Mr. Speaker, 57 percent of that money came from political action 
committees. And yet the gentleman says, and I repeat it, ``spigots of 
special money.'' Come on. Let us get a debate here.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. Levin asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, look, what is the difference between rule 1 
and rule 2? Rule 2 allows nongermane amendments, 258. Why do they want 
nongermane amendments? That is not the traditional pattern on this 
floor. Is

[[Page H4776]]

it to promote free speech? Not for a moment. My colleagues tried 
earlier to choke campaign reform.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LINDER. Is the gentleman seeking a response?
  Mr. LEVIN. Yes.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, we are allowing nongermane amendments 
because many Democrats, as well as Republicans, asked for their 
amendments to be made in order.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I say to the gentleman, I 
think every Democrat would be glad to withdraw them if the gentleman 
will withdraw his nongermane amendments. Would the gentleman agree to 
that?
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I have 
the good fortune of not having any amendments.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman agree to that?
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I will agree to withdraw any amendments that 
I was going to propose.
  Mr. LEVIN. No, no. Will the gentleman agree to ask all the 
Republicans to withdraw all their nongermane amendments if we get all 
Democrats to do that?
  No, no, I will take back my time.
  The reason the gentleman does not want to do that is because allowing 
nongermane amendments is a strategy, it is a tactic. At first the 
gentleman tried to choke campaign reform with a very restrictive rule 
and attacked it. Some of the gentleman's own Members rebelled with 
virtually all of us Democrats. So that did not work, and now 
essentially the gentleman wants to drown it.
  I heard last night some of the Republican Members, I say to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) coming up here and talking about 
left-wing Democrats who want campaign reform, who want Shays-Meehan, 
like John McCain, that left-wing Democrat. I understand Fred Thompson 
supports it, that left-wing Democrat; the gentleman from Connecticut, 
Chris Shays, is he a left-wing Democrat?.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) for yielding me this time. I appreciate his work on the 
Committee on Rules in developing this rule.
  I support the rule that is before the House today making in order a 
number of amendments to various campaign finance proposals before us. I 
have a stake in this fight. There is the freshman bill, the Hutchinson-
Allen bill that is before this body is the base bill, and yes, there 
are many amendments that have been offered even to that base bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is important for the American public 
and important for this body that we have an open and fair debate. In 
the short time that we have engaged in this debate thus far, I think 
the American public has seen ideas expressed on this floor. I believe 
it has been an education process. It is helpful for people as they 
evaluate the direction of our country on this issue.
  I want to respond to the minority whip, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Bonior), who talked about promises not being kept. First of all, 
the propositions that were made by the Speaker were in reference to the 
Commission bill that a commission be formed. That was voted on 
yesterday and defeated on the House floor, but the Speaker supported 
that, even though many Democrats opposed it.
  The Republican leadership, I am delighted, have created this rule 
that is an open and fair debate. Perhaps we all got into this 
reluctantly, but we are here now; and I am also pleased that a deadline 
has been set in which we can complete this reform battle, and that we 
will have a final vote on campaign finance reform on this floor.

                              {time}  1545

  I think this is tremendous progress. I am concerned about amendments 
that are offered, but it is both the Republicans and the Democrats. The 
Democrats have offered 74 amendments requesting the Committee on Rules 
to approve those amendments for consideration on this floor. I believe 
over 20 of them have been offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Meehan), the gentleman who has offered one of the campaign reform 
proposals.
  So we all need to withdraw and to restrict the debate, perhaps, in 
terms of looking at the amendments. Are they substantive? Are they 
political? Are they making statements? Do they poison the debate?
  And I believe we need to complete it sooner than August. We need to 
complete it by mid-July, and I am asking for support for the rule for 
this very important debate.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
  (Mr. MEEHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this second rule on 
campaign finance reform. As the New York Times editorialized yesterday, 
``Newt Gingrich and other foes have lined the road [to reform] with 
mines and booby traps.''
  The Washington Post reported yesterday that ``the House leadership 
continues to mock its promise to allow a clean vote on campaign finance 
reform.''
  Mr. Speaker, this rule will result in 250 amendments potentially 
being offered to the Shays-Meehan bill. It is an attempt, and no one is 
fooled by this blatant attempt to drown the Shays-Meehan bill by 
frivolous amendments. Just as anti-reformers in the other body have 
filibustered the McCain-Feingold bill, it is clear that the defenders 
of the status quo in the House hope to manipulate the legislative 
process.
  As I listen to the debate and as we prepare for the debate, this 
going back and forth where they check all the Members' reports and then 
come out and attack every Member for how much money they raised and 
where they raised it from, the reality is all that serves to do is 
undermine the debate.
  Why do we not have a nice, clean, honest debate about the need to 
reduce the role of money in politics? But instead, we are scurrying 
around doing 1\1/2\ minutes' worth of opposition research trying to 
embarrass any Member of the House who comes to the floor to fight for 
reform.
  This reform legislation which is going to come before the House has 
nothing to do with the campaign finance reports of any Member of this 
House. What it has to do with is making soft money illegal. What it has 
to do with is making the independent expenditures that are polluting 
campaigns all across America not illegal, but to allow disclosure so 
people in America know who is funding what in terms of ability to 
influence elections.
  The Shays-Meehan bill is bicameral. It is bipartisan. We deserve an 
up-or-down vote. We should not have this vote cluttered by 250 
amendments.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the rule. I do not think we can have campaign 
finance reform outside of the context of election reform. There are 
certainly those in this House who would like to talk about only one 
element of what is wrong with our campaigns. This rule allows more than 
that to happen.
  How do we enforce the laws we have? The White House has done a great 
job since November of 1996 talking about the fact that the reason they 
violated the laws that we had was because we did not have enough laws. 
Nobody believes that. The worst thing we can do when people do not obey 
the rules is create more rules.
  Mr. Speaker, if we have teenage children at home and they are not 
obeying the rules, the last thing we do is say we are going to double 
the number of rules. We have to debate in this context how we enforce 
the rules. Enforcing the rules matters. That has to be part of this 
discussion.
  Somebody raised the issue of motor-voter, whether that related to 
campaign finance reform. We have really made it impossible for local 
jurisdictions that used to do a good job maintaining the integrity of 
their voter rolls to do that. Money is spent to turn out votes of 
people who are not on the

[[Page H4777]]

voter rolls. That is definitely an election reform, it is a campaign 
finance reform.
  Certainly this rule is an open rule, but it is going to end in 7 
weeks. We heard that commitment. This debate is going to go on as we 
have time for the next 7 weeks. Seven weeks is an important amount of 
time to talk about the future of the election process in America.
  We clearly do not talk about this very often. We are talking now 
about reforms that were made a quarter of a century ago. We can spend 7 
weeks talking about the reforms that are likely to be the reforms for 
the next quarter of a century. We need this open rule. We need a broad 
debate. We need this rule. I support it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the speakers on the other side are, of course, very fast 
and loose with facts and with innuendo. The White House has never said 
they violated any campaign law during the last election. The only 
person convicted of violating the campaign law in the last 2 years is 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Kim), a Republican Member of this 
House.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we are voting here today on a 
rule. Let us be clear what that rule does. That rule allows over 100 
amendments that are nongermane, which means unrelated to the bills we 
are about to take up.
  This is a sham. It is an attempt to defeat the real proposals that 
are before this House. We have already adopted a rule that allows 
germane amendments, that means amendments related to the bill, to come 
up in an unlimited number. So why should we be allowing unrelated 
amendments now to come up?
  And what exactly are the merits that are not being addressed here 
today in substance, but being addressed in an attempt that drown it in 
extra amendments? A ban on soft money, those unlimited sums of money 
that are given both to the Democratic and Republican Party that should 
cease and which cannot be, in my judgment, rationally defended on the 
floor of this House.
  Secondly, outside interest groups running political ads in 
congressional districts around the country. Anonymous political 
advertising. Groups that have maintained that the courts say they have 
a right to do anonymous political ads. Ridiculous.
  These are the merits of the issues. This is what we need to debate. 
We do not need to adopt a rule that allows unrelated issues exceeding 
100 in number to come up and cloud the facts.
  Mr. Speaker, we should get to the facts, get to the merits. Ban soft 
money. Say that anybody that cares to run television commercials in 
congressional districts around the country must put their names on 
those ads. People are entitled to know who is at work. Let us defeat 
the rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting that the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis), who just spoke against this rule because it was 
too open, put out a press release on March 30 of this year where he 
said, ``The Republican leadership has deprived the House of 
Representatives of a fair debate on cleaning up our campaign finance 
system. Instead,'' he said, ``instead the leadership is using a 
parliamentary maneuver that grossly limits debate and prevents any 
amendments from being offered.''
  Well, Mr. Speaker, we are not. We are using a normal procedure to 
allow any amendment being offered, and now he is offended by that. I 
wish he would make up his mind.
  Mr. Speaker, I point out to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) when 
he said the White House has never said they violated any campaign laws 
that, no, I know that. They have never admitted to anything they have 
done, nor will they.
  But the fact of the matter is, the President did say on tape, with 
his face showing on the tape, that ``We discovered we could raise gobs 
of money in 50- to $100,000 chunks through this loophole in the law and 
put it on the air.'' Now, when a candidate spends over the $70 million 
money that the taxpayers give him is illegal on its face.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I really do not understand why the other 
side would be so surprised that there are so many amendments being 
offered on these bills. When we have bills that so blatantly trample on 
constitutional rights, I think those of us on the other side have an 
obligation to introduce amendments to try to prevent that from 
happening.
  Justice Holmes in a case of Abrams v. U.S., 1919, in speaking about 
political campaigns, said that ``The ultimate good desired is better 
reached by free trade in ideas; that the best test of truth is the 
power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the 
marketplace.''
  Most of these bills introduced drastically diminish the rights and 
opportunities for individuals who are not candidates to participate in 
the political system. I have heard some on the other side today say we 
have to reform the way the candidates receive their money, and yet 
these bills do not talk about the way candidates receive their money. 
It talks about the way other people who are not involved in the 
political system spend their money.
  Then we hear so much about special interest. And I have asked many of 
them what is a special interest, and I never do get an answer. But I 
finally have come to the conclusion that if someone does not like 
someone else's views, then that is a special interest. But if they like 
the views that are talking about, then they are probably good and wise 
public advocates.
  Then we also hear about we have got to know who runs these ads. If we 
look at these ads on television or radio, there are disclaimers that 
say who paid for them.
  The minority leader recently introduced a constitutional amendment 
saying we have to change the Constitution if we are going to pass some 
of these bills. And yet when it came up for a floor vote, only 29 
Members voted for it. Yet despite that, some of our colleagues still 
want a restrictive rule to aid and abet their tampering with our 
cherished First Amendment rights.
  On a subject matter this important, the American people deserve the 
opportunity to listen to all sides of the debate, even if it is 400 
amendments. So what are they afraid of? They are afraid that an open 
debate will reveal that Federal courts and the Supreme Court have 
consistently struck down FEC regulations that diminish the speech-
crushing provisions of the legislation they are bringing to the floor.
  They are also afraid that the American people will realize that their 
proposal does not address the abuses which occurred during the Clinton-
Gore scramble for cash in the 1996 elections. They do not address fund-
raising in Buddhist temples. They do not address banning fund-raising 
in the Lincoln bedroom. They do not address banning making phone calls 
from the White House. So that is why we need this open rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I take money from working people in this 
country for my campaign, from teachers, carpenters, electricians, 
nurses, and I am proud of those dollars from those folks.
  Mr. Speaker, I tell my colleagues what I do not do. I do not take 
tobacco dollars and I do not try to kill tobacco legislation because I 
am in the pocket of the tobacco companies.
  But I will tell my colleagues who is. Today's Washington Post: ``GOP 
Kills McCain Tobacco Bill. The bill's demise was a victory for the 
Nation's leading cigarette makers who have spent millions lobbying 
against it, in addition to making substantial contributions to the 
Republican Party.''


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The gentleman will state his 
point of order.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to whether it is 
in order for the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to be 
talking about another subject when we are talking about this rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The debate should be focused.

[[Page H4778]]

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this is the campaign finance rule, as I 
understand.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The debate must be relevant to the rule.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, campaign finance is relevant to the 
campaign finance rule.
  Mr. Speaker, take a look at the amount of money that tobacco 
companies have provided to the Republican committees in 1996: $4.5 
million. Now, if they want to tell us that they do not hold up 
legislation because of the money they take from the tobacco lobby, just 
listen to the words of one of their own.

                              {time}  1600

  Linda Smith from Washington State, Wall Street Journal, 2 days ago, 
she says that she discovered that it was commonplace for the GOP 
majority to hold up action on bills while milking interested 
contributors for more campaign contributions. I said, we do that? Is 
that not extortion?
  Let me just say, the America public is very clear on what our 
Republican colleagues are doing. They have put up this rule which has 
258, and it may be 270 according to the gentleman from Colorado, 
amendments that do not have anything to do and are nongermane to the 
issue of campaign finance reform.
  Americans are not fooled. The New York Times calls their tactics 
``death by amendment,'' a filibuster in disguise. The Los Angeles Times 
calls it a ``dirty ploy.'' Even Republicans admit that they are selling 
snake oil. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) has said, we tried 
squelching it; now we are going to try talking it to death.
  Oppose this rule. Let us have meaningful campaign finance reform.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
wish the gentlewoman from Connecticut would have yielded to me, because 
I wanted to ask a question.
  It is all well and good to point out the contributions; and I 
appreciate the contributions, although her side claims all these 
contributions are corrupt. She failed to point out that Ted Sioeng that 
sells Red Pagoda cigarettes, Chinese cigarettes, gave money to her 
party and to the President of the United States when he was running for 
reelection. A little vignette that she failed to bring up.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, last night we had an 
opportunity to pass real campaign finance reform; and for the fourth 
time, the GOP leadership pulled it out from beneath us. I am beginning 
to feel a little bit like Charlie Brown running to kick the ball. Just 
as he is about to approach the ball, Lucy moves it.
  The truth of the matter is, the GOP House leadership knows that if a 
real campaign finance bill hits the floor, it just might pass, and that 
scares them, and that is the reason that we have this convoluted rule, 
258 nongermane amendments put in order.
  In my entire congressional career, I have had maybe four amendments 
accepted by the Committee on Rules. Yet, this time, they have accepted 
25 on this one issue alone, 25 of my own amendments.
  To put it in perspective, in the last Congress, in the second session 
of the last Congress, 150 amendments were ruled in order. Yet, on this 
one bill, there are 258 amendments ruled. Rules are meant to guide the 
Congress toward a decision, not to delay. Vote against the rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, leadership is about getting results. This rule that we 
are about to vote on ensures no leadership. It ensures a lot of talk, 
but no results. Campaign finance reform is complicated because we have 
to reform all of the law; we have to do the whole system.
  It is ironic that I just heard the GOP leadership get up and say, we 
do not want to change the law, we just want to have a debate on a few 
amendments. Yet, yesterday, when my colleagues proposed to the House 
how we are going to deal with the complicated tax reform, their 
solution was to throw the whole thing out.
  Today, we need to overhaul the system, but we do not have to do it by 
addressing 258 amendments. We need to have leadership that we have seen 
this House have before.
  Let me show my colleagues what the history of this House is. In the 
101st Congress, 1989 and 1990, H.R. 5400 was introduced by our 
colleague, Al Swift. It went through the House by a vote of 255 to 155. 
Fifteen Republicans voted yes. The bill was adopted in the Senate.
  The 102nd Congress, 1991 and 1992, H.R. 3750 by the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), voted off this floor, passed the House by 
273 votes to 156 votes. That bill went on to conference and ended up 
going to President Bush on May 5, and he vetoed the bill. That bill did 
everything that all of these amendments are talking about, that all of 
this debate is talking about. We do not even have that bill as one of 
the major bills this time.
  The 103rd Congress back in 1993-1994, when most of us came here, this 
passed the House in November 1993 by a vote of 255 to 175, another bill 
by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
  The point is that leadership is about getting results. Results are 
about getting a bill out of this House and a bill that is 
comprehensive, just like the bills that my colleagues were talking 
about yesterday for tax reform.
  Defeat this rule, bring a substantive bill up, and let us pass that.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) just a few moments ago and to 
agree that when we have a proposal of this magnitude, it deserves a lot 
of discussion. When we have a bill that has such chilling potential 
limits on free speech and free expression that even the ACLU is 
horrified by its prospects, then the American people need to have a 
full and open debate about this issue; and that is what this rule 
provides.
  Several weeks ago, the Committee on Rules passed a rule which 
outlined the debate for this proposal. It provided for 11 substitutes 
to the freshman bill. These substitutes include ideas offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Tierney), the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), and others.
  Today, this rule provides for even further important amendments which 
we believe will improve the proposals. But some of my friends on the 
other side of the aisle want to quash this debate. The minority leader 
has said that he will raise Holy Ned in order to defeat this rule.
  This should not be about grandstanding. This is about passing a 
meaningful campaign finance proposal that provides for full and open 
disclosure. Let's always come back to that--full and open disclosure. 
Let's let the sunshine in and let the American people decide.
  Day after day, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle complain 
about what they perceive as a stifling of their free speech rights when 
the Committee on Rules brings anything less than an open rule. What do 
we hear today? We hear complaints about too much debate. Either they 
want a free and open dialogue or they want to drive these 
unconstitutional proposals through this body with little debate. They 
cannot have it both ways.
  The same free speech I am trying to protect today allows Members of 
the House to come before the people and debate subjects free from 
government restriction. I look forward to this discourse and believe 
the American people will not drive a hole through the First Amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Linder) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller).

[[Page H4779]]

  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, we will vote on this rule 
shortly. This rule is designed to delay, continue the delay, and to 
destroy the ability to have campaign finance reform. It has been said 
here often that it is death by amendment. That is what is seeking to be 
done here.
  I would hope we would reject this amendment. I would hope we would 
get on with the debate on the Shays-Meehan bill and the people would 
keep their eye on the ball.
  We all understand exactly where we are today. We are in the middle of 
a system that the public has lost confidence in. We are in the middle 
of a campaign financing system in this House and the Senate and many 
other governmental bodies that is corroding the basis on which we make 
decisions.
  We now see, after taking millions of dollars from the tobacco 
industry, the Senate kills the tobacco bill. We now see a Member from 
the State of Washington (Mrs. Smith) saying that she has witnessed the 
people extorting or holding back legislation until they can continue to 
raise money. That is what is taking place. This leadership does not 
make any decisions until they calculate how in fact the money is taken. 
Money is considered in the presentation of bills, presentation of 
amendments.
  The design here was, the Speaker shook hands with the President 3 
years ago, and now we find ourselves, renounced by the minority leader, 
that by the August break, we will finish consideration and they will 
have accomplished their purpose, because they recognize that that 
leaves little or no time for the Senate to act on this legislation 
should we pass it.
  So they have now kicked us into a new cycle of campaign financing 
where we see time and again the special interests just larding up 
Members of Congress, our committees, our campaign committees, the 
national committees of both parties.
  We spend more and more money every year, and fewer and fewer people 
vote. If Coca-Cola did this, they would throw their board of directors 
out. If General Motors did this, they would throw their board of 
directors out. They would ask, what is wrong? What have we done?
  We have chased people away from the campaigns. We have chased them 
away from participation in democracy.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the 
freshman bipartisan bill, which is the underlying bill for this debate. 
I think it is a fair and a balanced approach, and I am eager to debate 
it.
  I think people are starving for debate on this issue for the right 
reasons, not to divert attention from scandals, not for election year 
politics, not to give either party an advantage. I am excited about 
this debate, and I appreciate the leadership bringing this issue to the 
floor.
  I do not share the concern about 258 amendments. I just finished 
serving in the Texas Legislature. When we would rewrite important parts 
of our law such as rewriting public education code, we would routinely 
have 400 amendments, because we had 400 good ideas and different ideas 
about what education needs to be. We worked through those amendments. 
We worked through the days. We worked through the nights. We finished 
with a good product.
  I have found our colleagues have a lot of good ideas on how to reform 
campaign finance in America, and I want to hear them. I know that some 
of them, I disagree with. Some give parties an advantage rather than 
campaign finance reform. But rather than have either party select those 
amendments in the back rooms, I think they ought to be out front for 
America to debate, to hear, and to judge, and for the will of the House 
to prevail with the deadline in place for commitment to finish this 
bill and finish this debate.
  I support this rule and welcome open, honest debate.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 
6\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) has 5 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Texas have any more 
speakers?
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have speakers, but they are not present on 
the floor at this moment, so I would ask the gentleman to proceed.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the gentleman from Texas 
that he close the debate, because I am prepared to.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared at this point to yield back 
the balance of our time. The minority leader is en route to the 
chamber, and he obviously wants to take part in this debate, and he 
should be given that opportunity.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the Chair is going to have to determine 
whether he wants to recess, because we are ready to close the debate.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote against this rule. 
As I said yesterday on the floor, I think the American people want us 
to get campaign reform, and they want us to get it in a timely manner 
so that it can actually get through the rest of the process here in the 
House, get through the Senate, become a law, and be able to go to the 
President's desk.
  This rule is simply designed to increase the amount of time that we 
will spend. It is part, I think, of an effort to talk the bill to 
death. We have all the ability we need to have amendments to all of 
these different proposals that are germane to these proposals.
  If we had a procedure here regularly that said nongermane amendments 
should be brought, that would be the rules of the House. Those are not 
the rules of the House. There is no earthly explanation for this rule 
at this time other than to delay the processing of this bill.
  I think there is a bipartisan majority in this house for the Shays-
Meehan bill; that is my sense, a bipartisan, bipartisan majority in 
this House for the Shays-Meehan bill. The only explanation anybody can 
give for voting for this rule is that they want it to delay this 
process so that this bill cannot become law this year.
  This is not the right thing for the House to do. The American people 
want and demand a big first step in campaign reform. The Shays-Meehan 
bill is that.
  I commend, again, the Members in the Republican Party who have worked 
so hard and long to get Shays-Meehan through this House. I commend the 
Members on our side. This is one of the rare moments maybe in this 2-
year period that we have a real bipartisan effort of coming together to 
solve a major problem that faces the American society. Let us get it 
done.
  Vote against this rule. Let us keep moving. We could have a vote on 
Shays-Meehan yet this week and get the bill back over to the Senate and 
get it to the President's desk. Let us vote today for campaign reform. 
Let us vote against this rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on ordering the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule that will place a reasonable timeframe on 
consideration of campaign finance reform.

