[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 81 (Friday, June 19, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4855-H4871]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN INTEGRITY ACT OF 1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). 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} 1110
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. Collins (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
Thursday, June 18, 1998, a request for a recorded vote on Amendment No.
132 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) to amendment
No. 13 in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) had been postponed.
Amendment No. 132 Offered by Mr. Thomas To Amendment No. 13 In The
Nature Of A Substitute Offered By Mr. Shays
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on Amendment No. 132 offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) to Amendment No. 13 in the nature of a
substitute offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the 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.)
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 155,
noes 254, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 249]
AYES--155
Archer
Armey
Baker
Ballenger
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Fossella
Frost
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Obey
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Radanovich
Redmond
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowbarger
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--254
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Bachus
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goode
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hefner
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--24
Barr
Blunt
Cooksey
Gonzalez
Green
Gutknecht
Hastings (FL)
Kasich
Lewis (GA)
Martinez
McDade
McIntosh
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Morella
Parker
Reyes
Rothman
Schumer
Shaw
Skaggs
Sununu
Torres
Weldon (FL)
{time} 1127
The clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. McIntosh for, with Mrs. Morella against.
Mr. WAXMAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was
rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Collins). Are there any further
amendments to the Shays amendment?
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, too many Americans believe our campaign finance system
is
[[Page H4856]]
corrupt. We must treat this illness in the body politic which, in my
opinion, if ignored, will undermine our democracy.
Like beauty, of course, genuine reform may be in the eye of the
beholder. In my view, genuine reform must purge from Federal elections
unregulated soft money which has become so pervasive. Meehan-Shays does
that.
Reform should be subject to disclosure. The issue ads which are so
clearly intended to influence elections must be covered. Meehan-Shays
does that.
Reform, in my opinion, should level the playing field for challenges
by further restricting franked mail in election years. Meehan-Shays
does that.
Reform, as well, should encourage wealthy candidates to limit
personal spending and toughen disclaimers on ads, giving voters better
information with which to judge content. Meehan-Shays does that.
Reform also should enhance candidate disclosure by giving the public
quick access via the Internet. Meehan-Shays does that.
Meehan-Shays does all of these good things, Mr. Chairman, but, by any
standard, is breathtakingly modest. Yet, in this Republican Congress,
its enactment is in doubt. Though there are good provisions in other
bills, I will support Meehan-Shays as our best hope of fixing some
problems now.
I might say that I know the distinguished gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Maloney) has an amendment that she will be now offering, which I
also strongly support, which, in effect, says that, although there are
reforms in Meehan-Shays that we want to adopt, there is more yet to do.
She will establish a commission to look further at how we can make our
election laws better.
Having said what reform is, let me say what it is not. Reform is not
the Paycheck Protection Act, a Republican proposal to gag working
Americans. Californians wisely rejected, Mr. Chairman, the paycheck
protections last month as we did in March. Hopefully, this part of the
Republican vendetta against working families will finally disappear.
Reform is not repealing all contribution limits. This would just tilt
the playing field even more toward the affluent and away from ordinary
Americans, for whom giving $1,000 to candidates is beyond reach, let
alone $25,000.
Reform is not repeal of public financing of presidential elections,
which ended the thrilling campaigns of yesteryear financed out of the
suitcases stuffed with untraceable cash.
Finally, reform is not underfunding the Federal Election Commission.
Republicans argue we do not need new laws, just enforcement of current
ones. Yet, House committees have recommended funding for next year for
campaign law enforcement that is simply inadequate. The majority are
generous with rhetoric, but not with the resources the FEC needs to
police campaigns.
Mr. Chairman, this debate that we are now engaged in is not designed,
unfortunately, to facilitate the passage of reform. Indeed, many of us
believe, perhaps cynically, that it is designed to undercut, undermine,
and defeat campaign finance reform. In fact, many leaders on the
Republican side make no secret of their antipathy towards reform
legislation and particularly the Meehan-Shays legislation.
I hope that, notwithstanding this disastrous procedure,
notwithstanding the opposition of many in the Republican leadership and
many Republicans, notwithstanding those who would undercut reform
efforts, I am hopeful that, through it all, that we will, nevertheless,
have the courage and the wisdom and the common sense to pass Meehan-
Shays.
Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York to Amendment No.
13 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Shays
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 30 to
the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the 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. 30 offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York to
Amendment No. 13 in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Shays:
Title --Independent Commission on Campaign Finance Reform
SEC. 01. ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSE OF COMMISSION.
There is established a commission to be known as the
``Independent Commission on Campaign Finance Reform''
(referred to in this title as the ``Commission''). The
purposes of the Commission are to study the laws relating to
the financing of political activity and to report and
recommend legislation to reform those laws.
SEC. 402. MEMBERSHIP OF COMMISSION.
(a) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 12
members appointed within 15 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act by the President from among individuals
who are not incumbent Members of Congress and who are
specially qualified to serve on the Commission by reason of
education, training, or experience.
(b) Appointment.--
(1) In general.--Members shall be appointed as follows:
(A) 3 members (one of whom shall be a political
independent) shall be appointed from among a list of nominees
submitted by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(B) 3 members (one of whom shall be a political
independent) shall be appointed from among a list of nominees
submitted by the majority leader of the Senate.
(C) 3 members (one of whom shall be a political
independent) shall be appointed from among a list of nominees
submitted by the minority leader of the House of
Representatives.
(D) 3 members (one of whom shall be a political
independent) shall be appointed from among a list of nominees
submitted by the minority leader of the Senate.
(2) Failure to submit list of nominees.--If an official
described in any of the subparagraphs of paragraph (1) fails
to submit a list of nominees to the President during the 15-
day period which begins on the date of the enactment of this
Act--
(A) such subparagraph shall no longer apply; and
(B) the President shall appoint 3 members (one of whom
shall be a political independent) who meet the requirements
described in subsection (a) and such other criteria as the
President may apply.
(3) Political independent defined.--In this subsection, the
term ``political independent'' means an individual who at no
time after January 1992--
(A) has held elective office as a member of the Democratic
or Republican party;
(B) has received any wages or salary from the Democratic or
Republican party or from a Democratic or Republican party
office-holder or candidate; or
(C) has provided substantial volunteer services or made any
substantial contribution to the Democratic or Republican
party or to a Democratic or Republican party office-holder or
candidate.
(c) Chairman.--At the time of the appointment, the
President shall designate one member of the Commission as
Chairman of the Commission
(d) Terms.--The members of the Commission shall serve for
the life of the Commission.
(e) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled
in the manner in which the original appointment was made.
(f) Political Affiliation.--Not more than 4 members of the
Commission may be of the same political party.