                              {time}  1615

  Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the following extraneous material for the 
Record:

       Previous Question for H. Res. 458-Campaign Finance Reform

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:
       Resolved, That during 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, in the Committee of 
     the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to House

[[Page H4780]]

     Resolution 442, each amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     specified in House Report 105-545 shall not be subject to 
     amendment except as specified in section 2 of this 
     resolution.
       Sec. 2. (a) It shall be in order to consider the amendment 
     numbered 30 in House Report 105-567 to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute numbered 13 by Representative Shays of 
     Connecticut if offered by Representative Maloney of New York 
     or Representative Dingell of Michigan. All points of order 
     against that amendment are waived.
       (b) After disposition of the amendments in the nature of a 
     substitute described in the first section of this resolution, 
     the provisions of the bill, or the provisions of the bill as 
     perfected by an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     finally adopted, shall be considered as an original bill for 
     the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule 
     for a period not to exceed 10 hours. Subject to subsection 
     (c) no other amendment to the bill shall be in order except 
     amendments printed in the portion of the Congressional Record 
     designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII.
       (c) It shall not be in order to consider an amendment under 
     subsection (b) carrying a tax or tariff measure. 
     Consideration of each amendment, and amendments thereto, 
     described in subsection (b) shall not exceed one hour.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual:
       Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule 
     because the majority Member controlling the time will not 
     yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same 
     result may be achieved by voting down the previous question 
     on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question 
     is defeated, control of the time passes to the Members who 
     led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That 
     Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an 
     amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of 
     amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
       Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       The vote on the previous question on a rule does have 
     substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. Speaker, I would further observe the irony of the back-to-back 
considerations yesterday and today on the floor of this House. I 
handled the rule yesterday on the question of abolishing the Internal 
Revenue Code. The majority gave us 1 hour of debate on the question of 
abolishing the Internal Revenue Code. Now they want to give us 7 weeks 
of debate on campaign finance reform.
  It is obvious the majority does not want to pass campaign finance 
reform. It is obvious they wanted to pass the bill yesterday abolishing 
the IRS code. Let us not play games. Let us not pretend that something 
is happening that is not happening. This is not a procedure that is 
designed to pass legislation. This is a procedure that is designed to 
slowly bleed legislation to death. This is a procedure that will take 
the next 7 weeks with 258 nongermane amendments on top of all the 
amendments that are germane. This is not a serious procedure and no one 
should pretend that it is.
  There are legitimate differences on what ought to be in campaign 
finance reform, but the other side has concocted a procedure that they 
now say will take us until August 7. Now, we have to do all the 
appropriation bills between that time and now. And if we get to August 
7 and this still has not passed and still has not been concluded, then 
the other side is going to tell us, oh, we have all these Members that 
have travel plans, we have all these Members that want to go on 
junkets, get on airplanes and start their vacation, so we just have to 
let this thing slide on until September. And if it slides until 
September, then it may get lost as we are doing the continuing 
resolution and the supplemental appropriation and all those matters.
  This is not a serious procedure. My friend the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay) and my friend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) are 
not serious about this. We all understand that. They say this with a 
smile on their face. And there is a good reason why there is a smile on 
their face, because their hands are ``like this'' behind their back. 
They do not want this matter to be concluded. And I understand why they 
do not want it to be concluded. I have some differences of opinion with 
some of these proposals. But I want to see this brought to a final vote 
in an orderly way. It is the least we can do for the American public.
  Mr. Speaker, we should defeat the previous question. Let us bring 
order to this. Let us not spend the next 7 weeks debating this 
legislation, and then maybe we get at the end of the 7 weeks and 
everybody has to get on an airplane and we cannot quite finish. Vote 
``no'' on the previous question. Let us have a reasonable rule and let 
us get on to a final vote on campaign finance reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This entire debate defies credulity. We have Members releasing press 
releases in March castigating the Republican majority for closing the 
rule on debate, and then getting a totally open rule and standing up 
here opposing the rule because it is too open and allows too many 
people to make too many amendments.
  We had the gentleman from Texas talking about concocting a procedure. 
Concocting a procedure. This is an open rule. This just says that 
anyone who has an amendment may be allowed to offer it. This debate 
begins with the gentleman from Michigan, the minority whip, saying the 
money spigots are open. The money spigots are open and will remain open 
under every one of these proposals being debated, because none of them 
touches the money that unions spend on elections, 99 percent of which 
goes to Democrats.
  A Rutgers University study in the last cycle said that the labor 
unions spent between $300 and $500 million on politics. That is more 
money than is spent by the Republican and Democrat parties combined. 
But they do not want to touch it. That is money that is forcibly taken 
from the members and spent on candidates that the members may not 
support.
  They do not want to change that. That is money that is not even 
recorded or reported. They do not want to change that. No, they want to 
stop money from legal companies or corporations where their 
shareholders can sell their stock if they do not like what the 
corporation does. The union member has trouble leaving the union and 
getting a job. No, those money spigots will remain open because none of 
these bills touches labor union monies, because that all goes to 
Democrats.
  We then heard from the gentlewoman from Connecticut who wanted to 
discuss the tobacco issue. I hope she did not embarrass the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Frost), because he took

[[Page H4781]]

$16,000 in tobacco money in the last several years. But at least he 
took legal tobacco money from legal American corporations. It appears 
that the only tobacco money that the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
appreciates is illegal tobacco money from China, because we know that 
Ted Sieong, the largest distributor of Chinese cigarettes, or of 
cigarettes, Red Pagoda, gave huge sums, hundreds of thousands of 
dollars, to the Democrat party, to the Presidential campaign.
  And when we seek to ask him about it, to see if current laws are 
being violated, if there is current breaking of current laws, the 
Democrats on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight march in 
lockstep, 19 of them, to say, no, we do not want this testimony, we do 
not want the American people to hear, we do not want any of these 
people investigated.
  We now have 94 people who are under suspicion for illegal activities 
in campaign fund-raising and campaign contributions who have either 
left the country, taken the Fifth Amendment, or refused to testify. And 
when the committee sought to subpoena them, those 19 Democrats marched 
in lockstep to say, no, we will not allow their testimony to be heard, 
we will not allow the American people to understand what laws have 
already been broken.
  We know what laws were broken. The gentleman from Texas said that the 
White House has not admitted to breaking any laws. The White House does 
not admit to anything. The fact of the matter is this White House has 
been accused of a lot of things, and at no point did they say they did 
not do it. They said it has not been proven. They said they have not 
been charged, there is no evidence, but they do not deny.
  And the President himself said on tape, we found a loophole. We used, 
yes, this bad soft money that they want to abolish. The President used 
it. And he put it on the air. And he, according to his words, improved 
his standing in the polls using large sums of soft money illegally.
  When the President, when the Presidential candidates take $70 million 
from the taxpayers, they also are bound by the Federal laws not to 
spend a penny more. That is precisely what happened with Bob Dole. This 
President spent that, and what he admits to is $44 million more. No, he 
has not admitted to doing wrong in front of the public, only on a tape. 
Only on a videotape.
  There is a problem with our campaign finance laws. We have two 
systems, a Presidential system, where they get $70 million from the 
taxpayers, report all their spending and spend no more; and we have the 
congressional system, where we report everything. The Presidential 
system is one that was broken, and that is not the one being addressed 
here today.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and support this 
rule to get on with the debate.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
second rule on campaign finance reform. I think it is ridiculous that 
we are spending this time debating a rule when we could be spending 
this time debating the merits of the issue--meaningful campaign finance 
reform and a ban on soft money.
  The rule we are currently debating makes in order an unprecedented 
258 NON-GERMANE amendments. Amendments that do not relate to the 
underlying Substitute Amendment. We do not need this rule.
  The House has already approved a rule governing debate that provides 
for a fair and open debate. That rule allows the consideration of an 
unlimited number of germane amendments. That means, Mr. Speaker, that 
the amendments offered must relate to the underlying Substitute 
Amendment. That is a fair process.
  This new rule and the huge number of amendments in makes in order is 
unnecessary. In my opinion, it is also designed to prevent this House 
from ever completing consideration of campaign finance reform.
  Earlier this year, I opposed the Leadership's efforts to limit the 
debate on this very important issue by bringing up bills under 
Suspension of the Rules thus prohibiting members from offering 
amendments. The Leadership responded to member defeat of that proposal 
by bringing forth a rule which made Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act 
(the so-called Freshmen Bill) in order. That rule also made 11 
substitute amendments and unlimited germane amendments in order. This 
Mr. Speaker is a fair and open process, and we already have that rule.
  The Rule before us now is not a fair process because it allows non-
germane amendments. An outrageous number of them at that.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleague to defeat this Rule. Let's put these 
delay tactics behind us and get on with the real business at hand--
meaningful campaign finance reform.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 194, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 246]

                               YEAS--221

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

                               NAYS--194

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)

[[Page H4782]]


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

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Archer
     Armey
     Becerra
     Clayton
     Cooksey
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Martinez
     McNulty
     Parker
     Strickland
     Sununu
     Torres
     Towns
     Weldon (FL)

                              {time}  1643

  Messrs. OBEY, HILLIARD and STOKES changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 221, 
noes 189, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 247]

                               AYES--221

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

                               NOES--189

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Clayton
     Cooksey
     Danner
     Dunn
     Gekas
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (FL)
     Jenkins
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Martinez
     McNulty
     Mink
     Parker
     Portman
     Regula
     Schumer
     Sununu
     Torres
     Towns
     Weldon (FL)

                              {time}  1652

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). 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}  1654


                     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. Calvert (Chairman pro tempore) in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Wednesday, June 17, 1998, the amendment by the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. White) and printed in the Congressional Record as 
amendment No. 16 had been disposed of.
  It is now in order to debate the subject matter of the amendment 
printed in the Congressional Record as No. 13.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 442, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) and a Member opposed each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) be allowed to control half of the time. 
To my understanding that would be 15 minutes; is that correct?

[[Page H4783]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Without objection, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) each will control 15 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a distinct honor to present before this Chamber 
the Meehan-Shays amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2183.
  This substitute provides a soft money ban on both the Federal and 
State levels for Federal elections; it recognizes that sham issue ads 
are truly campaign ads and treats them as campaign ads; it codifies the 
Beck decision; it improves FEC disclosure and enforcement; it provides 
that unsolicited franked mass mailings be banned 6 months to an 
election; and it requires that foreign money and money raised on 
government property is illegal.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member rise in opposition?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the amendment?
  Mr. THOMAS. I am opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) 
is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I am pleased that we have begun the 
process. As part of the structure around here, to be able to get time, 
you have to be in favor of or opposed to. The fact of the matter is, 
given the time that I have been involved, which is now two decades, in 
working on campaign reform, I am frankly, on every one of these bills 
opposed in part and supportive in part, and I will participate 
extensively in this process.
  My goal will be to try to create an orderly process, one that is 
comprehensible and in which, to the extent possible, we create periods 
of time in which what we do is comprehensible to the folk outside as 
well as those of us who are carrying on the debate.

                              {time}  1700

  As the chairman of the committee that has jurisdiction, as I said, I 
have mixed feelings on a number of these bills because we have been 
wrestling with the way in which the system might be changed for some 
time.
  What I want to do at the beginning of this debate is to set a tone, 
not on this particular bill, but on most of the bills that we will be 
looking at in a general sense because frankly the shadow of the Supreme 
Court is over us in the process of discussing campaign reform. It is 
over us because the Court has repeatedly said that the First Amendment 
is vital and critical, and where Congress steps over the line the Court 
will correct Congress in making sure that fundamental First Amendment 
freedoms of expression and assembly are maintained.
  But the Court stands over us in another way, because after the Court 
said that, all I want to know, how come the Court is able to say that. 
We have three clear independent branches in the Constitution, and 
nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Court can tell 
Congress that what it did was unconstitutional. Nowhere am I aware that 
the oath of office taken by Members of Congress is somehow inferior to 
the oath that members of the Supreme Court take.
  Now obviously the answer is historically the Supreme Court usurped 
that power, and it has never been taken away, and so they have the 
power of judicial review whether it is in the Constitution or not.
  But because of the ability of the Court to tell the Congress that, 
``Perhaps in part you were constitutional and in part you were 
unconstitutional,'' it creates a dilemma for us as we debate change in 
campaign finance laws and the manner in which we conduct our elections.
  Mr. Chairman, what I have in front of me is a chart to illustrate the 
way in which the current law is in fact a product of the Supreme Court. 
It is not a product of Congress. If my colleagues look at the original 
Federal Election Campaign Act, there were a number of areas where the 
Congress acted comprehensively, as we are attempting to do now on a 
number of these bills. It not only dealt with individual contributions 
limits, it dealt with spending limits for elections. Congress passed a 
limit per election. Congress passed a limit on independent expenditures 
per election. Independent expenditures will come up time and again, 
both in substitutes, and in amendments being treated in a number of 
different ways. For those of my colleagues who have not been involved 
in this process as extensively as some of us, understand that back in 
the early 1970s the Court said, ``Notwithstanding Congress' desire, 
it's overturned.''
  If my colleagues look down here in terms of limit on candidates' 
personal funds, we talk about millionaire candidates and how we have to 
deal with that. Congress dealt with that, but the Court overturned that 
portion. And in fact the original structure of the Federal Election 
Commission was overturned by the Court as well.
  My point is that for the last quarter of a century we have been 
dealing with a law which was not the way the Congress created it. The 
congressional package was far more comprehensive and rounded, 
notwithstanding the fact that the Court said portions of it were 
unconstitutional. Many of the problems we have wrestled with find their 
basis in the Court picking and choosing a comprehensive plan and not 
allowing a comprehensive plan to go forward.
  A lot of the debate over these substitutes over the next several 
weeks and even perhaps months will be about how our plan deals with the 
problem in a comprehensive way. What I am here to tell my colleagues is 
that if someone tells them their plan deals with the problem in a 
comprehensive way, but it has a severability clause, it ``ain't'' going 
to be comprehensive in all likelihood. It means we will turn the clock 
back, we will send this legislation out into the world, and in the 
process of its examination the Court will overturn portions of various 
bills, and we will be living with a makeshift structure.
  We have done that, Mr. Chairman, for the last 25 years. Let us not 
create the opportunity for doing it again.
  And that is why on this particular bill, because it contains a 
severability clause, and on every comprehensive substitute which 
contains a severability clause, or is silent, because the Court, if it 
is silent, can go ahead and chop it up the way it wants to, will offer 
an amendment which will say that the comprehensive package that the 
Congress offers stands or falls as a structure.
  Now this is not an attempt to destroy the process. It is an attempt 
to retain Congress' ability to define what the law is. Notwithstanding 
bipartisan efforts over the last quarter of a century, we have not been 
able to make adjustments that my colleagues would think would be 
reasonable and prudent. The Court made its adjustments. We were never 
able to come back and make ours.
  Now what happens if the Court strikes down one of these provisions 
when there is no severability? Well, we are back here rewriting. But I 
think that is a far better position to be in than to leave the final 
product up to the United States Supreme Court.
  And so I will offer a severability clause, and I am pleased to tell 
my colleagues that in a July 1997 publication by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), notwithstanding the fact that it was in 
reference to the comment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) about 
a severability clause, and the gentleman from Texas joins me in this 
effort, I might mention, talked about the advantages of not having 
severability.
  And so, as we begin this process, I want to focus our attention on 
whatever product it is that Congress generates. If we believe strongly 
enough, and if the House works its will, we ought to believe strongly 
enough to make sure that the Court does not get to write the law in the 
final process. The only way we can guarantee that is to make sure there 
is no severability clause.
  And, as I said, I propose to offer an amendment to each of the major 
substitutes that has as a provision severability. It is not good. It 
lets the Supreme Court control us. It lets the Supreme Court write the 
law as it has done for the last 25 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H4784]]

  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly).
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support 
of the Shays-Meehan substitute, and I want to commend my colleague, the 
gentleman from my home State of Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the 
gentleman from the neighboring State of Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for 
their bipartisan effort to introduce meaningful finance reform here 
today. No less than the integrity of our election system and the 
confidence of the American people and their elected officials is at 
stake here today. Passage of the Shays-Meehan bill will begin to 
correct the abuses of the current system of financing political 
campaigns.
  The issue is clear, Mr. Chairman. One is either for the Shays-Meehan 
or against it. Opponents will try and muddy the debate with nongermane 
amendments. We must remain focused, and we must not be diverted by 
these amendments. After months of delay it is finally time for action.
  Again may I congratulate my colleagues the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for their 
perseverance, for their commitment in bringing this vital piece of 
legislation to the floor.
  Vote no on diversionary amendments and yes on a clean Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I too rise today in support of the Shays-
Meehan substitute to H.R. 2183, the Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act.
  The 1996 presidential campaign has made it unmistakably clear that 
our election system needs to be reformed. In fact, recent studies and 
polls indicate that the American public is cynical about our current 
system of campaign finance. Many believe that the size of the donation 
is directly related to the amount of access to power. Nonetheless, it 
has been a long and difficult fight to bring an open legitimate 
campaign finance debate to the House floor.
  In fact, a couple of months ago the future of campaign finance reform 
was looking very dim. There was a possibility that a real campaign 
finance reform debate might not have occurred at all.
  While the fight to bring in debate to the floor is almost over, the 
fight to see reform signed into law has just begun. Reformers who want 
to see changes signed into law must rally around one bill that has the 
best chance of passing. That bill is a Shays-Meehan substitute which 
has received strong bipartisan support.
  I do not have time to go through all the things that it does, but 
banning soft money, dealing with the whole issue of redefining issue 
advocacy laws and, of course, leveling the playing field with wealthy 
candidates are important steps that need to be looked after.
  This bill is not only supported by bipartisan Members in both the 
House and the Senate, but also by outside groups who represent the will 
of the American people in this area. It has been endorsed by 35 
nonpartisan interest groups, including Common Cause, Public Citizen and 
the League of Women Voters. Furthermore, the Shays-Meehan substitute is 
also supported by the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the New York 
Times and the Washington Post, some of our more thoughtful newspapers.
  As the debate unfolds, my colleagues will see every stop pulled, 
every method tried and every tactic used by those who oppose real 
campaign finance reform. One strategy will be to drag out this debate 
by offering an endless number of amendments until Members lose interest 
and the public demands that Congress focus on other issues of national 
priority. Reformers must remember that these tactics are strategies 
used by those who would defeat campaign finance reform by diverting 
attention.
  Support this legislation. It is the only way to go.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield an initial 7 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, we are finally here, and I rise in strong 
opposition, unless my colleagues are surprised, to Shays-Meehan and 
their bill.
  Last week this House defeated a constitutional amendment that was 
authored by the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt) that would allow Congress to limit spending for the first 
time. He got 29 votes. Fifty-one Members of this House voted present, 
and I do not know about other Members, but I did not come here to vote 
present. I came here to vote yes or no, to do the people's business.
  But there is a lot of shenanigans going on, and all the shenanigans 
can be put aside because now we are into the meat of the issue.
  Now the author of the constitutional amendment, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), said the amendment was necessary because 
neither Congress or the States have any constitutional authority to 
limit expenditures, independent issue advocacy or uncoordinated. The 
current explosion in third-party spending is simply beyond our ability 
to legislate. This is what the minority leader has said, yet Shays-
Meehan does just that. It attempts to legislate control of political 
spending and political speech, spending and speech that we are told by 
the minority leader was constitutionally beyond our reach to legislate.
  Now the Shays-Meehan bill is nothing short of an attempt to gut the 
First Amendment in my opinion. It is nothing short than an effort to 
prohibit our constituents from knowing where we stand on the issues.
  Like most of these campaign reform bills, those bills passed by the 
Democrat majority over the last few years, the Shays-Meehan bill is 
incumbent protection. It gives the advantage always to the incumbents.
  Now what does the Shays-Meehan bill do? Well, the Shays-Meehan bill 
bans scorecards. That is right, those voter guides that are passed out 
in churches and in union halls that track how the incumbents vote on 
critical issues would be subject to a regulation by the speech police 
and the bureaucrats of the Federal Election Commission.
  Shays-Meehan also places a gag rule, a gag rule, on independent 
expenditures and the ability of citizens to criticize incumbent 
politicians, a gag rule that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) and the minority leader told us that was not permissible in a 
free society.
  And the worst legislative assault that comes in Shays-Meehan attempts 
to shut down discussion on issues in this country. Mr. Chairman, this 
bill brings us back to the days when a person placing an ad in a 
newspaper criticizing the President was hauled into court by the 
Justice Department. This actually happened in four separate places.
  The Shays-Meehan bill would regulate speech even if it avoids the 
constitutional standard of express advocacy. No one even mentioning the 
name of a politician can feel safe that he might not have violated a 
federal law.

                              {time}  1715

  That is what is in this bill.
  Now, the final attack on freedom in this bill comes in the form of 
severe government restrictions on the use of soft money by political 
parties and other organizations, money that is used to get out the vote 
activities, voter registration, issue advocacy; that is what the soft 
money is that is so maligned on this floor. The bill also federalizes 
for the first time State election law.
  I want Members on this side of the aisle to listen to this. This bill 
federalizes State election law.
  Now, finally, this bill does nothing about the millions of dollars of 
forced union dues taken from working people every year and used for 
political causes they may oppose. Sure, the bill does have a provision 
that is pretending to enforce the Beck decision, but to take advantage 
of the Beck decision, workers would have to resign from the union, 
resign from the union and give up their rights to vote on collective 
bargaining agreements and other important workplace matters.
  So, Mr. Chairman, we have been down this road before. In the early 
1970s, the minority has bragged, after passage of a campaign reform 
bill, the Nixon administration brought a group of dissidents into court 
for putting an ad in the New York Times calling for the impeachment of 
the President. What was the charge? The ads were a ``sham'' and 
violated campaign laws.

[[Page H4785]]

  Well, my friends, issue speech, sham or otherwise, cannot be 
regulated. The Buckley court anticipated these arguments when it said, 
and I quote,

       It would naively underestimate the ingenuity and 
     resourcefulness of persons and groups, designed to buy 
     influence, to believe that they would have much difficulty 
     devising expenditures that skirted the restriction on express 
     advocacy or election or defeat, but nevertheless benefited 
     the candidate's campaign.

  Those who would regulate campaign speech hope, and it is a desperate 
hope, that the Supreme Court will look at 20 years of election activity 
since Buckley v. Valeo and decide things differently. But it is more 
likely that the court will go just the other way, toward my view and 
those who think that the First Amendment is America's premier political 
reform, not the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just remind my friends to look around them, 
just look around. In the past month, in the last 30 days, four, that is 
right, four Federal courts have struck down campaign speech laws 
similar to those contained in this bill. Four.
  Now, the Supreme Court was emphatic in Buckley that issue advocacy 
and political speech was at the very core of the First Amendment. To 
regulate it in any way is simply unconstitutional and, more 
importantly, it is wrong.
  The true issue here is speech, I say to my colleagues. Will we vote 
to prevent union members or churchgoers to give information on how an 
incumbent votes on raising the minimum wage or banning partial-birth 
abortion? Well, Shays-Meehan does this. Would one vote to gag a 
citizens' group from buying an advertisement criticizing a Member of 
Congress? Shays-Meehan does that. Would one vote to blur the line of 
freedom of the Supreme Court that allows a speech with review by the 
speech police at the Federal Election Commission? Well, Shays-Meehan 
does that.
  I ask that we oppose Shays-Meehan and let our constituents speak.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to say that the 
date that those statements were made by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt) was February 7, 1997. The Shays-Meehan bill that we are 
debating today was not even written, nor filed, until March 19, 1998.
  Mr. Chairman, before we get into a lengthy debate over the First 
Amendment implications of spending limits, let me make one thing 
perfectly clear. The Shays-Meehan bill does not include spending 
limits.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin) who has worked so closely with us on this bill.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.
  The Shays-Meehan bill does not gag speech any more than our present 
limitation on independent expenditures upheld by the court gags. Right 
now, if somebody comes in with an ad that says, defeat so-and-so, they 
have to come within the structures set up by Congress. There are limits 
on what can be contributed, and there are requirements for disclosure.
  The question is, if the magic words, which really are not magical, 
``elect'' or ``defeat'' are not used, should the ad be immune from any 
limitation as to amount or any disclosure? That is what we are talking 
about.
  What Shays-Meehan says is that we should not provide this loophole. 
When Buckley was decided, there were not these barrages, these 
bombardments of so-called issue ads. In the last few years we have had 
them in torrents. And what the majority is saying is, or some of the 
majority, is that they want those to go on without any regulation at 
all.
  Now, this is not, therefore, an issue of gagging any more than 
Buckley gagged free speech. It did not. It balanced our needs for free 
speech, and I love the First Amendment and voted against efforts a few 
days ago to undermine it.
  The question is, how do we apply it to today's politics? In the 
decision in the Ninth Circuit, FEC v. Fergatch, here is what the court 
said.

       We begin with the proposition that express advocacy is not 
     strictly limited to communications using certain key phrases. 
     The short list of words included in the Supreme Court's 
     opinion in Buckley does not exhaust the capacity of the 
     English language to expressly advocate the election or defeat 
     of a candidate. A test requiring the magic words, ``elect,'' 
     ``support,'' or their nearly perfect synonyms for a finding 
     of express advocacy would preserve the First Amendment right 
     of unfettered expression only at the expense of eviscerating 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act.

  What Shays-Meehan tries to do is to protect, to preserve the thrust 
of that act, and not have the public swamped by undisclosed, unlimited 
expenditures, especially the last 2 months of a campaign.
  Those who are raising the First Amendment are essentially trying to 
kill campaign reform. They are really hiding behind the First 
Amendment. They often do not support the First Amendment in other 
instances.
  So I strongly urge support for Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair inform me as to the time on 
each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 12 
minutes; the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) has 10 and 
three-quarters minutes; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) 
has 15\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to point out that 
in our legislation, the term ``express advocacy'' does not include a 
printed communication that prevents information in an educational 
manner solely about the voting record or position on a campaign issue 
of two or more candidates. So we specifically provide and allow for 
voting records to be a part of the system.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentle and very strong 
woman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, we have been bogged down by excuses and 
dilatory tactics trying to get a vote on real campaign finance reform. 
All the while, our constituents have been looking on with disgust, and 
soft money contributions have proliferated.
  Serving on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I have 
become more convinced than ever that we must close campaign finance 
loopholes. Today, we finally have that opportunity to move forward with 
real reform, with the Shays-Meehan substitute.
  This substitute addresses fundamental flaws in our system: the 
proliferation of soft money and issue ads. It closes the soft money 
loophole on both the Federal and State levels. Soft money 
contributions, whether by individuals, labor, corporations, have led to 
egregious fund-raising practices and to the escalating cost of 
elections.
  This bill also requires that any funds spent by State, district and 
local political parties for Federal election activity be subject to the 
Federal Election Campaign Act limits.
  Shays-Meehan's issue advocacy reforms will end the takeover of 
elections by special interest groups, and it will lead to fair and 
responsible political advertising. It uses a common-sense definition of 
express advocacy and stipulates that ads that endorse a Federal 
candidate under its new definition could only be run using legal hard 
dollars. It also requires FEC reports to be electronically filed and 
provides for Internet posting of disclosure detail. It clarifies the 
Pendleton Act's restrictions on fund-raising on Federal property, it 
codifies the Beck court decision.
  Join us in real campaign reform. Prove that we can do it by 
supporting the Shays-Meehan substitute.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of my time be controlled by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Doolittle).
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I first want to compliment the gentleman and my friend from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for his leadership on this issue. I think we 
probably would not be here today debating campaign

[[Page H4786]]

finance reform without his hard fight and his commitment to this issue.
  For the last year we have worked really on different tracks to 
accomplish campaign finance reform. We have worked on different tracks 
because he has advocated what on the Senate side was known as the 
McCain-Feingold bill and on the House side as the Shays-Meehan bill. A 
group of freshmen, in a bipartisan fashion, and some of them are 
sitting in this room, Democrats, Republicans, worked in a different way 
with a different approach and came up with a different product for 
campaign finance reform.
  So today, as we talk about different approaches to this, I do not 
support the Shays-Meehan proposal, and I will vote against it because I 
believe that there is a better way to accomplish campaign finance 
reform. I say this with the greatest respect, but I believe that it is 
incumbent upon me to make my case.
  Why do I say that the freshman bill is better? Why do I believe that 
it will accomplish more significant reform? I believe it is a better 
vehicle for reform because it is bipartisan, it is constitutional, it 
does not federalize State elections, it bans soft monies to the Federal 
parties, and it provides for greater disclosures. But I believe it is a 
better way, first of all, from a political standpoint that on the 
Senate side, the United States Senate has already failed to pass 
McCain-Feingold. They could not break cloture on that bill. So why do 
we want to send them the exact same bill back again? I believe that if 
we send them a fresh approach, a new idea, that accomplishes 
significant reform, that that is the best way to approach it.
  Secondly, I believe the freshman bill represents a better idea 
because the Shays-Meehan approach disregards current Supreme Court 
decisions in the hope that the Supreme Court will change its opinion. 
As a lawyer, I have disagreed many times with the Supreme Court, and I 
wished they would change their opinion; but they are still supreme, and 
if we want to cast a vote for a bill that is going to be signed into 
law and a bill that is going to be upheld by the Supreme Court, I 
believe we have to listen and adhere to the clear decisions that the 
Supreme Court has given. There is too much at stake.
  So the freshman bill, the freshman approach is different. We have 
drafted a bill that pays attention to what the Supreme Court has said 
and tries not to violate their constitutional restrictions and 
infringements upon free speech.
  The third reason that I think there is a better way is that issue 
groups under the Shays-Meehan bill will be subject to source 
restrictions, donor disclosure, and speech regulation. I think this is 
a very serious matter. Whether we are talking about the right to life, 
whether we are talking about the NRA, whether we are talking about the 
Sierra Club, any issue group that had issue ads in the last election 
cannot do it the same way in the next election cycle because they would 
be limited on where they can get their money. Also, if they do their 
issue ads within 60 days of a campaign, they have to disclose their 
donors down to the $50 level.

                              {time}  1730

  Now, there is a hope that the Supreme Court would approve that, but I 
believe that that is an infringement upon free speech and the rights of 
the issue groups to be involved in the campaigns.
  The fourth reason that I believe the freshman bill represents a 
better way is that we do not federalize the State elections by 
prohibiting contributions that are legal in a State election from being 
used if a Federal candidate is on the ballot, and that is the current 
status of the Shays-Meehan approach.
  If there is a Federal candidate on the ballot, then money that is 
legal in the State system cannot be used for get-out-the-vote efforts, 
cannot be used for the traditional means of party-building efforts. So 
ours is a more cautious approach.
  Finally, I believe that there is a better way because of the approach 
to how we handle soft money. Under the Shays-Meehan bill, the greatest 
abuse in the last presidential campaign is not addressed. The greatest 
abuse in the last presidential campaign was that Federal office holders 
and candidates were chasing soft money. There was the link that created 
a problem. All over the country, raising soft money and the chase for 
those huge contributions led to problems.
  This chase is not prohibited under the Shays-Meehan bill, the result 
being that soft money can continue to be raised for the State parties 
under Shays-Meehan by presidential candidates. In the Year 2000, they 
will be able to go from State to State to State to raise soft money.
  It is true that they are restricted at the State level as to how that 
money can be spent. But then they can engage in a deal; we will raise 
soft money for the State and that will be spent and that will free up 
money for the Federal candidates.
  So the freshman bill would prohibit that conduct by separating 
Federal candidates, Federal office holders, from raising that soft 
money.
  So I have the highest regard for the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) who have 
proposed this bill, but I believe the freshman bill, the bipartisan 
bill represents a better way.
  For that reason, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on Shays-
Meehan and support the freshman bill.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that any money that is spent in 
America to influence an election ought to be disclosed. That is a basic 
premise in our bill. If money is spent 60 days before an election to 
influence that election, the public has a right to know who spent that 
money.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Capps), who was just elected to this House in March in a special 
election to take her husband Walter's seat. The very first piece of 
legislation that the gentlewoman signed on to was the Shays-Meehan 
bill.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that this day has finally 
come. In the face of many roadblocks, we are now debating the 
bipartisan Shays-Meehan bill. I commend my colleagues the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) for their extraordinary perseverance on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, as someone who has run in three elections in the past 
six months, I can tell my colleagues that the American people are 
crying out for us to clean up our political system. The bill before us 
will close the biggest loopholes in that system: soft money and sham 
issue advocacy ads.
  In my recent special election which was strongly contested, my 
conservative Republican opponent and I did not agree on very much, but 
we did agree that in our race these ads flooded the airwaves with very 
misleading information. And although the ads clearly targeted one of 
us, either of us, both of us for election or defeat, there was no 
disclosure and no limits on how they were funded.
  Mr. Chairman, let us not lose sight of the dramatic shift that is 
occurring out there in the campaigns. The voters are becoming pawns in 
battles between powerful outside interest groups.
  We need to pass the bipartisan Shays-Meehan bill and bring the 
political process back to the people. If we fail, our elections will 
only get more expensive and more dominated by special interest, and the 
cynicism and outrage of the American people will increase.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to pass this historic bipartisan 
legislation. I have the greatest admiration for my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle who are willing to come together, particularly the 
freshmen Members who worked so many months to craft legislation and are 
now coming together behind Shays-Meehan so that we can be credible with 
our constituents and really do something important in this area.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Houghton).
  (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, there is not a single piece of 
legislation, no matter how good, that cannot be picked apart with the 
technical arguments. I am not going to do that. I am going to get away 
from emotions and the words and all the negative aspects.

[[Page H4787]]

  I think that there are really two words that come to mind, and that 
is it is just ``too much.'' It is too much money. I cannot imagine 
looking at a primary election in California where two people spent $60 
million. Is that free speech? It is not free to me; it is pretty 
expensive.
  Will it be $60 million next round? Will it be $100 million? With the 
gross domestic product going up and inflation going up, will it be $200 
million? What is too much? Where does this lead us? Is this what we 
want to leave as a legacy?
  Mr. Chairman, I ask this about my children. Do I want them to come 
into this body, or try to come into this body, and say, listen, it is 
going to be a great run and it is going to cost $50 million. And if 
they run for five terms, it is maybe $250 million. Is this what we 
want? It is crazy.
  We have real limits for individuals and groups and we have absolutely 
no limits for this loophole which was never intended to be. Our job 
here in this and other legislation is to close loopholes. They were 
never intended they should not be, we should get at it.
  The Shays-Meehan bill does this, and I feel we should support it.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time that each 
side has remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Doolittle) has 10 minutes remaining, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 8\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of our House Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am certainly no expert in this field and 
campaign reform is a legitimate subject that needs attention and a lot 
of it. I would just say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), 
my friend, that all that money spent on that election out there was 
almost the first weekend's take on the Titanic when they showed it. 
Everything is relative.
  The one glaring problem with Shays-Meehan is we do not take into 
account for contributions in kind. Labor unions, at least where I come 
from, can throw all kinds of bodies into the precincts on the weekend. 
They work the shopping malls, hand out the shopping bags, work the 
phone banks, go door to door. Labor does that and God bless them for 
doing that. They are participating in the most important act, civic act 
they can.
  But the business community does not do that. They play both sides of 
the street. They cover their bets. Soft money is the only way 
Republicans who do not have access to the bodies that organized labor 
throws into the turmoil, it is the only way to equalize that. They can 
buy people's time who can work the phone banks and hand out the 
shopping bags.
  One would like to have volunteers and tries to have them. But one 
cannot equal what labor can throw into an election. And neither bill 
takes care of that. It gives advantage to the Democrats because by 
limiting, if not eliminating soft money, the Republicans are left 
bereft of resources to equal the hundreds of people that can work in a 
precinct for a Democratic candidate sent in by the Teamsters or some 
other union.
  Mr. Chairman, as I say, I am not critical of that. But if we are 
reforming, we ought to take into consideration the consequences of the 
reform. Giving the Democratic Party such an advantage in my judgment is 
not reform.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Shays-Meehan 
substitute. This bipartisan effort to begin the process of mending a 
flawed system is necessary and appropriate and long overdue.
  When I was sworn in as a newly elected Member of Congress 2 months 
ago, my first official act was to join over 200 of our colleagues in 
signing the discharge petition which would allow us to engage in 
meaningful debate on campaign finance reform.
  I am pleased that today has arrived, despite the fact that the past 
few weeks have seen a deliberate effort to divert our attention away 
from real campaign finance reform.
  In the spirit of democracy, campaigns should be about ideas, not 
money. Of course, I personally firmly believe that public financing of 
political campaigns is the ultimate answer to access and full 
participation by grassroots organization, women, and people of color. 
However, the Shays-Meehan substitute is a major step forward in taking 
us closer to ensuring a fair and equitable approach to financing 
elections.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the dynamic 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, on this issue, probably more than others that we will 
address, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. This bill, of 
course, is not perfect, but it is good. It is better than what we have 
now and it is better than it used to be, because I frankly do not like 
taxpayer financing or broadcaster financing of campaigns. They took 
that out of this bill and they replaced it with some better provisions.
  The two things we should focus on is banning soft money, which any 
thinking person is for, it is way out of hand; and, secondly, trying to 
hold accountable these outside groups that come in in the last few days 
of a campaign and assassinate people with unlimited, unregulated, now 
huge sums of money dumped from nowhere in campaigns. Pretty soon we as 
candidates will not even be able to control the message in our own 
campaigns.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been at this long enough to know also that 
reformers need to come together. I hate to see reformers carping at 
each other over details. If we do not come together on this issue, it 
is not going to happen.
  What should the measurement be? Is the bill better than what we have 
now? This bill clearly meets that test. This is a messed up system. We 
have got to change it. We cannot go back to the way things used to be, 
even though I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Doolittle) that ideally that would be nice. But I do not think that is 
practical. What is practical is to try to reform the current system we 
have today. This is a step in the right direction.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dooley).
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the bipartisan Shays-Meehan substitute because it is the only bill I 
think that really truly provides comprehensive campaign finance reform. 
So many of the other bills do not deal with one of the greatest 
loopholes in our campaign system, and that is the lack of any 
restrictions on issue advocacy ads.
  Issue ads make a mockery of Federal election law because they are not 
required to report the source of their political contributions. Issue 
ad groups are entitled to speak, and I vigorously defend their 
constitutional right to do so. However, their speech should not be 
protected more than any other political speech.
  The public deserves to know who funds Federal elections. Is a foreign 
government attempting to elect one of their own to the U.S. Congress? 
Is an organized crime ring trying to defeat a Member who has been tough 
on crime? Without disclosures and limits we do not know. Shays-Meehan 
fixes the problem.
  Mr. Chairman, in my last campaign, issue groups brought ads worth 
over $250,000 to try to defeat me. When the press and Members of the 
public asked me who was behind these ads, I could only give them one 
answer: I do not know.
  While anyone can easily track who had paid for my ads, my opponent's 
ads, and both of our parties' ads, no information was available 
concerning the ads paid for by these groups.
  This chart clearly points out we are not trying to limit the right of 
someone to speak. We are just saying that anyone who tries to influence 
the outcome of an election who uses a name

[[Page H4788]]

and likeness of a candidate 60 days before it should live by the same 
rules as anyone else that has participated by contributing to our own 
campaigns.

                              {time}  1745

  A person who gives me $200, we have to know his name, his address, 
their occupation, the date of contribution, the amount of contribution, 
the aggregate. Yet in my last election, we had a group that came in and 
spent $250,000, and yet nobody knew their name. Nobody knew the source 
of the dollars. That is wrong. That is why we should support Shays-
Meehan.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, certainly I am a strong supporter of 
Shays-Meehan. Quite frankly, I think this is a debate that we have had 
years ago. In fact, the loopholes have abolished all the enforcement of 
the post Watergate reforms. So we are here today really dealing with a 
dire need for reform.
  I know some are going to say, what are we talking about? The American 
people do not have this on their radar screen. They do not care. I 
submit the American people do care, but they have given up on us. I am 
afraid their cynicism will be justified if we do not act tonight on 
Shays-Meehan.
  I have got to say that, if we look at the way the system works, there 
has been a lot of evidence that proves the need for what we are talking 
about today, the explosion of soft money, fat cats buying access, White 
House coffees, Members and Senators spending their waking moments 
raising cash, and certainly the indication of foreign contributions to 
our election system.
  I have got to say that, after the Thompson hearings and the hearings 
of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), one thing is very clear to 
all of us, that the campaign finance system is out of control.
  I have got to say that there are some who have been picking at this 
legislation, but I have got to say that any objective observer knows 
that Shays-Meehan gets right to the heart of the problem. It addresses 
banning, not only soft money, but it bans contributions from 
foreigners, and also addresses the Beck decision regulations. It is the 
only substitute amendment that contains a hard ban on soft money, and 
it should be passed.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of discussion today 
about too much money being in politics. We have asked that question 
before, too, what is too much money. Any time we ask the advocates of 
this legislation, it is very difficult for them to answer the question 
what is too much money.
  Then we talk about what is the special interest. It is pretty obvious 
that a special interest is any group saying something that we do not 
agree with.
  Then we have heard people say we do not know who is doing these TV 
ads against us. The TV ads have the disclaimers on them. We know the 
groups that ran the ads. We may not like it. The gentleman was talking 
about $50,000 spent against him. I had $800,000 spent against me by 
labor unions. I did not like it, but it is their constitutional right 
to do that. I knew that they ran the ads because of the disclaimer.
  People have talked about, we, these individuals are spending too much 
money on their campaigns. Mr. Checchi, out in California, Ms. Harman, 
Mr. Issa spent a total of maybe $40 million, maybe more, in their 
campaigns. It was their money. I think, in America, individuals have a 
right to spend their money the way they want to spend it. By the way, 
all three of them lost.
  In Kentucky, we had an individual running for the U.S. Senate, 
Charlie Owens, who spent $7 million of his money, the most ever spent 
in Kentucky on a Senate race. His money, not anybody else's. He has a 
right to spend his money. Guess what. He lost.
  Then we have heard a lot about, well, we have got to have Shays-
Meehan because it is going to clean up this problem that we have with 
foreign nationals contributing to these campaigns. Section 441(e) of 
the current Federal Election Law says, ``It shall be unlawful for a 
foreign national directly or through any other person to make any 
contribution of money or other thing of value, or to promise 
expressively or impliedly to make any such contribution, in connection 
with an election to any political office'', and so forth and so forth 
and so forth. So we have the laws on the books.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I stand here as a conservative in support 
of this bill, because I think we all have to ask ourselves, when the 
Federal Government controls $1.7 trillion worth of daily activity as we 
go through the year, do we want people to have disproportionate levels 
of influence? I would answer no.
  It ties straight to the larger question. That is, if someone gives 
large amounts of dollars, do they expect something in return? I think 
the answer is unequivocally yes. Common sense would say if one gives 
large amounts of money to somebody else that they expect something in 
return.
  Tamraz, when asked before the Senate Finance Committee why did he 
give such large amounts of money, he said because it works. For that 
matter, the recent movie Bulworth, which some may have seen, talked 
about Bernard Schwartz and how he and the Loral Corporation had given 
$2 million to the DNC with surprising effect, because what they had 
been after, which is a satellite technology transfer, went through.
  We can come up with lots of other examples. We can talk about Archer 
Daniels Midland and the ethanol subsidy. We can talk about many 
different areas wherein a disproportionate amount of influence seems to 
be tied to money.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will inform the Committee of the Whole that 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 4\3/4\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Rivers).
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, over the weekend, when I was driving to my 
district, I came up behind a car that had a bumper sticker that read 
``Invest in America; buy a congressman.'' Interestingly enough, my 
chief of staff saw the same bumper sticker here in Washington, D.C. 
Apparently, this is a more widespread view than many of us would hope.
  It was fascinating to me, as I watched the earlier debate, that both 
parties, both sides of the aisle spent a certain amount of time 
attacking one another from where their monies were coming from, hoping 
that they would create some sort of suspicion on the part of the people 
watching at home about the other side and the availability of dollars 
and the source of dollars to them.
  I think that both sides succeeded. I think that the people at home 
believe that neither side is particularly clean about money. People at 
home believe that something has to be done about the campaign finance 
system in this country.
  The gentleman from Texas said the issue here is speech. No, the issue 
here is trust, how we are going to build a system that people at home 
can trust. I believe that we can have a system that protects free 
speech and is trustworthy, and I believe Shays-Meehan provides just 
that. It does not limit spending in any way that is not currently 
regulated.
  Someone mentioned that it does not codify the Beck decision because 
it only applies to people who would leave their unions. In fact, the 
Beck decision only applies to people who are currently paying agency 
fees to unions that they have chosen not to become members of.
  So much disinformation has been at work in this debate. Everyone has 
tried so much to disinform, to frighten people, to move us away from 
what our constituents want, which is a system we can trust, 435 people 
in the House of Representatives elected in a system that we can trust. 
Shays-Meehan will move us there. Please support it.

[[Page H4789]]

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf), and I am happy he is here.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Shays-Meehan 
substitute as the most comprehensive campaign finance reform bill we 
have today. I would like to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for their 
countless hours in bringing forth a bill that will dramatically change 
the campaign structure of this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I was one of the Members who committed to sign the 
discharge petition that would have forced a vote on the Shays-Meehan 
bill. I did this because the American people have lost faith in the way 
Congress is elected, and that must be changed. Because this bill is a 
carefully balanced approach, my intention is to oppose all amendments.
  Let me reiterate that we are at the threshold of major campaign 
finance reform. We have risked failure on real campaign finance reform 
by weighting down Shays-Meehan with a multitude of amendments. Shays-
Meehan is the only bicameral legislation that can pass both the House 
and Senate this year. Let us support it without amendments.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, in the context of the debate in the 
House, the phrase ``campaign finance reform'' is really synonymous, it 
is a code word for the government regulation of political speech.
  I would just like to pose this question: If regulation works so well, 
then why are we in such a mess after 25 years of regulation? It was the 
liberal Democrats that rammed this through in 1974 with the cooperation 
of a Republican President.
  This is when we received the limits on what individuals could 
contribute. This is what gave birth to PACs. This is what gave birth to 
the terms soft money, hard money, issue advocacy, independent 
expenditure. All of these, it is like opening Pandora's box. It started 
maybe in 1971 but got infinitely worse in 1974. Pretty much, that is 
how we have continued through the present.
  This has produced the morass of complex, disastrous laws that we have 
right now where loopholes were closed in 1971, and more were closed in 
1974. Guess what. For every loophole that was closed, a new one opened 
up over here on the other side.
  We cannot enact comprehensive campaign finance reform; i.e., complete 
government regulation of political speech. Why? Because we have a 
Constitution. The Constitution, as long as it exists, provides certain 
``loopholes,'' namely, certain freedoms that American citizens will 
have.
  So the more we attempt additional regulation, the more unintended 
consequences we will have over here; and the morass we have now will be 
made even worse. That is why I believe the answer is deregulation.
  The largest State in the Union, California, is free of the heavy-
handed regulation in the present law as well as the way that the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) wish to make it.
  The Commonwealth of Virginia has the same type of a law. Anybody can 
contribute, just disclose it. Just let the voters know who is giving to 
whom. Then let them make the decision. That is what the founders 
intended. That is why I said I do not know what could be more clear 
than this. But leave it to Congress to foul this up in the First 
Amendment. It says, ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom 
of speech.'' What could be more crystal clear than that?
  The Shays-Meehan bill is a bill about how to abridge the freedom of 
speech. Other bills we will take up, including the Hutchinson-Allen 
bill, are about how to abridge the freedom of speech in ways they think 
they can somehow get around the Constitution.

                              {time}  1800

  Well, it has been pointed out and I believe, the Shays-Meehan bill is 
an incumbent protection bill. If I wanted to do one thing to help me 
the most as a candidate incumbent, I would vote for Shays-Meehan. It 
will guarantee that I will be in office as long as I wish to. Why? 
Because we have certain inherent advantages as incumbents that 
challengers do not have.
  The bill violates, as was pointed out by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay), the tenth amendment, because it federalizes State election 
law. It violates the first amendment by abridging the freedom of 
speech. This bill is unconstitutional for those reasons.
  It is undesirable. Even if it somehow were constitutional, it is 
undesirable. It limits political discourse.
  What we need is the free interchange of ideas in elections. I find 
the biggest complaint my constituents have is they want more 
information. They are hungry for information. And bills like Shays-
Meehan are going to cut off that information and they are going to turn 
over the power to the government czar. And we can trust the government, 
right?
  This bill is also unworkable. Let us suppose for a minute somehow it 
met the constitutional test; somehow we could, in the remotest way, 
consider it desirable as opposed to undesirable. It is unworkable. For 
25 years we have had their disastrous approach to campaigns. It has 
utterly failed. And the more they regulate, the worse it gets. And 
instead of stepping back and figuring out maybe we have got the wrong 
approach here, maybe regulation is not the answer, no, we have a 
plethora of bills that want to add to the problem. More regulations, 
more restrictions, more heavy hand of government.
  Freedom works, Mr. Chairman. And this is a very key debate in this 
House, and we will take this up. Freedom works. We all know what the 
founders meant when they said Congress shall make no law abridging the 
freedom of speech. I urge my colleagues to oppose Shays-Meehan and to 
support concepts of freedom that have made us the greatest and the 
freest country in the history of the world.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, as we begin this debate, one of the difficulties that 
we face is trying to deal with so much information that comes to the 
floor of the House about the Shays-Meehan proposal. I had mentioned 
earlier that there was a quote up here from the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt). There was a quote made on February 7, 1997, and there were 
correlations made by a number of speakers that this statement was made, 
and it is in conflict with the Shays-Meehan bill that we are dealing 
with today. The Shays-Meehan bill that we are dealing with today was 
not even filed until March 19, 1998.
  Now, there have been other statements made about limits in spending 
not being constitutional. But I want to make it very clear that the 
first amendment implications of spending limits does not even apply to 
this debate because the Shays-Meehan bill does not include spending 
limits.
  Now, the previous speaker made some comments about problems with our 
campaign finance system. He must believe that there are problems, 
because there have been millions of dollars spent investigating those 
problems and bringing up those problems. But when this campaign finance 
reform passed, after Watergate, in the 1976 Presidential election there 
were zero dollars spent of soft money.
  And then it increased to about $19 million the next year, and then it 
increased from there, and it increased from there, and now we have 
hundreds of millions of dollars in soft money being spent, 
circumventing the disclosure laws and the limits that have been in 
effect since that time.
  So this is not a problem that we have had for the last 25 years with 
regard to soft money. It is a problem that has grown over a period of 
the last 25 years.
  Mr. Chairman, there has been a debate about issue ads. Opponents of 
campaign finance reform tell us that we must protect free speech. But 
when they say free speech, they mean big money. The fact is that the 
Shays-Meehan bill does not ban any type of communication. It merely 
reins in those campaign advertisements that have been masquerading as 
so-called issue advocacy. And according to the Supreme Court, 
communications that expressly advocate the election or defeat

[[Page H4790]]

of a clearly identified candidate can be subject to regulation.
  There is a lot of misinformation on the floor of this House relative 
to what this bill does with labor. The United States Supreme Court made 
a decision stating that workers cannot be forced to pay for political 
advertisements. Nonunion employees who pay for union representation do 
not have to finance political union activities.
  This bill includes a codification of Beck. It is a compromise that 
was reached between Democrats and Republicans. So this talk about this 
bill not dealing with unions simply is not so.
  This bill improves FEC disclosure and enforcement. This bill has 
franking provisions to limit franking to 6 months before an election. 
This bill has foreign money and fund-raising on government money 
provisions.
  It is a good strong piece of legislation that is the result not of 
partisanship, not of attempts to divide Democrats and Republicans, but 
rather an attempt to bring Democrats and Republicans together. Not only 
Democrats and Republicans in the House, but Democrats and Republicans 
in the other body.
  We have a unique opportunity to change history and pass historic 
campaign finance reform. Let us vote for Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Leach). He has been the leader on campaign finance reform 
over his term in Congress.
  (Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, first I want to reflect great respect for 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for their leadership on this issue.
  Secondly, let me just say that over my time in the United States 
Congress we have seen a number of changes that have occurred in the 
American political system. One that has become ever apparent is that as 
the political system becomes more and more hallmarked by the need for 
financing, candidates become increasingly tied to those who make the 
largest campaign contributions. The system is in need of reform.
  One aspect of this relates to an old-fashioned word used in the 19th 
century, not much in the 20th, and that is the word ``oligarchy.'' As 
systems of governance become based upon a few influencing the many, 
they are called oligarchies and they are not democracies.
  Democracy is what is at issue today.
  The second trend that is extraordinary is that our Founding Fathers 
thought of a system of governance in which people would be elected from 
various parts of the country and bring to Washington the background of 
that part of the country. But as campaign giving is nationalized, 
attitudes are nationalized, and what we are seeing is the 
nationalization of elections. Instead of people becoming first and 
foremost accountable to the people in their districts, they are 
becoming first and foremost accountable to the people that influence 
the people in their districts.
  Shays-Meehan, in my judgment, represents a first small but 
substantive step to put the people back in power.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays) has 2\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This is the beginning of, I think, a fairly long and comprehensive 
debate, and I would first thank my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle for the integrity with which they present their views, but to 
say, with no reluctance at all, that it is clear to me that the Meehan-
Shays proposal will have to deal with a lot of misinformation about it.
  For instance, it was stated, we do not allow scorecards. We 
specifically provide that scorecards are allowed. It says we do not 
deal with labor dues money. We deal with it in two ways: codification 
of Beck, and calling the ``sham issue'' ads what they are: ``campaign'' 
ads. By doing this we forbid corporate and union dues money to be used 
60 days to an election in the campaign, because it is against the law 
to use corporate or labor money in an election.
  When oppoents talk about federalizing State elections, that is just 
bogus. All we do is say we cannot raise soft money on the Federal and 
State levels for Federal elections.
  When opponents talk about a gag rule, that also is bogus. We provide 
that third parties can spend what they will. That is the Supreme 
Court's decision. But when it is a campaign ad, it comes under the 
campaign law. We have freedom of speech under the campaign law.
  I hope and pray that during the course of this debate, we will get 
down to what is in the bill and what is not, and we can truly argue 
those disagreements. But most of the complaints we have heard were not 
technicalities or little complaints, they were just misinformation 
about the bill.
  I again want to thank my colleague the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Marty Meehan) and so many on his side of the aisle for taking a 
very strong position on campaign finance reform, and I encourage all to 
vote for the Meehan-Shays substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time; and, Mr. Chairman, 
do I need to ask to move the amendment at this time?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman may offer the amendment.


  Amendment No. 13 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Shays

  Mr. SHAYS. 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. 13 in the nature of a substitute offered by 
     Mr. Shays:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Bipartisan 
     Campaign Reform Act of 1998''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

            TITLE I--REDUCTION OF SPECIAL INTEREST INFLUENCE

Sec. 101. Soft money of political parties.
Sec. 102. Increased contribution limits for State committees of 
              political parties and aggregate contribution limit for 
              individuals.
Sec. 103. Reporting requirements.

           TITLE II--INDEPENDENT AND COORDINATED EXPENDITURES

Sec. 201. Definitions.
Sec. 202. Civil penalty.
Sec. 203. Reporting requirements for certain independent expenditures.
Sec. 204. Independent versus coordinated expenditures by party.
Sec. 205. Coordination with candidates.

                         TITLE III--DISCLOSURE

Sec. 301. Filing of reports using computers and facsimile machines.
Sec. 302. Prohibition of deposit of contributions with incomplete 
              contributor information.
Sec. 303. Audits.
Sec. 304. Reporting requirements for contributions of $50 or more.
Sec. 305. Use of candidates' names.
Sec. 306. Prohibition of false representation to solicit contributions.
Sec. 307. Soft money of persons other than political parties.
Sec. 308. Campaign advertising.

                    TITLE IV--PERSONAL WEALTH OPTION

Sec. 401. Voluntary personal funds expenditure limit.
Sec. 402. Political party committee coordinated expenditures.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 501. Codification of Beck decision.
Sec. 502. Use of contributed amounts for certain purposes.
Sec. 503. Limit on congressional use of the franking privilege.
Sec. 504. Prohibition of fundraising on Federal property.
Sec. 505. Penalties for knowing and willful violations.
Sec. 506. Strengthening foreign money ban.
Sec. 507. Prohibition of contributions by minors.
Sec. 508. Expedited procedures.
Sec. 509. Initiation of enforcement proceeding.

 TITLE VI--SEVERABILITY; CONSTITUTIONALITY; EFFECTIVE DATE; REGULATIONS

Sec. 601. Severability.
Sec. 602. Review of constitutional issues.
Sec. 603. Effective date.
Sec. 604. Regulations.
            TITLE I--REDUCTION OF SPECIAL INTEREST INFLUENCE

     SEC. 101. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

       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:

     ``SEC. 323. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

       ``(a) National Committees.--

[[Page H4791]]

       ``(1) In general.--A national committee of a political 
     party (including a national congressional campaign committee 
     of a political party) and any officers or agents of such 
     party committees, shall not solicit, receive, or direct to 
     another person a contribution, donation, or transfer of 
     funds, or spend any funds, that are not subject to the 
     limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this 
     Act.
       ``(2) Applicability.--This subsection shall apply to an 
     entity that is directly or indirectly established, financed, 
     maintained, or controlled by a national committee of a 
     political party (including a national congressional campaign 
     committee of a political party), or an entity acting on 
     behalf of a national committee, and an officer or agent 
     acting on behalf of any such committee or entity.
       ``(b) State, District, and Local Committees.--
       ``(1) In general.--An amount that is expended or disbursed 
     by a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     (including an entity that is directly or indirectly 
     established, financed, maintained, or controlled by a State, 
     district, or local committee of a political party and an 
     officer or agent acting on behalf of such committee or 
     entity) for Federal election activity shall be made from 
     funds subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 
     requirements of this Act.
       ``(2) Federal election activity.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `Federal election activity' 
     means--
       ``(i) voter registration activity during the period that 
     begins on the date that is 120 days before the date a 
     regularly scheduled Federal election is held and ends on the 
     date of the election;
       ``(ii) voter identification, get-out-the-vote activity, or 
     generic campaign activity conducted in connection with an 
     election in which a candidate for Federal office appears on 
     the ballot (regardless of whether a candidate for State or 
     local office also appears on the ballot); and
       ``(iii) a communication that refers to a clearly identified 
     candidate for Federal office (regardless of whether a 
     candidate for State or local office is also mentioned or 
     identified) and is made for the purpose of influencing a 
     Federal election (regardless of whether the communication is 
     express advocacy).
       ``(B) Excluded activity.--The term `Federal election 
     activity' does not include an amount expended or disbursed by 
     a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     for--
       ``(i) campaign activity conducted solely on behalf of a 
     clearly identified candidate for State or local office, 
     provided the campaign activity is not a Federal election 
     activity described in subparagraph (A);
       ``(ii) a contribution to a candidate for State or local 
     office, provided the contribution is not designated or used 
     to pay for a Federal election activity described in 
     subparagraph (A);
       ``(iii) the costs of a State, district, or local political 
     convention;
       ``(iv) the costs of grassroots campaign materials, 
     including buttons, bumper stickers, and yard signs, that name 
     or depict only a candidate for State or local office;
       ``(v) the non-Federal share of a State, district, or local 
     party committee's administrative and overhead expenses (but 
     not including the compensation in any month of an individual 
     who spends more than 20 percent of the individual's time on 
     Federal election activity) as determined by a regulation 
     promulgated by the Commission to determine the non-Federal 
     share of a State, district, or local party committee's 
     administrative and overhead expenses; and
       ``(vi) the cost of constructing or purchasing an office 
     facility or equipment for a State, district or local 
     committee.
       ``(c) Fundraising Costs.--An amount spent by a national, 
     State, district, or local committee of a political party, by 
     an entity that is established, financed, maintained, or 
     controlled by a national, State, district, or local committee 
     of a political party, or by an agent or officer of any such 
     committee or entity, to raise funds that are used, in whole 
     or in part, to pay the costs of a Federal election activity 
     shall be made from funds subject to the limitations, 
     prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.
       ``(d) Tax-exempt Organizations.--A national, State, 
     district, or local committee of a political party (including 
     a national congressional campaign committee of a political 
     party, an entity that is directly or indirectly established, 
     financed, maintained, or controlled by any such national, 
     State, district, or local committee or its agent, an agent 
     acting on behalf of any such party committee, and an officer 
     or agent acting on behalf of any such party committee or 
     entity), shall not solicit any funds for, or make or direct 
     any donations to, an organization that is described in 
     section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and 
     exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code (or 
     has submitted an application to the Commissioner of the 
     Internal Revenue Service for determination of tax-exemption 
     under such section).
       ``(e) Candidates.--
       ``(1) In general.--A candidate, individual holding Federal 
     office, or agent of a candidate or individual holding Federal 
     office shall not solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend 
     funds for a Federal election activity on behalf of such 
     candidate, individual, agent or any other person, unless the 
     funds are subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and 
     reporting requirements of this Act.
       ``(2) State law.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to the 
     solicitation or receipt of funds by an individual who is a 
     candidate for a State or local office if the solicitation or 
     receipt of funds is permitted under State law for any 
     activity other than a Federal election activity.
       ``(3) Fundraising events.--Paragraph (1) does not apply in 
     the case of a candidate who attends, speaks, or is a featured 
     guest at a fundraising event sponsored by a State, district, 
     or local committee of a political party.''.

     SEC. 102. INCREASED CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR STATE COMMITTEES 
                   OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND AGGREGATE CONTRIBUTION 
                   LIMIT FOR INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) Contribution Limit for State Committees of Political 
     Parties.--Section 315(a)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (C)--
       (A) by inserting ``(other than a committee described in 
     subparagraph (D))'' after ``committee''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) to a political committee established and maintained 
     by a State committee of a political party in any calendar 
     year that, in the aggregate, exceed $10,000''.
       (b) Aggregate Contribution Limit for Individual.--Section 
     315(a)(3) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)) is amended by striking ``$25,000'' and 
     inserting ``$30,000''.

     SEC. 103. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Reporting Requirements.--Section 304 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) (as amended by 
     section 203) is amended by inserting after subsection (d) the 
     following:
       ``(e) Political Committees.--
       ``(1) National and congressional political committees.--The 
     national committee of a political party, any national 
     congressional campaign committee of a political party, and 
     any subordinate committee of either, shall report all 
     receipts and disbursements during the reporting period.
       ``(2) Other political committees to which section 323 
     applies.--A political committee (not described in paragraph 
     (1)) to which section 323(b)(1) applies shall report all 
     receipts and disbursements made for activities described in 
     paragraphs (2)(A) and (3)(B)(v) of section 323(b).
       ``(3) Itemization.--If a political committee has receipts 
     or disbursements to which this subsection applies from any 
     person aggregating in excess of $200 for any calendar year, 
     the political committee shall separately itemize its 
     reporting for such person in the same manner as required in 
     paragraphs (3)(A), (5), and (6) of subsection (b).
       ``(4) Reporting periods.--Reports required to be filed 
     under this subsection shall be filed for the same time 
     periods required for political committees under subsection 
     (a).''.
       (b) Building Fund Exception to the Definition of 
     Contribution.--Section 301(8)(B) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)(B)) is amended--
       (1) by striking clause (viii); and
       (2) by redesignating clauses (ix) through (xiv) as clauses 
     (viii) through (xiii), respectively.
           TITLE II--INDEPENDENT AND COORDINATED EXPENDITURES

     SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Definition of Independent Expenditure.--Section 301 of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 U.S.C. 431) is amended 
     by striking paragraph (17) and inserting the following:
       ``(17) Independent expenditure.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `independent expenditure' means 
     an expenditure by a person--
       ``(i) for a communication that is express advocacy; and
       ``(ii) that is not provided in coordination with a 
     candidate or a candidate's agent or a person who is 
     coordinating with a candidate or a candidate's agent.''.
       (b) Definition of Express Advocacy.--Section 301 of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(20) Express Advocacy.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `express advocacy' means a 
     communication that advocates the election or defeat of a 
     candidate by--
       ``(i) containing a phrase such as `vote for', `re-elect', 
     `support', `cast your ballot for', `(name of candidate) for 
     Congress', `(name of candidate) in 1997', `vote against', 
     `defeat', `reject', or a campaign slogan or words that in 
     context can have no reasonable meaning other than to advocate 
     the election or defeat of 1 or more clearly identified 
     candidates;
       ``(ii) referring to 1 or more clearly identified candidates 
     in a paid advertisement that is transmitted through radio or 
     television within 60 calendar days preceding the date of an 
     election of the candidate and that appears in the State in 
     which the election is occurring, except that with respect to 
     a candidate for the office of Vice President or President, 
     the time period is within 60 calendar days preceding the date 
     of a general election; or
       ``(iii) expressing unmistakable and unambiguous support for 
     or opposition to 1 or more clearly identified candidates when 
     taken as a whole and with limited reference

[[Page H4792]]

     to external events, such as proximity to an election.
       ``(B) Voting record and voting guide exception.--The term 
     `express advocacy' does not include a printed communication 
     that--
       ``(i) presents information in an educational manner solely 
     about the voting record or position on a campaign issue of 2 
     or more candidates;
       ``(ii) that is not made in coordination with a candidate, 
     political party, or agent of the candidate or party; or a 
     candidate's agent or a person who is coordinating with a 
     candidate or a candidate's agent;
       ``(iii) does not contain a phrase such as `vote for', `re-
     elect', `support', `cast your ballot for', `(name of 
     candidate) for Congress', `(name of candidate) in 1997', 
     `vote against', `defeat', or `reject', or a campaign slogan 
     or words that in context can have no reasonable meaning other 
     than to urge the election or defeat of 1 or more clearly 
     identified candidates.''.
       (c) Definition of Expenditure.--Section 301(9)(A) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(9)(A)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) a payment for a communication that is express 
     advocacy; and
       ``(iv) a payment made by a person for a communication 
     that--
       ``(I) refers to a clearly identified candidate;
       ``(II) is provided in coordination with the candidate, the 
     candidate's agent, or the political party of the candidate; 
     and
       ``(III) is for the purpose of influencing a Federal 
     election (regardless of whether the communication is express 
     advocacy).''.

     SEC. 202. CIVIL PENALTY.

       Section 309 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 437g) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (4)(A)--
       (i) in clause (i), by striking ``clause (ii)'' and 
     inserting ``clauses (ii) and (iii)''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) If the Commission determines by an affirmative vote 
     of 4 of its members that there is probable cause to believe 
     that a person has made a knowing and willful violation of 
     section 304(c), the Commission shall not enter into a 
     conciliation agreement under this paragraph and may institute 
     a civil action for relief under paragraph (6)(A).''; and
       (B) in paragraph (6)(B), by inserting ``(except an action 
     instituted in connection with a knowing and willful violation 
     of section 304(c))'' after ``subparagraph (A)''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``Any person'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in subparagraph (D), any 
     person''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) In the case of a knowing and willful violation of 
     section 304(c) that involves the reporting of an independent 
     expenditure, the violation shall not be subject to this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 203. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN INDEPENDENT 
                   EXPENDITURES.

       Section 304 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 434) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(2), by striking the undesignated 
     matter after subparagraph (C);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) of subsection (c) as 
     subsection (f); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (c)(2) (as amended by 
     paragraph (1)) the following:
       ``(d) Time for Reporting Certain Expenditures.--
       ``(1) Expenditures aggregating $1,000.--
       ``(A) Initial report.--A person (including a political 
     committee) that makes or contracts to make independent 
     expenditures aggregating $1,000 or more after the 20th day, 
     but more than 24 hours, before the date of an election shall 
     file a report describing the expenditures within 24 hours 
     after that amount of independent expenditures has been made.
       ``(B) Additional reports.--After a person files a report 
     under subparagraph (A), the person shall file an additional 
     report within 24 hours after each time the person makes or 
     contracts to make independent expenditures aggregating an 
     additional $1,000 with respect to the same election as that 
     to which the initial report relates.
       ``(2) Expenditures aggregating $10,000.--
       ``(A) Initial report.--A person (including a political 
     committee) that makes or contracts to make independent 
     expenditures aggregating $10,000 or more at any time up to 
     and including the 20th day before the date of an election 
     shall file a report describing the expenditures within 48 
     hours after that amount of independent expenditures has been 
     made.
       ``(B) Additional reports.--After a person files a report 
     under subparagraph (A), the person shall file an additional 
     report within 48 hours after each time the person makes or 
     contracts to make independent expenditures aggregating an 
     additional $10,000 with respect to the same election as that 
     to which the initial report relates.
       ``(3) Place of filing; contents.--A report under this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) shall be filed with the Commission; and
       ``(B) shall contain the information required by subsection 
     (b)(6)(B)(iii), including the name of each candidate whom an 
     expenditure is intended to support or oppose.''.

     SEC. 204. INDEPENDENT VERSUS COORDINATED EXPENDITURES BY 
                   PARTY.

       Section 315(d) of the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 
     U.S.C. 441a(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and (3)'' and inserting 
     ``, (3), and (4)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Independent versus coordinated expenditures by 
     party.--
       ``(A) In general.--On or after the date on which a 
     political party nominates a candidate, a committee of the 
     political party shall not make both expenditures under this 
     subsection and independent expenditures (as defined in 
     section 301(17)) with respect to the candidate during the 
     election cycle.
       ``(B) Certification.--Before making a coordinated 
     expenditure under this subsection with respect to a 
     candidate, a committee of a political party shall file with 
     the Commission a certification, signed by the treasurer of 
     the committee, that the committee has not and shall not make 
     any independent expenditure with respect to the candidate 
     during the same election cycle.
       ``(C) Application.--For the purposes of this paragraph, all 
     political committees established and maintained by a national 
     political party (including all congressional campaign 
     committees) and all political committees established and 
     maintained by a State political party (including any 
     subordinate committee of a State committee) shall be 
     considered to be a single political committee.
       ``(D) Transfers.--A committee of a political party that 
     submits a certification under subparagraph (B) with respect 
     to a candidate shall not, during an election cycle, transfer 
     any funds to, assign authority to make coordinated 
     expenditures under this subsection to, or receive a transfer 
     of funds from, a committee of the political party that has 
     made or intends to make an independent expenditure with 
     respect to the candidate.''.

     SEC. 205. COORDINATION WITH CANDIDATES.

       (a) Definition of Coordination With Candidates.--
       (1) Section 301(8).--Section 301(8) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
       (ii) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) anything of value provided by a person in 
     coordination with a candidate for the purpose of influencing 
     a Federal election, regardless of whether the value being 
     provided is a communication that is express advocacy, in 
     which such candidate seeks nomination or election to Federal 
     office.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) The term `provided in coordination with a candidate' 
     includes--
       ``(i) a payment made by a person in cooperation, 
     consultation, or concert with, at the request or suggestion 
     of, or pursuant to any general or particular understanding 
     with a candidate, the candidate's authorized committee, or an 
     agent acting on behalf of a candidate or authorized 
     committee;
       ``(ii) a payment made by a person for the production, 
     dissemination, distribution, or republication, in whole or in 
     part, of any broadcast or any written, graphic, or other form 
     of campaign material prepared by a candidate, a candidate's 
     authorized committee, or an agent of a candidate or 
     authorized committee (not including a communication described 
     in paragraph (9)(B)(i) or a communication that expressly 
     advocates the candidate's defeat);
       ``(iii) a payment made by a person based on information 
     about a candidate's plans, projects, or needs provided to the 
     person making the payment by the candidate or the candidate's 
     agent who provides the information with the intent that the 
     payment be made;
       ``(iv) a payment made by a person if, in the same election 
     cycle in which the payment is made, the person making the 
     payment is serving or has served as a member, employee, 
     fundraiser, or agent of the candidate's authorized committee 
     in an executive or policymaking position;
       ``(v) a payment made by a person if the person making the 
     payment has served in any formal policy making or advisory 
     position with the candidate's campaign or has participated in 
     formal strategic or formal policymaking discussions with the 
     candidate's campaign relating to the candidate's pursuit of 
     nomination for election, or election, to Federal office, in 
     the same election cycle as the election cycle in which the 
     payment is made;
       ``(vi) a payment made by a person if, in the same election 
     cycle, the person making the payment retains the professional 
     services of any person that has provided or is providing 
     campaign-related services in the same election cycle to a 
     candidate in connection with the candidate's pursuit of 
     nomination for election, or election, to Federal office, 
     including services relating to the candidate's decision to 
     seek Federal office, and the person retained is retained to 
     work on activities relating to that candidate's campaign;
       ``(vii) a payment made by a person who has engaged in a 
     coordinated activity with a candidate described in clauses 
     (i) through (vi) for a communication that clearly refers to 
     the candidate and is for the purpose of influencing an 
     election (regardless of whether the communication is express 
     advocacy);
       ``(viii) direct participation by a person in fundraising 
     activities with the candidate or in the solicitation or 
     receipt of contributions on behalf of the candidate;
       ``(ix) communication by a person with the candidate or an 
     agent of the candidate, occurring after the declaration of 
     candidacy

[[Page H4793]]

     (including a pollster, media consultant, vendor, advisor, or 
     staff member), acting on behalf of the candidate, about 
     advertising message, allocation of resources, fundraising, or 
     other campaign matters related to the candidate's campaign, 
     including campaign operations, staffing, tactics, or 
     strategy; or
       ``(x) the provision of in-kind professional services or 
     polling data to the candidate or candidate's agent.
       ``(D) For purposes of subparagraph (C), the term 
     `professional services' includes services in support of a 
     candidate's pursuit of nomination for election, or election, 
     to Federal office such as polling, media advice, direct mail, 
     fundraising, or campaign research.
       ``(E) For purposes of subparagraph (C), all political 
     committees established and maintained by a national political 
     party (including all congressional campaign committees) and 
     all political committees established and maintained by a 
     State political party (including any subordinate committee of 
     a State committee) shall be considered to be a single 
     political committee.''.
       (2) Section 315(a)(7).--Section 315(a)(7) (2 U.S.C. 
     441a(a)(7)) is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) a thing of value provided in coordination with a 
     candidate, as described in section 301(8)(A)(iii), shall be 
     considered to be a contribution to the candidate, and in the 
     case of a limitation on expenditures, shall be treated as an 
     expenditure by the candidate.
       (b) Meaning of Contribution or Expenditure for the Purposes 
     of Section 316.--Section 316(b)(2) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)) is amended by 
     striking ``shall include'' and inserting ``includes a 
     contribution or expenditure, as those terms are defined in 
     section 301, and also includes''.
                         TITLE III--DISCLOSURE

     SEC. 301. FILING OF REPORTS USING COMPUTERS AND FACSIMILE 
                   MACHINES.

       Section 302(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 434(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (11) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(11)(A) The Commission shall promulgate a regulation 
     under which a person required to file a designation, 
     statement, or report under this Act--
       ``(i) is required to maintain and file a designation, 
     statement, or report for any calendar year in electronic form 
     accessible by computers if the person has, or has reason to 
     expect to have, aggregate contributions or expenditures in 
     excess of a threshold amount determined by the Commission; 
     and
       ``(ii) may maintain and file a designation, statement, or 
     report in electronic form or an alternative form, including 
     the use of a facsimile machine, if not required to do so 
     under the regulation promulgated under clause (i).
       ``(B) The Commission shall make a designation, statement, 
     report, or notification that is filed electronically with the 
     Commission accessible to the public on the Internet not later 
     than 24 hours after the designation, statement, report, or 
     notification is received by the Commission.
       ``(C) In promulgating a regulation under this paragraph, 
     the Commission shall provide methods (other than requiring a 
     signature on the document being filed) for verifying 
     designations, statements, and reports covered by the 
     regulation. Any document verified under any of the methods 
     shall be treated for all purposes (including penalties for 
     perjury) in the same manner as a document verified by 
     signature.''.

     SEC. 302. PROHIBITION OF DEPOSIT OF CONTRIBUTIONS WITH 
                   INCOMPLETE CONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION.

       Section 302 of Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 432) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Deposit of Contributions.--The treasurer of a 
     candidate's authorized committee shall not deposit, except in 
     an escrow account, or otherwise negotiate a contribution from 
     a person who makes an aggregate amount of contributions in 
     excess of $200 during a calendar year unless the treasurer 
     verifies that the information required by this section with 
     respect to the contributor is complete.''.

     SEC. 303. AUDITS.

       (a) Random Audits.--Section 311(b) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 438(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1) In general.--'' before ``The 
     Commission''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Random audits.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the 
     Commission may conduct random audits and investigations to 
     ensure voluntary compliance with this Act. The selection of 
     any candidate for a random audit or investigation shall be 
     based on criteria adopted by a vote of at least 4 members of 
     the Commission.
       ``(B) Limitation.--The Commission shall not conduct an 
     audit or investigation of a candidate's authorized committee 
     under subparagraph (A) until the candidate is no longer a 
     candidate for the office sought by the candidate in an 
     election cycle.
       ``(C) Applicability.--This paragraph does not apply to an 
     authorized committee of a candidate for President or Vice 
     President subject to audit under section 9007 or 9038 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
       (b) Extension of Period During Which Campaign Audits May Be 
     Begun.--Section 311(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 438(b)) is amended by striking ``6 months'' 
     and inserting ``12 months''.

     SEC. 304. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF $50 OR 
                   MORE.

       Section 304(b)(3)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     at 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(b)(3)(A) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$200'' and inserting ``$50''; and
       (2) by striking the semicolon and inserting ``, except that 
     in the case of a person who makes contributions aggregating 
     at least $50 but not more than $200 during the calendar year, 
     the identification need include only the name and address of 
     the person;''.

     SEC. 305. USE OF CANDIDATES' NAMES.

       Section 302(e) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 432(e)) is amended by striking paragraph (4) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(4)(A) The name of each authorized committee shall 
     include the name of the candidate who authorized the 
     committee under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) A political committee that is not an authorized 
     committee shall not--
       ``(i) include the name of any candidate in its name; or
       ``(ii) except in the case of a national, State, or local 
     party committee, use the name of any candidate in any 
     activity on behalf of the committee in such a context as to 
     suggest that the committee is an authorized committee of the 
     candidate or that the use of the candidate's name has been 
     authorized by the candidate.''.

     SEC. 306. PROHIBITION OF FALSE REPRESENTATION TO SOLICIT 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 322 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441h) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``Sec. 322.'' the following: ``(a) 
     In General.--''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Solicitation of Contributions.--No person shall 
     solicit contributions by falsely representing himself or 
     herself as a candidate or as a representative of a candidate, 
     a political committee, or a political party.''.

     SEC. 307. SOFT MONEY OF PERSONS OTHER THAN POLITICAL PARTIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 304 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) (as amended by section 
     103(c) and section 203) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(g) Disbursements of Persons Other Than Political 
     Parties.--
       ``(1) In general.--A person, other than a political 
     committee or a person described in section 501(d) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, that makes an aggregate amount 
     of disbursements in excess of $50,000 during a calendar year 
     for activities described in paragraph (2) shall file a 
     statement with the Commission--
       ``(A) on a monthly basis as described in subsection 
     (a)(4)(B); or
       ``(B) in the case of disbursements that are made within 20 
     days of an election, within 24 hours after the disbursements 
     are made.
       ``(2) Activity.--The activity described in this paragraph 
     is--
       ``(A) Federal election activity;
       ``(B) an activity described in section 316(b)(2)(A) that 
     expresses support for or opposition to a candidate for 
     Federal office or a political party; and
       ``(C) an activity described in subparagraph (C) of section 
     316(b)(2).
       ``(3) Applicability.--This subsection does not apply to--
       ``(A) a candidate or a candidate's authorized committees; 
     or
       ``(B) an independent expenditure.
       ``(4) Contents.--A statement under this section shall 
     contain such information about the disbursements made during 
     the reporting period as the Commission shall prescribe, 
     including--
       ``(A) the aggregate amount of disbursements made;
       ``(B) the name and address of the person or entity to whom 
     a disbursement is made in an aggregate amount in excess of 
     $200;
       ``(C) the date made, amount, and purpose of the 
     disbursement; and
       ``(D) if applicable, whether the disbursement was in 
     support of, or in opposition to, a candidate or a political 
     party, and the name of the candidate or the political 
     party.''.
       (b) Definition of Generic Campaign Activity.--Section 301 
     of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et 
     seq.) (as amended by section 201(b)) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(21) Generic campaign activity.--The term `generic 
     campaign activity' means an activity that promotes a 
     political party and does not promote a candidate or non-
     Federal candidate.''.

     SEC. 308. CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING.

       Section 318 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441d) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``Whenever'' and inserting ``Whenever a 
     political committee makes a disbursement for the purpose of 
     financing any communication through any broadcasting station, 
     newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, 
     or any other type of general public political advertising, or 
     whenever'';
       (ii) by striking ``an expenditure'' and inserting ``a 
     disbursement''; and
       (iii) by striking ``direct''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``and permanent street 
     address'' after ``name''; and

[[Page H4794]]

       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Any printed communication described in subsection (a) 
     shall--
       ``(1) be of sufficient type size to be clearly readable by 
     the recipient of the communication;
       ``(2) be contained in a printed box set apart from the 
     other contents of the communication; and
       ``(3) be printed with a reasonable degree of color contrast 
     between the background and the printed statement.
       ``(d)(1) Any communication described in paragraphs (1) or 
     (2) of subsection (a) which is transmitted through radio or 
     television shall include, in addition to the requirements of 
     that paragraph, an audio statement by the candidate that 
     identifies the candidate and states that the candidate has 
     approved the communication.
       ``(2) If a communication described in paragraph (1) is 
     transmitted through television, the communication shall 
     include, in addition to the audio statement under paragraph 
     (1), a written statement that--
       ``(A) appears at the end of the communication in a clearly 
     readable manner with a reasonable degree of color contrast 
     between the background and the printed statement, for a 
     period of at least 4 seconds; and
       ``(B) is accompanied by a clearly identifiable photographic 
     or similar image of the candidate.
       ``(e) Any communication described in paragraph (3) of 
     subsection (a) which is transmitted through radio or 
     television shall include, in addition to the requirements of 
     that paragraph, in a clearly spoken manner, the following 
     statement: `________ is responsible for the content of this 
     advertisement.' (with the blank to be filled in with the name 
     of the political committee or other person paying for the 
     communication and the name of any connected organization of 
     the payor). If transmitted through television, the statement 
     shall also appear in a clearly readable manner with a 
     reasonable degree of color contrast between the background 
     and the printed statement, for a period of at least 4 
     seconds.''.
                    TITLE IV--PERSONAL WEALTH OPTION

     SEC. 401. VOLUNTARY PERSONAL FUNDS EXPENDITURE LIMIT.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.) (as amended by section 101) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 324. VOLUNTARY PERSONAL FUNDS EXPENDITURE LIMIT.

       ``(a) Eligible Congressional Candidate.--
       ``(1) Primary election.--
       ``(A) Declaration.--A candidate for election for Senator or 
     Representative in or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the 
     Congress is an eligible primary election Congressional 
     candidate if the candidate files with the Commission a 
     declaration that the candidate and the candidate's authorized 
     committees will not make expenditures in excess of the 
     personal funds expenditure limit.
       ``(B) Time to file.--The declaration under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be filed not later than the date on which the candidate 
     files with the appropriate State officer as a candidate for 
     the primary election.
       ``(2) General election.--
       ``(A) Declaration.--A candidate for election for Senator or 
     Representative in or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the 
     Congress is an eligible general election Congressional 
     candidate if the candidate files with the Commission--
       ``(i) a declaration under penalty of perjury, with 
     supporting documentation as required by the Commission, that 
     the candidate and the candidate's authorized committees did 
     not exceed the personal funds expenditure limit in connection 
     with the primary election; and
       ``(ii) a declaration that the candidate and the candidate's 
     authorized committees will not make expenditures in excess of 
     the personal funds expenditure limit.
       ``(B) Time to file.--The declaration under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be filed not later than 7 days after the earlier of--
       ``(i) the date on which the candidate qualifies for the 
     general election ballot under State law; or
       ``(ii) if under State law, a primary or run-off election to 
     qualify for the general election ballot occurs after 
     September 1, the date on which the candidate wins the primary 
     or runoff election.
       ``(b) Personal Funds Expenditure Limit.--
       ``(1) In general.--The aggregate amount of expenditures 
     that may be made in connection with an election by an 
     eligible Congressional candidate or the candidate's 
     authorized committees from the sources described in paragraph 
     (2) shall not exceed $50,000.
       ``(2) Sources.--A source is described in this paragraph if 
     the source is--
       ``(A) personal funds of the candidate and members of the 
     candidate's immediate family; or
       ``(B) proceeds of indebtedness incurred by the candidate or 
     a member of the candidate's immediate family.
       ``(c) Certification by the Commission.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Commission shall determine whether a 
     candidate has met the requirements of this section and, based 
     on the determination, issue a certification stating whether 
     the candidate is an eligible Congressional candidate.
       ``(2) Time for certification.--Not later than 7 business 
     days after a candidate files a declaration under paragraph 
     (1) or (2) of subsection (a), the Commission shall certify 
     whether the candidate is an eligible Congressional candidate.
       ``(3) Revocation.--The Commission shall revoke a 
     certification under paragraph (1), based on information 
     submitted in such form and manner as the Commission may 
     require or on information that comes to the Commission by 
     other means, if the Commission determines that a candidate 
     violates the personal funds expenditure limit.
       ``(4) Determinations by Commission.--A determination made 
     by the Commission under this subsection shall be final, 
     except to the extent that the determination is subject to 
     examination and audit by the Commission and to judicial 
     review.
       ``(d) Penalty.--If the Commission revokes the certification 
     of an eligible Congressional candidate--
       ``(1) the Commission shall notify the candidate of the 
     revocation; and
       ``(2) the candidate and a candidate's authorized committees 
     shall pay to the Commission an amount equal to the amount of 
     expenditures made by a national committee of a political 
     party or a State committee of a political party in connection 
     with the general election campaign of the candidate under 
     section 315(d).''.

     SEC. 402. POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE COORDINATED EXPENDITURES.

       Section 315(d) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 441a(d)) (as amended by section 204) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) This subsection does not apply to expenditures made 
     in connection with the general election campaign of a 
     candidate for Senator or Representative in or Delegate or 
     Resident Commissioner to the Congress who is not an eligible 
     Congressional candidate (as defined in section 324(a)).''.
                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 501. CODIFICATION OF BECK DECISION.

       Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 
     158) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(h) Nonunion Member Payments to Labor Organization.--
       ``(1) In general.--It shall be an unfair labor practice for 
     any labor organization which receives a payment from an 
     employee pursuant to an agreement that requires employees who 
     are not members of the organization to make payments to such 
     organization in lieu of organization dues or fees not to 
     establish and implement the objection procedure described in 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Objection procedure.--The objection procedure 
     required under paragraph (1) shall meet the following 
     requirements:
       ``(A) The labor organization shall annually provide to 
     employees who are covered by such agreement but are not 
     members of the organization--
       ``(i) reasonable personal notice of the objection 
     procedure, the employees eligible to invoke the procedure, 
     and the time, place, and manner for filing an objection; and
       ``(ii) reasonable opportunity to file an objection to 
     paying for organization expenditures supporting political 
     activities unrelated to collective bargaining, including but 
     not limited to the opportunity to file such objection by 
     mail.
       ``(B) If an employee who is not a member of the labor 
     organization files an objection under the procedure in 
     subparagraph (A), such organization shall--
       ``(i) reduce the payments in lieu of organization dues or 
     fees by such employee by an amount which reasonably reflects 
     the ratio that the organization's expenditures supporting 
     political activities unrelated to collective bargaining bears 
     to such organization's total expenditures;
       ``(ii) provide such employee with a reasonable explanation 
     of the organization's calculation of such reduction, 
     including calculating the amount of organization expenditures 
     supporting political activities unrelated to collective 
     bargaining.
       ``(3) Definition.--In this subsection, the term 
     `expenditures supporting political activities unrelated to 
     collective bargaining' means expenditures in connection with 
     a Federal, State, or local election or in connection with 
     efforts to influence legislation unrelated to collective 
     bargaining.''.

     SEC. 502. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by striking section 313 and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 313. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.

       ``(a) Permitted Uses.--A contribution accepted by a 
     candidate, and any other amount received by an individual as 
     support for activities of the individual as a holder of 
     Federal office, may be used by the candidate or individual--
       ``(1) for expenditures in connection with the campaign for 
     Federal office of the candidate or individual;
       ``(2) for ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in 
     connection with duties of the individual as a holder of 
     Federal office;
       ``(3) for contributions to an organization described in 
     section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
       ``(4) for transfers to a national, State, or local 
     committee of a political party.
       ``(b) Prohibited Use.--
       ``(1) In general.--A contribution or amount described in 
     subsection (a) shall not be converted by any person to 
     personal use.
       ``(2) Conversion.--For the purposes of paragraph (1), a 
     contribution or amount

[[Page H4795]]

     shall be considered to be converted to personal use if the 
     contribution or amount is used to fulfill any commitment, 
     obligation, or expense of a person that would exist 
     irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or 
     individual's duties as a holder of Federal officeholder, 
     including--
       ``(A) a home mortgage, rent, or utility payment;
       ``(B) a clothing purchase;
       ``(C) a noncampaign-related automobile expense;
       ``(D) a country club membership;
       ``(E) a vacation or other noncampaign-related trip;
       ``(F) a household food item;
       ``(G) a tuition payment;
       ``(H) admission to a sporting event, concert, theater, or 
     other form of entertainment not associated with an election 
     campaign; and
       ``(I) dues, fees, and other payments to a health club or 
     recreational facility.''.

     SEC. 503. LIMIT ON CONGRESSIONAL USE OF THE FRANKING 
                   PRIVILEGE.

       Section 3210(a)(6) of title 39, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) A Member of Congress shall not mail any mass mailing 
     as franked mail during the 180-day period which ends on the 
     date of the general election for the office held by the 
     Member or during the 90-day period which ends on the date of 
     any primary election for that office, unless the Member has 
     made a public announcement that the Member will not be a 
     candidate for reelection during that year or for election to 
     any other Federal office.''.

     SEC. 504. PROHIBITION OF FUNDRAISING ON FEDERAL PROPERTY.

       Section 607 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Prohibition.--
       ``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person to 
     solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of 
     value for a political committee or a candidate for Federal, 
     State or local office from a person who is located in a room 
     or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by 
     an officer or employee of the United States. An individual 
     who is an officer or employee of the Federal Government, 
     including the President, Vice President, and Members of 
     Congress, shall not solicit a donation of money or other 
     thing of value for a political committee or candidate for 
     Federal, State or local office, while in any room or building 
     occupied in the discharge of official duties by an officer or 
     employee of the United States, from any person.
       ``(2) Penalty.--A person who violates this section shall be 
     fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned more than 3 years, or 
     both.''; and
       (2) by inserting in subsection (b) after ``Congress'' ``or 
     Executive Office of the President''.

     SEC. 505. PENALTIES FOR KNOWING AND WILLFUL VIOLATIONS.

       (a) Increased Penalties.--Section 309(a) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraphs (5)(A), (6)(A), and (6)(B), by striking 
     ``$5,000'' and inserting ``$10,000''; and
       (2) in paragraphs (5)(B) and (6)(C), by striking ``$10,000 
     or an amount equal to 200 percent'' and inserting ``$20,000 
     or an amount equal to 300 percent''.
       (b) Equitable Remedies.--Section 309(a)(5)(A) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(5)) 
     is amended by striking the period at the end and inserting 
     ``, and may include equitable remedies or penalties, 
     including disgorgement of funds to the Treasury or community 
     service requirements (including requirements to participate 
     in public education programs).''.
       (c) Automatic Penalty for Late Filing.--Section 309(a) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) Penalty for late filing.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Monetary penalties.--The Commission shall establish a 
     schedule of mandatory monetary penalties that shall be 
     imposed by the Commission for failure to meet a time 
     requirement for filing under section 304.
       ``(ii) Required filing.--In addition to imposing a penalty, 
     the Commission may require a report that has not been filed 
     within the time requirements of section 304 to be filed by a 
     specific date.
       ``(iii) Procedure.--A penalty or filing requirement imposed 
     under this paragraph shall not be subject to paragraph (1), 
     (2), (3), (4), (5), or (12).
       ``(B) Filing an exception.--
       ``(i) Time to file.--A political committee shall have 30 
     days after the imposition of a penalty or filing requirement 
     by the Commission under this paragraph in which to file an 
     exception with the Commission.
       ``(ii) Time for Commission to rule.--Within 30 days after 
     receiving an exception, the Commission shall make a 
     determination that is a final agency action subject to 
     exclusive review by the United States Court of Appeals for 
     the District of Columbia Circuit under section 706 of title 
     5, United States Code, upon petition filed in that court by 
     the political committee or treasurer that is the subject of 
     the agency action, if the petition is filed within 30 days 
     after the date of the Commission action for which review is 
     sought.'';
       (2) in paragraph (5)(D)--
       (A) by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``In any case in which a penalty or filing requirement 
     imposed on a political committee or treasurer under paragraph 
     (13) has not been satisfied, the Commission may institute a 
     civil action for enforcement under paragraph (6)(A).''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period at the end of the last 
     sentence the following: ``or has failed to pay a penalty or 
     meet a filing requirement imposed under paragraph (13)''; and
       (3) in paragraph (6)(A), by striking ``paragraph (4)(A)'' 
     and inserting ``paragraph (4)(A) or (13)''.

     SEC. 506. STRENGTHENING FOREIGN MONEY BAN.

       Section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441e) is amended--
       (1) by striking the heading and inserting the following: 
     ``contributions and donations by foreign nationals''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for--
       ``(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make--
       ``(A) a donation of money or other thing of value, or to 
     promise expressly or impliedly to make a donation, in 
     connection with a Federal, State, or local election to a 
     political committee or a candidate for Federal office, or
       ``(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a 
     political party; or
       ``(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a 
     contribution or donation described in paragraph (1)(A) from a 
     foreign national.''.

     SEC. 507. PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MINORS.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.) (as amended by sections 101 and 401) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 325. PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MINORS.

       An individual who is 17 years old or younger shall not make 
     a contribution to a candidate or a contribution or donation 
     to a committee of a political party.''.

     SEC. 508. EXPEDITED PROCEDURES.

       (a) In General.--Section 309(a) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)) (as amended by 
     section 505(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(14)(A) If the complaint in a proceeding was filed within 
     60 days preceding the date of a general election, the 
     Commission may take action described in this subparagraph.
       ``(B) If the Commission determines, on the basis of facts 
     alleged in the complaint and other facts available to the 
     Commission, that there is clear and convincing evidence that 
     a violation of this Act has occurred, is occurring, or is 
     about to occur, the Commission may order expedited 
     proceedings, shortening the time periods for proceedings 
     under paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) as necessary to allow 
     the matter to be resolved in sufficient time before the 
     election to avoid harm or prejudice to the interests of the 
     parties.
       ``(C) If the Commission determines, on the basis of facts 
     alleged in the complaint and other facts available to the 
     Commission, that the complaint is clearly without merit, the 
     Commission may--
       ``(i) order expedited proceedings, shortening the time 
     periods for proceedings under paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and 
     (4) as necessary to allow the matter to be resolved in 
     sufficient time before the election to avoid harm or 
     prejudice to the interests of the parties; or
       ``(ii) if the Commission determines that there is 
     insufficient time to conduct proceedings before the election, 
     summarily dismiss the complaint.''.
       (b) Referral to Attorney General.--Section 309(a)(5) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(5)) 
     is amended by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) The Commission may at any time, by an affirmative 
     vote of at least 4 of its members, refer a possible violation 
     of this Act or chapter 95 or 96 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986, to the Attorney General of the United States, 
     without regard to any limitation set forth in this 
     section.''.

     SEC. 509. INITIATION OF ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING.

       Section 309(a)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``reason to 
     believe that'' and inserting ``reason to investigate 
     whether''.
 TITLE VI--SEVERABILITY; CONSTITUTIONALITY; EFFECTIVE DATE; REGULATIONS

     SEC. 601. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act, 
     or the application of a provision or amendment to any person 
     or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the 
     remainder of this Act and amendments made by this Act, and 
     the application of the provisions and amendment to any person 
     or circumstance, shall not be affected by the holding.

     SEC. 602. REVIEW OF CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.

       An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the 
     United States from any final judgment, decree, or order 
     issued by any court ruling on the constitutionality of any 
     provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act.

     SEC. 603. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as otherwise provided in this Act, this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act take effect January 1, 1999.

[[Page H4796]]

     SEC. 604. REGULATIONS.

       The Federal Election Commission shall prescribe any 
     regulations required to carry out this Act and the amendments 
     made by this Act not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am fully prepared to go to a vote on this 
legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman yield back the balance 
of his time?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition and point out there 
are other amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman wish to yield at this 
time?
  Mr. SHAYS. Yes. Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman. Do I have 5 minutes 
now, or can I reserve that 5 minutes?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman may not reserve his time.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) 
has 5 minutes on his amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Connecticut and 
thank both authors of this amendment. I think it is a balanced 
amendment. It does not do everything we would like to see, but what 
legislation does?
  I think we are recognizing that this issue of campaign finance reform 
is not Democrat or Republican. We all carry blame for what was or was 
not done in the past. We all carry blame for the fact that the system 
is not working as we know it should.
  And so I would ask my colleagues to take a look at this amendment. It 
is comprehensive. There are parts in it that Republicans may not like, 
but there are parts in it where the supporters of Democrats will be 
infuriated. There are practices that, sadly, have become all too 
common, that have been used by Democratic supporters and Republican 
supporters, that the American people know are wrong and inappropriate. 
One of those activities is groups coming in at the last moment in 
elections and doing something that is supposedly an educational piece, 
which we all know are last-minute hit pieces and smear pieces.
  The American people expect candidates to keep their campaigns above 
the belt. Sadly, there are groups that are subverting the process by 
using dirty tactics late in campaigns and claiming that they are 
educational pieces. The Shays-Meehan bill will help to reduce that type 
of tactic in our electoral process.
  I want to say, as a Californian, I think there is one thing that is 
very clear that the people in this country are going to say quite 
loudly in the next few elections, because I saw it in California. Dirty 
tactics are going to backfire. Shays-Meehan helps to reduce the 
potential for those types of tactics being used in our Federal 
elections.
  And I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for bringing 
this forward and working together. Let us have a bipartisan effort in 
addressing these problems.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) and all the others that have been involved in this really 
historic effort. This has been a tremendous effort and it is just the 
beginning of a tremendous effort.
  I am frustrated because when I talk to people in my district, in 
particular, young people, I find a tremendous amount of distrust in our 
democratic process. People have tuned out of the system because they do 
not think that it is responsive to them. They feel as though they 
cannot be a player in the game because they do not have a lot of money.
  I am someone who firmly believes that democracy works only as well as 
we make it work. It is the ultimate participatory sport. And if young 
people, or any people in this country feel that they cannot be part of 
this system because of what they see going on right now in our country, 
that is bad for democracy.

                              {time}  1815

  That is bad for everybody here, whether they are a Democrat or 
Republican or an Independent. We should be encouraging people to be 
involved in this system.
  I think that the Shays-Meehan proposal takes away some of the 
cynicism that is out there because it lets people understand that we do 
not want unregulated soft money coming into this system. We do not want 
drive-by shootings that are basically what some of these 30-second 
commercials are. What we want is we want integrity in the system. And I 
think that this is a very serious and a very meritorious attempt to 
bring some integrity back to the system.
  So I am very proud to stand today to support the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and to support the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Meehan). We have waited a long, long time for this debate. But, 
hopefully, we will be able to plow through these amendments and in the 
end we will support this proposal because it is a very good proposal.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and say that in the 
near future when we will be discussing a number of amendments, it is 
possible that we will support some of those amendments.
  We certainly are going to support the amendment on the commission 
bill offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). And it is also possible we 
will support some other amendments.
  But we hope that this legislation, the Meehan-Shays legislation, 
remains intact. We hope to pass this bill to ban soft money, to 
recognize the sham issue ads that truly campaign ads, to codify the 
``Beck'' decision to improve FEC disclosure enforcement, to deal with 
the franking problem, and to provide that foreign money and fund-
raising on government property is illegal.
  I urge support for the Meehan-Shays substitute.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I was rising in opposition to claim the 
5-minute time under the rule to his amendment. Is that not indeed the 
case?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The Chair is endeavoring to 
alternate sides under the 5-minute rule.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I did not strike the last word. I 
thought we got 5 minutes on our side to oppose the initial offering of 
the amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the gentleman asking 
for 5 minutes. I did not know I had asked for 5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Members will suspend.
  The time is not controlled. Debate is under the 5-minute rule. The 
Chair will alternate.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shays-
Meehan campaign finance reform and commend both of the authors for 
their tenacity and their hard work in bringing us to this point.
  Having joined with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Baesler) and 
other members of the Blue Dog Coalition to initiate a discharge 
petition last October to force consideration of campaign finance 
reform, I am very pleased to be here tonight finally debating a 
serious, substantive proposal to reform our campaign finance laws.
  The current campaign finance system hands a loudspeaker to interest 
groups and political parties, and while ordinary citizens are reduced 
to speaking in a whisper. That is not the free speech envisioned by the 
First Amendment.
  Enacting campaign finance reforms that limit the influence of wealthy 
individuals, special interest groups and political parties is critical 
to restoring the integrity of our democratic process.
  I respectfully disagree with opponents of campaign finance reform who

[[Page H4797]]

argue that the free speech protections in the First Amendment guarantee 
the right of any individual or group to spend unlimited amounts of 
money to influence an election without having to take the 
responsibility for the advertisements or even acknowledge that they are 
funding the advertisements.
  The Shays-Meehan amendment strikes to the heart of the problems in 
the current campaign finance system by addressing the two areas of the 
campaign finance system that are outside of the rules; the unregulated, 
unlimited donations to political parties by corporations, labor unions 
and wealthy individuals known as soft money and the sham issue ads that 
are used to influence elections without being subject to campaign laws.
  I agree with those who say that we must enforce the current campaign 
finance rules and punish those who have violated those rules. However, 
the vast majority of reported scandals involve activities by people in 
both parties that are unethical and offensive to many of us but were 
not illegal because of the loopholes in our current system.
  Virtually all of the scandals that have been reported in the press 
involve soft money or issue advocacy, which are exempt from most 
campaign finance laws. The Shays-Meehan amendment simply states that 
campaign activities of political parties and independent organizations 
should be subject to the same rules that apply to candidates for 
office.
  Under current law, the individuals who are engaged in unethical 
behavior in raising soft money or running issue ad campaigns in 1996 
will not face any penalties because they are not covered by any laws. 
If Shays-Meehan had been the law of the land in 1996, these individuals 
would be punished, as they should be.
  One of the provisions I feel the most strongly about in this 
amendment is placing greater accountability on spending by independent 
organizations to influence campaigns. The Shays-Meehan amendment states 
that any independent expenditure made in connection with a 
congressional election would be subject to other regular current 
campaign finance laws and disclosure requirements, anyone making an 
independent expenditure of more than $10,000, if those communications 
include the name, likeness, or representation of a candidate for 
federal public office. These reports must be filed electronically with 
the FEC and posted on the Internet so citizens can find out and learn 
who is paying for the political ads. What could possibly be wrong with 
that?
  The Annenberg Public Policy Center compiled an archive of 107 issue 
advocacy advertisements that aired during the 1996 election cycle 
sponsored by 27 different organizations, both liberal and conservative. 
While this Policy Center's report does not speak out in support of or 
opposed to issue advocacy, their research shows just how much these 
advertisements look like regular campaign commercials and how much 
impact their one-sided information had on voters.
  While promoters of these ads claim that they are simply educating the 
public, more often they are stealth attacks designed more to keep the 
public in the dark about the full story of an issue.
  The issue ad loophole in current law makes it possible for foreign 
governments or other foreigners to influence American elections by 
setting up a front organization that runs issue ads attacking 
candidates who do not support the interest of that foreign government. 
Under current law, the voters who see those ads would never know that 
that money to run those ads came from foreign interests. I believe that 
my constituents deserve to know if foreign entities are running ads in 
my district.
  I strongly support the right of any group to express whatever views 
they have about me or any other candidates for office. However, I 
believe that the public deserves to know who is trying to influence 
those elections. Full disclosure is needed to allow the public to make 
their own judgments about advertisements run by independent 
organizations.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Stenholm was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, contrary to claims by some organizations 
opposing campaign finance reform legislation, the Shays-Meehan 
amendment would not prevent independent organizations from running 
advertisements or prohibit these groups from using the name of a Member 
of Congress or any other candidate in that advertisement prior to an 
election.
  I strongly support that. I do not mind any organization running 
anything, any individual running anything for my opponent in this year 
or in any other year. But I do believe my constituents that I represent 
have the right to know who it is that is spending the money in the 17th 
District of Texas, and then we will welcome that in the field of free 
speech and debate under all of the First Amendment rights and 
privileges that all of us find so dear.
  Under the Shays-Meehan amendment, any independent group can run 
advertisements expressing any opinion it wants at any time during a 
campaign so long as it complies with the standards of accountability 
and openness that apply to other political advertisements. I heard an 
earlier speaker today talking about that was un-American. I do not 
understand for a moment how that can be.
  All we are talking about is making sure that freedom of speech means 
just that and that the people have a right to know who it is that is 
having the freedom of speech.
  I am standing in the well. Everyone watching in our offices and here 
know who I am, what I am saying. It is coming from me. I think the same 
should be true for any political advertisement run by any group on 
either side of the aisle. We ought to know who is behind it.
  It is not a partisan matter. I appreciate the tenure of many of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are serious about this. And I 
hope we will cut through the chaff and get down to the meat of this 
issue.
  Candidates from both parties both benefit from and are hurt by these 
advertisements. Our Nation's important free speech should not be 
minimized, but it should be balanced by honesty and accountability.
  Vote for the Shays-Meehan amendment to bring honesty and 
accountability into all aspects of campaign finance.


  Amendment No. 132 Offered by Mr. Thomas to Amendment No. 13 in the 
              Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Shays

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute is as follows:

       Amendment No. 132 offered by Mr. Thomas to Amendment No. 13 
     in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Shays:
       Amend section 601 to read as follows (and conform the table 
     of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 601. NONSEVERABILITY OF PROVISIONS.

       If any provision of this Act or any amendment made by this 
     Act, or the application thereof to any person or 
     circumstance, is held invalid, the remaining provisions of 
     this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall be treated 
     as invalid.
       In the heading for title VI, strike ``SEVERABILITY'' and 
     insert ``NONSEVERABILITY'' (and conform the table of contents 
     accordingly).

  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I asked to offer this amendment. As I said 
during general debate, this will be offered to any major substitute 
that has a severability clause. I talked earlier about the fact that 
when the first Federal Election Campaign Act was passed, Congress took 
a comprehensive approach to campaign reform.
  When the Court reviewed it, they struck as unconstitutional portions 
of the plan. There really is no constitutional basis for the Court 
having the ability to impose its will on any other branch. They are 
supposed to be coequal branches. Our oath to the Constitution is not 
inferior to the Supreme Court's.
  Notwithstanding that historical relationship, 25 years later, the 
portions that were struck down by the Court are simply null and void.
  We have before us the first example of a number of comprehensive 
bills which contain a number of provisions that desire to go after 
certain behavior.

[[Page H4798]]

  The Court has been on record in some areas, especially where 
political parties operate as an independent expenditure rather than as 
a party. If it is soft money the Court has said, and the most recent 
court example would be Colorado v. The Republican Party in which the 
Court upheld the right of the party to follow this model. And this 
particular legislation tries to correct that.
  Issue advocacy is now a strong point, and there is an attempt to 
change the relationship that the Court has advocated in issue advocacy. 
I believe that we could try to test the Court to see if they would now 
hold constitutional a provision that they have held unconstitutional in 
the past. My belief is we would run that risk and lose.
  It seems to me far more prudent that on any bill that contains 
multiple provisions which the Court could rule on that if Congress 
wants to retain control of campaign law, what we ought to say is that 
if someone takes the law to court and they beat a piece of it, then the 
entire law falls. What happens? We come back and rewrite a law.
  The folks who do not want this amendment that I am offering, the 
nonseverability, the folks who want to be able to say, notwithstanding 
a piece of the law falling, all the rest of it stands, will tell us 
this, ``we will come back and fix that piece.''
  I am here to tell my colleagues that, as a product of 25 years of 
labor to try to change the pieces that the Court changed, it is not 
nearly as easy as that.
  What we have had for 25 years is a piecemeal law that does not work 
in many instances. We are here tonight and will be here over the next 
several weeks because what the Court did does not work. Why in the 
world would we repeat the same mistake again?
  This amendment will be offered to every comprehensive substitute that 
has a severability clause. Does it mean that I am a masochist, does it 
mean that I am trying to defeat the effort to make change? No. What I 
am trying to do is guarantee Congress retains the ability to make the 
change, that we do not let the Court make the change.
  If my colleagues do not accept my amendment, which is joined by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), so I can gladly say this is a 
bipartisan amendment, then what we have been under for the last 25 
years is doomed to repeat itself for an open-ended number of years as 
the Court picks and chooses as to what to declare unconstitutional from 
a comprehensive bill.
  I think that the choice is not a good one in either case: Live under 
this hodgepodge that the Court was allowed to create because of 
historical usurpation of a power, or for Congress to come back and 
rewrite the law in its entirety.

                              {time}  1830

  Either one of those are going to be the choices, and I think the far 
better choice is to say that if a piece falls, it all falls and we come 
back and rewrite it. That way we know in a given time frame we will be 
able to produce a product that works. The other way has not worked.
  I would urge all my colleagues when we do have a vote on the 
amendment, that amendment No. 132 sponsored by myself and the gentleman 
from Texas be accepted and that it be accepted and placed in every 
substitute that has a severability clause, because I believe, no matter 
what we do, no matter what the particular provisions are in a measure, 
Congress ought to retain control of what is campaign finance law. The 
only way we can retain control is to remove the severability clause 
that is in the measures.
  I would ask Members to support the amendment.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). I happen to have the 
view that what we are doing here is very serious and that we should 
treat everything that is done here today as on the level. We should 
vote for the things that we think are important. And if we feel 
strongly about a subject, we should vote in favor of it and we should 
vote as if what we are doing this week and next week actually has a 
chance to become law, not that we are posturing but that we are looking 
to the point of if this becomes law, how does it work and what is the 
best way for it to work.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue of nonseverability is one of the highest 
importance in this debate. In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled in Buckley 
v. Valeo that the provisions in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
1974 relating to the use of personal funds by a candidate to fund a 
campaign and on overall campaign expenditures were unconstitutional. 
The court held that these provisions placed direct and substantial 
restrictions on the ability of candidates, citizens, and associations 
to engage in protected first amendment rights.
  At the same time, the court upheld the limitations on contributions 
to candidates. In so doing, the court dismantled a carefully crafted 
package, each part dependent upon the other to reform the way campaigns 
were, in the 1970s, financed.
  And so, Mr. Chairman, we are left with limits on how much a candidate 
can receive in contributions, but no limits on what wealthy candidates 
can spend on their own campaigns, or the total amount that a candidate 
can spend regardless of source.
  That, Mr. Chairman, is how we got to where we are today. In the event 
that the package proposed by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) passes, and I intend 
to vote for it on final passage, in the event that it passes, the court 
could very well dismantle this package by finding that the ban on soft 
money or the limitations on groups or individuals making independent 
expenditures are, in fact, unconstitutional. What we would be left with 
is another hodgepodge of campaign expenditure limitations that in 
essence will leave us in the same difficult situation that we find 
ourselves in today.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment to add a 
nonseverability clause to this legislation. A nonseverability clause 
will ensure that if one part of Shays-Meehan is found unconstitutional, 
the whole package will be nullified. There is little reason to pass 
legislation which may ultimately end up looking like a piece of Swiss 
cheese. This should be a take or leave it proposition, and addition of 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California to this bill 
will assure that either the whole package or no package will ultimately 
be the law of the land. To do otherwise risks that we suffer from the 
law of unintended consequences. We could wind up with the worst 
provisions of Shays-Meehan with the best provisions of Shays-Meehan 
being stripped out by the Supreme Court. If we really believe in 
campaign reform, we should support a package that hangs together, a 
package where every part of it is necessary for real reform, and we 
risk being left with only half a package if we do not insert a 
nonseverability clause.
  Mr. Chairman, legislating is serious business. We should assume that 
the bill we are debating tonight will actually become law. And if it 
actually becomes law, it will be totally unfair to have this provision 
remain in part because the Supreme Court strikes down the best portions 
and leaves us with the worst. I ask that Members vote in favor of the 
Thomas amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have great admiration for the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas). I think his attitude about the separation of 
function that the Constitution provides between the Congress and the 
Supreme Court is insightful and that it really ought to be our job to 
write good laws and then the Supreme Court to uphold or strike them 
down, rather than to have the Supreme Court pick and choose. So he 
makes an awfully good case.
  I rise, however, to speak against the amendment for two reasons. One 
is because I think it is important that we have a vote on Shays-Meehan, 
unamended, that the process once an amendment starts is going to be 
very hard to prevent from unraveling, and the very best chance that we 
have of having a vote in the other body is Shays-Meehan. I have my own 
proposal, I think it is preferable, I am allowed to say that, but it is 
true that Shays-Meehan/McCain-Feingold has the very best chance to be 
considered in the other body, and in that context it ought not be 
amended.
  But, secondly, I believe that Shays-Meehan is constitutional, and so 
I devote the remainder of my time to that

[[Page H4799]]

subject, in that if it is constitutional in all respects, then 
severability becomes much less of a concern.
  The two aspects of Shays-Meehan/McCain-Feingold that have been 
criticized are these. First the ban on soft money, and second the 
distinction between express and issue advocacy. As to the distinction 
of issue advocacy and express advocacy, those who argue Shays-Meehan is 
unconstitutional say that it is unconstitutional to consider as express 
advocacy anything that does not use the so-called magic words ``vote 
for.''
  We are each entitled, indeed sworn to uphold the Constitution as we 
best see it by our own lights but if the judgement is to be what would 
the Supreme Court do, I draw to my colleagues' attention an opinion by 
the Supreme Court 10 years after Buckley v. Valeo, 10 years after the 
reference to the magic words, and that was in Massachusetts Citizens 
for Life in which the Supreme Court dealt with the question of did it 
have to use the magic words or not. It dealt with an edition of a flier 
that listed individual candidates.
  The Supreme Court said:

       The Edition cannot be regarded as a mere discussion of 
     public issues that by their nature raise the names of certain 
     politicians. Rather, it provides in effect an explicit 
     directive: vote for these named candidates.

  So the Supreme Court 10 years after Buckley was clearly departing 
from the magic words test and was saying it is the effect of the 
communication, the effect of saying in this context these things about 
these candidates was to say vote for them. And so it was the effect 
rather than the presence of the magic words that was determinative.
  The approach taken by Shays-Meehan is precisely that, suggesting or 
holding as matter of law that communications to the electorate using 
the name of a candidate or his or her picture in the last 60 days is, 
in effect, saying vote for or against that candidate. It is certainly 
within the first amendment to do so in my interpretation, far more 
importantly in the Supreme Court's interpretation as of 1986, 10 years 
after Buckley v. Valeo.
  Second and last, the other component of the critics of the 
constitutionality of Shays-Meehan that is most commonly heard is the 
ban on the soft money. But the Supreme Court has also ruled on this in 
California Medical Association v. FEC in 1981. The Supreme Court upheld 
the limitation of $5,000 on contributions to PACs. Their argument was 
that if it was constitutional to have a limit of $1,000 on how much 
individuals could be contributing to a campaign, and yet $5,000 for a 
PAC, the purpose of avoiding corruption could be evaded by a wealthy 
individual or a person of influence giving the money to a PAC knowing 
that it would get to the benefit of the candidate. And so the Supreme 
Court held in California Medical Association v. FEC that the $5,000 
limit on contributions to multicandidate PACs was constitutional. Well, 
so also here.
  In order to avoid the evasion of the fundamental purpose of the 
$1,000 contribution, a donor could conceivably give the money to a 
political party and then, using the way the Supreme Court has 
interpreted the rules on soft money, know very well that that political 
party would get that money to the effective use of that candidate. And 
this is in reality. There are many instances that we know where it has 
been used in exactly that manner.
  Accordingly, with those two explanations, it is my conclusion that 
there is nothing unconstitutional in Shays-Meehan and severability is 
not an issue, and, hence, I would not urge support of the Thomas 
amendment.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I thank the gentleman for yielding. All of us 
certainly admire and respect the gentleman's legal analysis. I want to 
read to the gentleman from page 249 of the Massachusetts case that he 
cited.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The time of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell) has expired.
  (On request of Mrs. Northup, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Campbell 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I continue to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. ``Buckley adopted the `express advocacy' requirement 
to distinguish discussion of issues and candidates from more pointed 
exhortations to vote for particular persons. We therefore concluded in 
that case that a finding of `express advocacy' depended upon the use of 
language such as `vote for,' `elect,' `support,' et cetera. Just such 
an exhortation appears in the `Special Edition' in this case. The 
publication not only urges voters to vote for `pro-life' candidates, 
but also identifies and provides photographs of specific candidates 
fitting that description.''
  So it seems to me in this case, they are definitely verifying and 
accepting the definition of express advocacy as set out in Buckley.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I appreciate the gentleman's intervention, and I return 
the compliment. He is also a scholar. I certainly respect his point of 
view. But recognize that the Supreme Court's holding in the 
Massachusetts Citizens for Life case was the intent, was the purpose of 
the communication, not the magic words. I emphasize the exact quotation 
that the gentleman gave me, the words ``such as,'' not the ``words'' 
but ``words such as.''
  Indeed, I was going to quote from Buckley myself at 424 U.S. at 44, 
note 52, the Supreme Court says, before giving the magic words, ``such 
as.'' And so the test is not the presence of the actual words but 
whether the purpose and effect in context is to urge the election of an 
individual. It was the case in Massachusetts Citizens for Life, and so 
also it could be the case even if no specific magic word is present.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. This says, ``Just such an exhortation.'' It says, 
``Rather, it provides in effect an explicit directive: vote for these 
candidates.'' And that is the bright line test.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I think it is probably time for me to 
conclude, although I will be pleased to yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  I will just make one last point. The holding of Massachusetts 
Citizens for Life was intent and effect in the context.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell) has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Doolittle, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Campbell 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I was just concerned. It is clear to me, 
reading the law, that you have to have words of express advocacy. I 
just wanted to make sure that it was the gentleman's understanding, my 
colleague from California, that we were not dealing with some 
reasonable person test or anything of that kind. There is a magic word. 
It has to be a word of express advocacy. It may not be the seven magic 
words, whatever the number that was actually enumerated in Buckley. But 
I think the law is quite clear. It has to be a term of express 
advocacy. Does the gentleman disagree with that?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I do. Once more, though, it is important to begin by an 
expression of respect. I do not doubt that my colleague from California 
is a careful student of the law. But the holding in Massachusetts 
Citizens for Life, and I am going to recur to the exact quote I used 
was, ``The Edition cannot be regarded as a mere discussion of public 
issues that by their nature raise the names of certain politicians. 
Rather, it provides in effect an explicit directive.''
  So the distinction the court appeared to be directing its attention 
to was, you have over here a mere discussion of public issues, and you 
have over here what is in effect a directive. The turning of the logic 
is not on the use of the words. It is on, is this a discussion of 
public issues or is it a directive to vote? And so under that 
interpretation, I think it is quite fair to say that the inclusion of 
names that close to an election is a directive to vote.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree with the 
gentleman's interpretation. I think that is not what the law says. The 
Supreme Court in Buckley has spoken and has reaffirmed as recently as 
Colorado and all the cases as far as I know that makes quite clear that 
we have to have a bright line. Because we do have that little phrase in 
the Constitution that

[[Page H4800]]

says, ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.''
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I think this 
last discussion gives a good reason why we should oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot anticipate what a court will do. The way that 
this nonseverability amendment is written, it is so broadly written 
that if the Court made any significant changes, any changes at all, it 
could jeopardize other provisions in this bill, it could jeopardize the 
bill itself. It may not strike at what the author is trying to do by 
linking certain provisions of the bill together, but because of the way 
the amendment is written, it is very possible that we could jeopardize 
what we are trying to do here in getting enacted the Shays-Meehan bill. 
It also compromises the coalition that has been put together in an 
effort to make the first steps to meaningful campaign finance reform.
  So for all those reasons on the merits I would hope that my 
colleagues would reject this amendment.
  One problem that we have is that there are 435 experts in this body 
on campaign finance reform, but we are all experts in our own 
congressional districts, and we do not appreciate that we need to 
legislate that will affect all 435 of the districts, and we are going 
to be hearing some amendments that are going to be coming forward that 
are well-intended, that we think we have to package everything together 
or add additional provisions to this in order to make Shays-Meehan 
better. But the one thing that I would hope all could agree on is that 
Shays-Meehan is a good first step to campaign finance reform, and if we 
are interested in changing the current system, then we should resist 
amendments that jeopardize our ability to get Shays-Meehan passed in 
this body and the other body.
  Mr. Chairman, it does deal with some major issues that are out there 
that my constituents, indeed I think all of our constituents, are 
asking us to deal with in campaign finance reform, and that deals with 
the use of soft money by our political parties where millions of 
dollars are being contributed basically without accountability and are 
being used to influence elections even though they are not supposed to 
be, and issue advocacy which we just heard the debate on which is 
clearly aimed at influencing elections and yet does not have the 
accountability of moneys being reported or spent according to election 
law.
  So for all those reasons we have a chance to do something with the 
underlying bill that is before us in Shays-Meehan. The amendment that 
is being offered would jeopardize that because it turns over to the 
courts the ability to throw out this entire legislation even though 
there may be a minor issue that the Court may have disagreement with us 
on. It jeopardizes the work of what we have been able to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDIN. I yield to my friend from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I think the points the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) made in opposition to the amendment are exactly 
the reasons why I think the amendment needs to be supported, and the 
gentleman from Texas concurs.
  First of all, the Court does not make constitutional decisions on 
minor provisions. I think my colleagues will find that the Court makes 
decisions on major provisions.
  Mr. CARDIN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, on that point I would 
say that is a matter in the eye of the beholder.
  Mr. THOMAS. Exactly.
  Mr. CARDIN. I have found some decisions made by our Court that leaves 
an awful lot to be desired, and it could very well deal with a minor 
provision here affecting it that would throw out the entire bill the 
way this amendment is drafted.
  Mr. THOMAS. And if the gentleman would continue to yield?
  Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. What the gentleman is asking is the same position the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) my friend asked, and that was 
that we should rely on expertise first of all--
  Mr. CARDIN. Reclaiming my time, just the reverse. Almost every bill 
that we passed through this Chamber we put a severability clause 
intentionally in because we know that we can never anticipate what a 
court will do. We are the legislative body. Theirs is the judicial 
body. They have their responsibility. I do not claim to be the Justice 
in the Supreme Court, and they may do things that I disagree with. We 
put a severability clause in so that we can preserve our product in the 
case a court decides to strike part of it down.
  Mr. THOMAS. And if the gentleman would yield, that is exactly what 
happened in the 1970s when we did not preserve the product. We created 
a law which did not work, and for 25 years we have not been able to 
make it work.
  What we are trying to do, and I hope the gentleman understands the 
intent because it will be applied to every bill that has severability. 
Not all of the bills have severability. Some of the authors are willing 
not to include severability. The intent is to make sure that what 
Congress intended in fact occurs. If we have a severability clause, we 
are betting the Court either believes it is all constitutional or they 
will only pick out a minor portion. I think the gentleman will find it 
will not be a major portion, it will be a minor portion, and we are 
right back in the box of unintended consequences.
  Mr. CARDIN. Reclaiming my time, we need to make progress wherever we 
can make progress, and if we can get through this Chamber and the other 
Chamber, signed by the President and through the courts, we need to 
take whatever progress we can, and enacting this amendment jeopardizes 
it.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I will tell the gentleman, if he will 
yield, hodgepodge is not advancing the cause.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  It is interesting to hear the lawyers debate what the courts might 
do. The fact is there is clearly concern that there are portions of 
this bill that are not constitutional. In fact, it is clear by the 
resistance of the people that oppose this amendment that they fully 
expect that the courts are probably going to strike down a portion of 
the bill. If they did not expect that, they would join us, and they 
would support the clause that says if part of the bill goes down, it 
all goes down.
  The aggravating part of this is that the very sponsors of this bill 
have sent out to the Members of this body a bill, a letter, a dear 
colleague letter bragging about the fact that this is a balanced 
approach, that we should support Shays-Meehan because it is balanced, 
and they go on to explain why it is balanced.
  So, if they are not supporting this amendment that says it either all 
stands or it all falls, what they are saying is we do not care if it is 
balanced, we do not care in the end if what we get is an unbalanced 
product, we still like it.
  The fact is that they would like to call this campaign finance 
reform. I do not believe that is a correct term because reform means 
better, and I think what we got is something far worse. It is a change, 
it is a change in how campaigns will be conducted, it will be a change 
in who can speak and who cannot speak. But what it will do will not be 
better because it will force people who want to speak about elections, 
people that want to talk to the voters, and the voters that wish 
information, they will now have less information. They will have 
information from Citizens for a Better Democracy or citizens who like 
this democracy, and they will have no idea who put money in and how the 
money is being spent and what their ultimate motives are.
  But the point is that they are saying that this bill is balanced, and 
then they tell us, if it ends up that only portions of it are 
constitutional, that that is okay with them, too. So why do they not 
say they do not care whether it is balanced or not? They like the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this body should support this amendment and make sure 
that what has been purported to us, that having balance is important, 
actually sticks with the bill in case it ever goes anywhere. In the 
meantime the

[[Page H4801]]

rest of us should worry a lot that there will be some groups who may be 
able to speak and some groups that will not be able to speak. That is 
exactly what starts happening when we start talking about free speech 
and who can participate in elections. We start deciding who has speech 
and who does not have speech, and that is why the courts strike it 
down, that is why they will strike part of this down, that is why they 
may strike it all down. But to tell us that it is balanced and then say 
we should pass it and they do not care if it is balanced because they 
oppose this amendment is flat wrong. It absolutely cheats the American 
people of being able to have the whole story, the whole truth, the 
whole message, free speech.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. NORTHUP. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Kentucky's 
remarks, and she is dead on, and if I could just take a moment to 
complement what she just said, although I am certainly not as eloquent 
as the gentlewoman is.
  This is so important, and I wish we could do this all day and all 
night and every day because frankly this is a good debate to be having. 
It is one of the few debates in the long time I have been here that we 
are actually having, and frankly it is why most of us came here.
  But in particular this amendment is vitally important because when we 
talk about campaign financing and campaign laws, mostly it is all sort 
of intertwined and related in one way or another. It is also we have a 
little problem with one group having an advantage over another group; 
that is why we have such a problem in the kinds of laws, FEC laws in 
1974 that were totally written to protect the incumbents, and we all 
know that in fact that is why most of it was struck down by the courts. 
And so when we start regulating, we are picking winners and losers. 
Just like we would be regulating reforms or regulating anything else, 
we are picking winners and losers, and we are taking advantage based on 
who may have the votes.
  But throughout the debate on this particular bill the proponents of 
Shays-Meehan have assured us throughout the debates that we already had 
in press releases and everything else that there are no constitutional 
problems with their proposal. Their curbs on speech in violation of the 
First Amendment have the Good Housekeeping seal of approval, or so they 
say. This amendment would give them a chance to put their money where 
their mouth is.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The time of the gentlewoman 
from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Northup was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. NORTHUP. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. If my colleagues think this is overreaching and what I 
think is a repressive piece of legislation will pass constitutional 
muster, well, then fine. Then they will have no problem with an 
amendment that will take the whole bill down if just part of it is 
declared unconstitutional. This amendment is a nonseverability clause. 
It would provide that if a portion of the bill is declared 
unconstitutional, the entire bill is null and void.
  Now while the courts have not always regarded themselves as bound by 
severability clauses or the lack thereof, I think this amendment would 
serve as a powerful impetus for this bill to be upheld or overturned as 
a whole. Take, for example, what I think is a ridiculous and overdrawn 
provision dealing with the express advocacy clause. No one who has 
given this provision serious thought expects it to pass constitutional 
muster. Basically it would require an organization to report to 
government bureaucrats whether their campaign operation is an implicit 
advocacy of election or defeat of a candidate. The money spent to make 
these statements would be classified as political expenditures for the 
purposes of Federal election laws.
  Well, the problem is that most legislative advocacy groups are 
prohibited by law from making political expenditures and by classifying 
legislative advocacy as such Congress may well outlaw their statements 
in the very unlikely event this provision is upheld by the Court. So 
characterizations of an office holder's vote as pro-life, or pro-
choice, or anti-gun might therefore be illegal. Well, there may be 
office holders who relish the prospect of being insulated from 
criticism on their legislative provisions, but I hope there is very few 
of us in this Chamber that would relish such a thing.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Kentucky 
(Mrs. Northup) has expired.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman 
be granted an additional 5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  Mr. SHAYS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I just would 
like to have some definition. Is the gentleman asking to strike the 
requisite number of words and use 5 minutes, or he is just asking 
unanimous consent to take 5 minutes and not strike the requisite number 
of words? I am just curious to know what he asked for.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Kentucky.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I think I am the one that has the floor, 
and I want to ask unanimous consent for five additional minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. No, I would object to that. There are people who are 
waiting to have 5 minutes, and I do not object to the gentleman asking 
to strike the requisite number of words and have 5 minutes, but there 
are people who are waiting to have time to speak, and the gentlewoman 
has already had 7 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I just need to know what the process is. The 
gentlewoman had 5 minutes, and we extended 2 more minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Connecticut reserving 
the right to object?
  Mr. SHAYS. I am reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, and ask 
this question: I am asking if the gentleman is asking to strike the 
requisite number of words and use his 5 minutes. Could I request that 
the gentleman strike the requisite number of words and we can proceed 
that way?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the initial request 
of the gentleman from Texas?.
  Mr. HEFNER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, and I do not 
intend to object, but I would like to ask a question since I am 
probably not going to get any time and since my good friend from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay) is talking about the First Amendment. Let me ask the 
question, not being a lawyer:
  These advocacy groups, and we get a mailing in the mail that does not 
have anybody that claims title to it, it just comes in the mail to Mr. 
and Mrs. Whoever, and they advocate something, but there is no return 
address, there is no name on it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there an objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay)?

                              {time}  1900

  The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner) has reserved the right 
to object.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Would the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Hefner) speak to that point please?
  Mr. HEFNER. Well, I guess I reserve the right to object to try to get 
some kind of order here as to how much time is being allotted, because 
with all due respect, this is going to be kind of a filibuster of one 
opinion.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I can clarify my request, just to allow 
the gentleman to finish.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Would the gentlewoman suspend?
  Has the gentleman from North Carolina completed his reservation?
  Mr. HEFNER. No, I have not, Mr. Chairman.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I control the time here.
  Mr. WEYGAND. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask that the 
gentleman be allowed to ask the question

[[Page H4802]]

of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, point of order. Please clarify my 
understanding that, right now, the Chair has denied the gentlewoman who 
has asked for an additional 5 minutes with unanimous consent. That has 
not been granted as of right now, so she does not control the time that 
is before us right now.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The request of the gentleman from Texas 
that the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) have 5 additional 
minutes is still pending.
  Mr. WEYGAND. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I object to it until we have a 
clarification from the whip, which I would love to have, about the 
procedure as to how we are going to proceed with time. There are many 
people here that would like to strike the last word, and we do not 
disagree with having the whip take the time that he needs, but if this 
is going to be continuous, we have an objection to it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Rhode Island 
objecting?
  Mr. WEYGAND. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DeLAY.  Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. DeLAY. Your side objected and I will not yield.
  This is just unbelievable. This is going to be a very long debate, I 
have to tell my colleagues. This is going to be a very long debate, and 
if my colleagues want to stifle debate and open discussion, then do so. 
You tried to stifle debate.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) 
controls the time.
  Mr. DeLAY. I thank the Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, the Democrat side once again objected to an open 
discussion that we were having that we asked to extend one time and 
then a second time, again.
  Now, my colleagues cannot have it both ways. First, my colleagues ask 
for open and honest debate, many vote ``present,'' do not want to 
participate in a debate that they have been demanding for over a year; 
and it just amazes me that because they do not want one particular 
person to be speaking or to extend the time for a short period of time, 
because they may be inconvenienced and they have been standing there 
for all of 7 minutes, they want to stifle debate and stifle discussion.
  Well, fine. We can operate that way. And if my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle do not want to show their colleagues courtesy, 
then we will operate that way.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, if I could finish my statement, that I was 
attempting to make before I was so rudely interrupted by those that 
would like to stifle debate and do not want open and honest debate, we 
are seeing the true colors right now, what has been going on for quite 
a while.
  So in order to try to regain where I was headed, I am just trying to 
say that the Shays-Meehan amendment substitute may well have the 
practical effect of insulating Congress from criticism, and this is the 
kind of thing they want to happen. They do not want to be criticized. 
They do not want issue advocacy groups out there criticizing their 
votes; they want to hide it by regulating free speech. That is what 
this is all about.
  If the First Amendment does not prohibit this sort of abomination, 
exactly what does rise to the level of its scrutiny? So the 
severability amendment before us would put this challenge to the 
draftsmen of the Shays-Meehan gems such as this.
  To those proponents of Shays-Meehan, I would say this. If you believe 
your bill is constitutional, you should have no problem allowing it to 
rise or fall as a whole. If you do not believe your bill is 
constitutional, what exactly did you mean when you took your oath of 
office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States?
  And to the Members of this body I would just say, if you believe that 
the Bill of Rights is a crapshoot where Congress has no responsibility 
for the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the bills that it 
enacts, do not vote for the severability amendment. If you believe that 
squashing legislative advocacy groups is so important that it overrides 
your oath of office, then do not vote for this severability amendment. 
If you believe in cases of constitutional doubt that the presumption 
should lie against the Bill of Rights, do not vote for this amendment.
  If you believe it is a sound practice to enact legislative wads of 
constitutional scraps in the hope that perhaps the Supreme Court may 
have a bad day when it adjudicates your bill, do not vote for this 
amendment.
  On the other hand, if you believe, like I do, that the First 
Amendment was intended to protect, above all, the marketplace of 
political and legislative ideas, then we welcome your voice and your 
vote. But if you believe, like me, that it is a travesty to use the 
legislative process to attempt to shut down political opposition, as 
exhibited on the floor already tonight, then we welcome your vote and 
your voice. And if you believe, like me, that the First Amendment is at 
the core, about the vibrancy of political, legislative and 
philosophical debate, debate which would be gravely threatened by this 
misbegotten bill, then we would welcome your voice and your vote.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sorry if I angered my good friend from Texas, but 
I wanted desperately to ask the question, since I did not have the 
time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out, before the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) leaves, that the first bill in the 
Contract With America, the congressional accountability bill which he 
advocated and supported and took pleasure in signing, had a 
severability clause.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay) is gone.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an awful lot of respect for the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) and the folks that have worked so hard for campaign reform.
  We are awfully selective around here. I have been here for 24 years, 
and I have never seen a Committee on Rules that operates like this 
Committee on Rules does now. The other day, not a week ago, we 
considered a budget that is absolutely going nowhere, it is a total 
disaster, and they ignored Members offering a budget that possibly 
could have passed. But they were not entitled to offer that budget.
  Now, here they are, they are allowing over 200 amendments and many of 
them are not germane. We are not the United States Senate, we have to 
have germaneness here. But the Committee on Rules says, we will waive 
all points of order and we can just go ahead and offer those 
amendments.
  We talk about the First Amendment, and some of these people would 
seem to think that it is okay if some advocacy group sends out a letter 
or a postcard that says, if you vote for Bill Hefner and Mike Dukakis, 
which happened in my election, there is no disclaimer on it, you do not 
know where it came from, and you say, if you shut that down, that is 
not violating their First Amendment rights. They have no rights if 
there is no entity out there that claims that they are responsible for 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that what this is is a sham to kill campaign 
reform. I do not understand the leadership on that side. If they want 
to kill campaign reform, put them together, one bill with everything 
they want in it, and take it and go one-on-one with the Shays-Meehan 
bill. But to say that we are cutting First Amendment speech is totally 
ridiculous and, to me, it is the first time in my 24 years that I have 
been in this House that the Committee on Rules is writing legislation 
and bringing it to this floor, and I think it

[[Page H4803]]

is a travesty. I do not think it speaks well for this House, and I do 
not think it is going to solve the problems of this country.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman, I am a little 
surprised by the gentleman's remarks on the Committee on Rules. I am on 
the Committee on Rules, and about 2 hours ago the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Hefner) was in front of the Committee on Rules and they 
were speaking about retirement, and the gentleman certainly did not 
address the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Solomon) with the remarks that the gentleman is now 
addressing here. Of course, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) 
is not here.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there was no reason to; 
we were not debating campaign reform. But if the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Solomon) were here in this building, I would tell him that he 
is running a travesty, and he is running a dictatorial type of 
Committee on Rules, and he is writing the legislation of what comes 
before this House, and he is doing it with an overriding hand.
  Nobody has any rights. The Committee on Rules is writing the 
legislation that comes to this House, make no mistake about it. The 
Committee on Rules is the Speaker's committee. He is absolutely telling 
the Committee on Rules, here is what you do, there is no deviation from 
it, and you bring it to the floor here; and that, to me, is not the 
way. You are just absolutely bypassing the legislative process, and 
that is not right.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman I would just say that I am just 
amazed, because the gentleman is taking an entirely different approach 
than the gentleman did just 2 hours ago when he was sitting in front of 
the Committee on Rules and he was complimentary and the Committee was 
complimentary of the gentleman. I have great compliments for the 
gentleman's service.
  The other point I want to make here, and I heard it today earlier 
from the gentleman from Michigan, everything is fine with the Committee 
on Rules as long as it satisfies you personally, but the minute 
somebody else wants to offer an amendment to debate, all of a sudden 
this Committee on Rules is the most horrible committee in 24 years.
  There are 200-and-some amendments. This campaign reform is one of the 
most significant pieces of legislation that has come onto this floor. 
The Committee on Rules said, wait a second, we think that because there 
is such a divisive feeling about this, a lot of people ought to be 
offered the opportunity to offer their amendments.
  From that side of the aisle, I listened to the gentleman from 
Michigan earlier today, I listened to you. This is the gentleman's side 
of the aisle that is always complaining about the Committee on Rules 
never lets us offer amendments; the Committee on Rules never lets us 
offer amendments; the Committee on Rules never lets us offer 
amendments. It is a dictatorship; they just shut it off.
  So when we offer the amendments, you are down here the next day 
saying, the Committee on Rules offers too many amendments; the 
Committee on Rules offers too many amendments. We are never going to 
make you happy.
  Let me just say, especially based on the words I heard today, I am 
just very surprised by the comments of the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Hefner).
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I do not understand what the connection is. 
I have no squawks with the Committee on Rules today. The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Packard), who is a very good friend, we did not offer 
waivers to nongermane amendments, and I am sorry if I neglected to 
congratulate the Committee on Rules, but I am not going to do that 
because I do not appreciate the work that the Committee on Rules is 
doing. It is no personal thing, but I do not appreciate it. But I do 
not see what the connection is about me being before the Committee on 
Rules. We just wanted to expedite it and get out of there.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say that the 
gentleman's remarks, if he takes a look at them in the transcript, he 
will find that they are very broad, not limited specifically to this 
bill: ``24 years, we have never seen a committee run like this 
committee.''
  Two weeks ago with the budget, they did not do this. I tell my 
colleague, if the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Solomon) were standing right here, the gentleman and 
I both know the gentleman from New York, he would be red in the face.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, call the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon).
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I hope that the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) has the opportunity.
  Now, let us focus on this other bill and the importance of that 
issue.
  It is like going to a car dealership and, frankly, you people want to 
sell us a car. You say, all right, tell me about the car. It is a great 
car. What happens once I buy the car and I get out, what if a key part 
of the car, the motor does not work? Can I bring the car back? Oh, no, 
no, no. You take the car.
  If a key part of it, i.e., just like in a bill, if a key part of it 
is unconstitutional, you still have to take the bill. That is what you 
are saying to us.
  I think that the whip brought up a very good point. This is a very 
complicated piece of legislation. It is very ``intertwined,'' I think 
was the word that was used by the whip. One part depends upon the other 
part that depends upon this part. It is just like in the car. The car 
has lots of parts that depend on that motor, and the motor has lots 
inside it that depend on the fuel and other parts.
  So what we are saying is, wait a minute. Either this car is good 
enough that you are saying to me if it breaks we will give you another 
car, if the motor goes out. That is what we are asking here.

                              {time}  1915

  We are saying if our colleagues are so confident about this bill, 
then if a key part of the bill is found unconstitutional, which all of 
them deny it is, they are all saying it is very constitutional and this 
is constitutional to do this, this is constitutional to do that, I say 
back it up. Support.
  What we are saying is if it is not, let us bring it back to the 
drawing board. Bring the car back to the garage. Do not say to the 
buyer of the car, ``Sorry. The motor broke, but we do not allow that. 
You are going to have to keep this car.'' We are saying bring it back. 
That is a pretty logical request to make.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The time of the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. McInnis) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. DeLay, and by unanimous consent, Mr. McInnis was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McInnis. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make sure the gentleman 
understood this issue in context. The argument seems to be that only 
people who are concerned about the constitutionality of their bill 
would disagree to a nonseverability clause. But a very quick review of 
legislation in this Congress finds, as best I can tell, only four 
bills, only four bills that had been printed and distributed without a 
severability clause.
  Mr. Chairman, I also find that if we are concerned that people who 
promote the idea of having a severability clause really are not clear 
about the constitutionality, I find that the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Canady), who is the chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, 
put a severability clause in his Religious Liberties Protection Act. 
And the gentlewoman from Kentucky, who has argued this very vigorously 
who was an original cosponsor of House Resolution 456 for drug testing, 
also put a severability clause.
  So if there are only four, why are we suddenly directing all of this 
wrath?

[[Page H4804]]

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not disagree 
point blank or broadly against severability. I think it is appropriate. 
But let me say that it is the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers) 
and individuals such as the gentlewoman, that are saying to the country 
out there: This is absolutely constitutional. This is not a breach of 
the freedom of speech. This campaign reform, do not let anybody divert 
attention by saying it is unconstitutional. It is constitutional.
  What happens is the gentlewoman then gets out there, saddles this 
thing on a lot of people, and I frankly believe parts of it are 
unconstitutional. But until it gets to the Supreme Court, my colleagues 
are able to squash the constitutional rights on something that you are 
going across the country, and I say ``you'' generically, that that side 
that is supporting this, the Democrats are going across the country 
guaranteeing everybody this is constitutional.
  They criticize us. Every time that I have said about this bill I 
think there are some unconstitutional provision, I get criticisms. Why 
do I dare question the constitutionality?
  Mr. Chairman, my point is this. If the gentlewoman would criticize me 
for questioning the constitutionality, then she should back up her 
product.
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to try to get back to the substance of the 
bill that is before us and the amendment that is before us.
  Mr. Chairman, it is interesting, the debate that we have had. The 
majority whip came up and talked very eloquently about the problems 
that he foresees with the perception that he believes that we are 
trying to bring to the American public. But let me tell my colleagues, 
I do not think any of us on this side of the aisle or that side of the 
aisle think that the Congress is perfect.
  When we first set up this great assembly and this great body and this 
country, we recognized that there may be errors made by this Congress 
and we have a system called a Court which reviews those errors.
  So if the public is watching out there, if we make a mistake in a 
piece of legislation, whether it be a comma, whether it be a 
substantial piece that may be unconstitutional, we have always, almost 
religiously included a severability clause. Almost every general 
assembly across this country does exactly the same thing, because of 
the check and balance system that we have before us makes sure that at 
least we can get part of the bill if not all of it.
  Some of the comments this evening are that we have for some reason 
said that the Shays-Meehan bill is perfect. Well, the Shays-Meehan bill 
really addresses an original or substantive part of campaign finance 
reform and attaches to that statute many different pieces, addresses 
different parts. Soft money, a number of other things besides soft 
money, with disclosure.
  Mr. Chairman, each one of those things are important elements to 
campaign finance reform. By themselves, they may not be as important as 
the whole. But individually they are important. And if one part of that 
happens to be unconstitutional, I am not so proud, nor do I think any 
of our other Members here are so proud, to say that it is without doubt 
we are absolutely perfect and that we should not think at all that any 
piece is unconstitutional.
  But take a look at what we are really trying to do. Shays-Meehan is 
trying to correct one of the most egregious problems of campaigns today 
and that is the issue of soft money. We all on both sides of the aisle 
take political action committee money, or most people do. We all have 
caps on those and we have many other wealthy people or poor people who 
contribute to our campaigns. But one of the most difficult things for 
the general public, who is most important in this discussion, is they 
do not understand how these issue advocacy ads and thousands and 
millions of dollars are going in to campaigns without disclosure, 
without one person understanding or knowing where it is coming from, 
yet having a great impact on how campaigns are determined.
  But more importantly, as I stated yesterday and last night, the whole 
issue of this body is to have people that have their finger on the 
pulse of America. The pulse of the people is what we are supposed to be 
monitoring and be a barometer of.
  So often we try, and both sides are out there trying to scoop up as 
much money as we possibly can to get out there and talk about the 
issues that we think are the most important. But the average American 
finds it very difficult to run in a campaign when, in fact, there is so 
much additional money besides what we presently have limits on, 
political action committee money or additional contributions.
  Shays-Meehan makes a dramatic attempt to correct that. It may not be 
everything we want in campaign finance reform, and that is why we over 
here are in favor of putting on the White amendment that would provide 
a commission. We think that we should move forward, not that this is 
the end-all of reforms for campaign finance, but it is the beginning. 
It is a major step.
  Mr. Chairman, to camouflage it with this poison pill by providing 
nonseverability is an attempt to deny the public an opportunity for 
clear finance reform.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WEYGAND. I yield to the gentlewoman from Kentucky.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Rhode Island 
has very eloquently pointed out the difference between the perspectives 
here. Mr. Chairman, I would ask if the gentleman would agree that if we 
believe every point of this bill by itself is good, then severability 
makes sense. But if the Court struck out any two provisions, any three 
provisions, any one provision of the Shays-Meehan bill, what I believe 
I heard the gentleman say was it is still a great beginning and he 
supports it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Weygand) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Weygand was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Kentucky has struck a 
very poignant part of our argument. We believe that if one or two or 
three parts of this bill, or other parts of the underlying statute 
which we are amending, existing law, were found by the Court to be 
wrong, then they should be severed away from it and taken away from it. 
It does not mean that the rest of it should not stand.
  Let me give an example which is totally different. The Tax Code. Tax 
law. We passed tax bills last year. Monumental tax revision. If any one 
piece of that tax bill fails, I am sure that the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Archer) and the Committee on Ways and Means and this Congress and 
this Senate would make provisions to try to correct the mistakes. But 
do we put a nonseverability clause on the tax bill?
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would again yield, if I 
can answer that because I think this is such an important 
clarification.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not put nonseverability because those of us that 
voted for that tax cut believed each one of those cuts stood on their 
own merit, had a merit of their own.
  For those of us that are asking for support for the nonseverability, 
we are saying that if Members believe that balance is important, and 
this is a balanced product and that if two or three points of it would 
be struck down by the courts and the rest of it would create an 
imbalance, severability would be important.
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, our sole intent here 
is to make sure that Shays-Meehan stands, in part or in total. This 
amendment that is being offered by the gentleman will, in fact, provide 
us with a total failure. It is a poison pill that will ruin Shays-
Meehan, and it is intended to do so.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been wanting to have some time for a while 
because I first want to speak on process, and I hope the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) is listening, and I do not know if the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is here or not. But I cannot let pass 
the nuance that the gentleman

[[Page H4805]]

from Connecticut was in some way trying to interfere with the free flow 
of debate on this floor or was in any way disrespectful of his 
colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been my experience in the 6 years that I have 
served in this House that there is not a Member of the House of 
Representatives who is more courteous, who is more respectful of his 
colleagues, who is more polite than the gentleman from Connecticut. He 
is a gentleman par excellence, and his motives in that regard should 
not be questioned.
  Mr. Chairman, it was clear that his concern simply was that in the 
format where we each seek 5 minutes and an infinite number of yields 
might prevent others from having an opportunity to speak. And it was 
only, I know, because of his courteous respect for his colleagues that 
he made that point and I think that should be clarified.
  On the merits of severability, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas), neither he nor the proponents of his amendment have yet made 
the case that the elements of the Shays-Meehan bill, in fact, hinge 
upon and were dependent upon one another. The fact of the matter is 
that they are not.
  The first provision, the most important provision is that this bill 
bans soft money. Americans by overwhelming majorities understand that 
when huge corporations or huge labor unions are able to contribute huge 
sums of money to the parties, that they buy undue influence that 
individual Americans could never ever achieve. And Americans think that 
is wrong because this is not government by the corporations, for the 
corporations, or by the labor unions, for the labor unions. It is 
government by and for and of ``We the People.''
  Americans understand that people should contribute to candidates, not 
corporations, not to parties, nor should labor unions.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, that is meritorious on its own regard. If the 
Supreme Court decided that codifying Beck with regard to paycheck 
protection or with regard to contributions by union members was 
unconstitutional, that in no way minimizes the value of banning soft 
money. No more than getting rid of sham issue ads, where they get 
around the rightful limitations on contributions of hard money and use 
other funds to go right after a specific candidate and malign him and 
attack him without ever owning up that the purpose of that ad was to go 
after a specific candidate. That stands on its own merit entirely.
  Whether the limitation on what wealthy candidates contribute was to 
stand or fall in the courts has nothing to do with the merits of 
getting rid of these sham ads, any more than limiting the ability of 
incumbents to use the franking privileges all the way up to elections. 
If that stands or does not stand in the Supreme Court, it has nothing 
to do with whether foreign money and fund-raising on government 
property should stay in law.
  So until the proponents of the Thomas amendment can show in any way 
how these components of the Shays-Meehan act rely on, depend on, cannot 
exist without the other, they have not made anything like a case.

                              {time}  1930

  The fact of the matter is that these provisions all stand on their 
own. All have merit, individually or collectively, and are not 
dependent upon one another in order to accomplish real campaign finance 
reform. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Thomas amendment.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREENWOOD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Kentucky.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, what I would say is that there are 
different ways for different people to influence elections. The fact 
is, soft money, I believe, is a very good form of support for our 
parties. If GE gives $100,000 to the Republican Party, whatever 
candidates they help have no idea who gave that money, have no idea 
whom they might owe.
  In fact, the only thing that they are thankful for is the fact that 
their party, whom they already agree with, their principles, supported 
them.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Greenwood) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Greenwood was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentlewoman's 
comments, it may be the candidates do not know where the money came 
from, but it is certainly the case that when the XYZ Corporation gives 
a huge sum of money to the Democratic or the Republican Party, Members 
of Congress in the House and the Senate were involved in raising that 
money.
  When the vote comes before the House, they are not adverse to 
reminding Members, the XYZ corporation or the XYZ labor union just gave 
us a million dollars, and they will really appreciate the right vote 
here. Do you think that does not happen?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREENWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, my colleague is 100 percent right. It is so 
cynical for anybody to suggest that the people who are in office, who 
helped raise the money in many cases, do not know the source of the 
funds. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) is so right.
  The problem is, the public does not know. But the recipients, the 
parties, do know.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The time of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) has again expired.
  (On request of Mrs. Northup, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Greenwood 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HEFNER. I object, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No timely objections were heard. The 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) is recognized for 2 
additional minutes.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Kentucky 
to see what she says and to decide if I want to continue to yield.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I will just point out that we all know 
who gives to the parties because it is reported. But if the XYZ 
Corporation thinks they want to influence an election, now they can 
give it to an independent organization, which is the part of the bill 
we think will become unconstitutional; and no one, no public has any 
ability to know they got $100,000 or whether they told the candidate 
that they gave $100,000. That is the sort of illegal action that has 
happened in States where they have previously passed this kind of 
legislation. I am sorry we cannot hear the rest of the story.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the fact of the 
matter is, we can be for soft money, as the gentlewoman is, and be 
against it, as I am; and that is a legitimate and reasonable debate.
  The issue in this amendment is whether the ban on soft money is or is 
not a good idea, depending upon whether the courts decide that the ban 
on raising money in public offices stands or it does not.
  These provisions have merit on their own. They do not hinge one upon 
the other. They are not dependent upon one another for their effect. 
They should not be subject to this sham amendment which I think, 
although I have nothing but respect for the gentleman from California, 
is really intended to undo the provisions.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREENWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman saying there may be 
provisions in this bill that could be deemed unconstitutional?
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what I am saying is 
that the proponents of this amendment have yet to make a coherent 
argument that, in fact, one provision of this bill relies upon the 
other. The burden of proof on an offer of an amendment is to prove that 
their argument has validity, and you have not done that.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin with the assertion from the gentlewoman 
from Kentucky that when an individual

[[Page H4806]]

gives $100,000, or a corporation, to a political party, the candidates 
do not know who gave that. I would nominate that for the single most 
astounding thing said on the floor of the House since the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dornan) left our premises. No one I know of thinks 
that that comports with the facts. Of course the candidates are made 
aware of who gave the soft money.
  Next, I want to talk about the rule. I do not know if the gentleman 
from Colorado is still here. He was waxing indignant because people 
criticized the rule. He said, you know, you come to us, and you ask for 
amendments, and you ask for amendments, and you ask for amendments; and 
we say, no, you cannot have this, and, no, you cannot have that, and, 
no, you cannot have this; and then we make 417 nongermane amendments in 
order to this bill, and you are ungrateful.
  As a matter of fact, that is precisely our point. The majority has 
made it clear, when they want a bill to pass, they restrict amendments 
unduly. The chairman of the Committee on Rules boasted on this floor 
that he would not allow any amendment to the defense bill, including 
one cosponsored by myself and the gentleman from Connecticut that would 
have allowed a cut in the defense bill.
  He would not allow one to have us remove our troops in Bosnia, 
cosponsored by three Democrats and three Republicans. Amendments were 
kept off the bankruptcy bill. Amendments have been kept off bills.
  So my colleagues are right, we do point to the glaring difference 
between a refusal to allow basic important amendments to bills and then 
loading this down with nongermane amendments. That is clearly a sign of 
people who do not want to have this bill.
  Do my colleagues want to know what this rule is and this procedure 
is? This is filibuster envy. We have people here who may not make it to 
the Senate on their own, so they will try and change the rules so we 
can filibuster.
  I sympathize with my friends who try to get before them. I do not 
agree with them. But it is a sign of how overwhelmingly opposed the 
Republican leadership is to letting this bill get decided, that my good 
friends, men of integrity and women of integrity who worked hard, have 
to claim as a victory that they are going to let us vote on it in 
August. That is, I think, a sign of how much they are not for this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to get to severability, but first I will yield 
to the gentlewoman from Kentucky.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I just said I would yield 
to the gentlewoman from Kentucky.
  What was her question?
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I was just wondering if the gentleman can 
name, for example, five contributors that have given $100,000 to his 
party. I could not name that.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, right now Bernard Schwartz 
comes to mind. He is the man from Loral. Then the National Education 
Association, the United Auto Workers. Oh, the Teamsters.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentleman another 
question.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am sorry, the gentlewoman asked one 
question, teacher. Excuse me, but I answered one question, and then I 
will talk some more, and she can ask another.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. All right.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Because I do want to get to severability.
  This notion that you cannot have severability, there is a 
constitutional doubt, I am struck by the number of conversions I am 
seeing today, first because we have the majority whip who is a born-
again constitutionalist.
  In the 14 years I have known him, he has voted for a number of bills 
that were found unconstitutional without any hesitation. He has never, 
in my hearing, defended free speech, but all of a sudden he is a great 
defender of the constitutionality of free speech and of 
nonseverability.
  Let me talk about the telecommunications bill. It was voted out of 
this Congress in early 1996 with a blatantly unconstitutional provision 
called the Communications Decency Act, which purported to restrict what 
adults can say to each other on the Internet even when it wasn't 
obscene. Over and above obscenity, it said, we may not be indecent to 
each other. That passed.
  The Supreme Court struck it down 9-0. Every member of the Supreme 
Court said, Clarence Thomas, Justice Scalia, this is blatantly 
unconstitutional. We cannot do it. I guess I must have been absent the 
day the majority whip, the arbiter of free speech, objected to that.
  But do you know what, the bill had a severability clause, because if 
we had done it the way Members here are now advocating, that whole 
telecommunications bill would have been thrown out, because the 
telecommunications bill contained a blatantly unconstitutional 
provision.
  As you might have inferred from the fact that I am drawing on it at 
length, I voted against the bill because I knew that it was 
unconstitutional. However, all the rest voted for it, over 400. I did 
not do that well in that vote.
  People who voted for that blatantly unconstitutional provision and 
then saw it survive because of a severability clause, if they come to 
us now and say, we are just unable to vote for anything about which 
there is constitutional doubt, and we must have a nonseverability 
clause, do not impress me that that is, in fact, what motivates them on 
this particular bill.
  We have another problem with this rule, and let me use a technical 
term to describe this rule, ``cockamamy.'' With this cockamamy rule, my 
colleagues have more loops and whirls.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts was allowed to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, what we have here is a 
procedure whereby the Committee on Rules, which would not allow the 
amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) to the budget, 
would not allow on the other bill, he would not allow the Senate budget 
as a budget amendment here, would not allow an amendment on Bosnia, the 
defense bill, it has allowed nongermane amendments and other 
amendments.
  Given the strategy that is being followed of people who want to beat 
this bill, but do not think they can do it head on, here is what I 
think we are likely to see: A nonseverability clause, if adopted, will 
then become the invitation for an unconstitutional amendment. What will 
happen will be this; here is the scenario:
  They get a nonseverability clause adopted. Then they come up with an 
unconstitutional amendment, but one Members are afraid to vote for. If 
you doubt that, let me remind you that we voted for a Communications 
Decency Act by over 400 votes that the Supreme Court threw out 9-0.
  So here is how they help to defeat Shays-Meehan. They adopt, rarely, 
for only like the fifth time this year it is even considered, a 
nonseverability clause. Then they use this rule to come up with an 
overwhelmingly appealing, but dubiously constitutional amendment. They 
get it put in, and they bring down the whole bill.
  If we were talking only about Shays-Meehan and there was no chance of 
an amendment, then I would be less concerned about nonseverability. But 
you are asking for the right to put in a nonseverability clause and 
then come up with transparently political amendments which have 
overwhelming appeal, which Members this close to an election might not 
want to vote against, and then you would bring down the whole bill.
  I think nothing could be clearer from the jumping and whooping and 
leaping that is going on here that people want to do anything but 
debate Shays-Meehan.
  It is possible, by the way, that we will at some point adopt 
something that is in the gray area in the Constitution. That is an 
appropriate thing to do. That is the way we give the court a chance to 
test itself. But to tell us with this rule, this travesty of a rule 
aimed at trying to kill the bill, that we should adopt a 
nonseverability clause so Members can put an unconstitutional amendment 
in is asking the bill to commit suicide.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to get back to the subject of amendment 132, 
proposed by the gentleman from California (Mr.

[[Page H4807]]

Thomas) and deal with that, and then come to some of the allegations 
that have floated through this Chamber again about how we are impinging 
on free speech.
  The chairman was right when he referred back to Buckley v. Valeo and 
how it was handled by the United States Supreme Court. Because in 
Buckley v. Valeo, the court made a distinction between contributions 
and expenditures, and we wound up with half of what the Congress had 
passed.
  So there is always a risk when an amendment is brought before this 
body when we seek to pass legislation, there is always a risk that a 
portion of that legislation may be held unconstitutional. But in trying 
to avoid the problem created by Buckley v. Valeo, we are really 
undermining our chances of campaign finance reform.
  What we are trying to do here is to pass a soft money ban. I disagree 
with the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs.  Northup). We can read all the 
reports we want. We know who gives money to the national parties. If we 
can just look at the reports of the Republican Party, we will see $6 
million or $7 million in money from the tobacco companies coming to the 
Republican Party, and that is soft money because it comes from 
corporations.
  Corporations have not been able to give to Federal candidates for 
decades, and yet, they can give money to the national parties, and that 
money can be used for issue ads that will go out and will affect 
Federal elections. That is wrong. That is why we need to ban soft 
money.
  Both the freshman bill and the Shays-Meehan bill do that. They have 
effective soft money bans. It is disingenuous for people to stand up 
and say they believe in a balanced bill. They believe it is 
constitutional. Therefore, we should simply go ahead and adopt a 
nonseverability clause.
  Nonseverability clauses are the exception rather than the rule. What 
is going on here? There have been innumerable efforts to kill campaign 
finance reform, real reform in this hall, in this session. What is 
going on now is an attempt to adopt an amendment that would have a 
chance of killing in the courts any campaign reform, either Shays-
Meehan or Hutchinson-Allen, that passes this particular body. We do not 
want that to happen.
  Amendment 132 should be voted down. We do not want a nonseverability 
clause. If you simply look at the people who are advocating for this 
particular reform on the Republican side, they are not sponsors of 
Shays-Meehan; they are not sponsors of Hutchinson-Allen.

                              {time}  1945

  Now, let me go back for a moment to the claims that are made 
periodically here that we are infringing on free speech. Let us go back 
to Buckley v. Valeo. That court held clearly that in order to prevent 
corruption, or the appearance of corruption, the Congress could act to 
impose restrictions on campaign contributions. It is absolutely clear 
from that decision and from other decisions that it is constitutional 
to ban soft money.
  In a recent case, the court said if it appears that soft money is 
being used as a way to avoid hard money limits, then the Congress could 
reconsider what it has done so far on soft money.
  Let us talk about what that means in the real world. In the real 
world, an individual can only give $1,000 to a candidate, but they can 
give $100,000 or $500,000 to a political party, and that money can be 
used for issue ads to affect a Federal election.
  That is wrong. It needs to be stopped. We have got to contain the 
influence of big money in politics, and we cannot be diverted by 
arguments that we are jeopardizing free speech.
  I believe Shays-Meehan is constitutional. I believe the freshman bill 
is constitutional. But in any bill that we pass, there is always some 
risk. There is always some risk. And so what we ought to do is stop all 
the posturing and simply say what we want is a bill to come out of this 
Congress that will not only pass the House and pass the Senate and be 
signed by the President, but will withstand constitutional scrutiny, 
and when it is done, will not be ruled in its entirety unconstitutional 
because of some minor provision.
  Mr. SOLOMON. 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. 
Peterson of Pennsylvania) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dickey, 
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.

                          ____________________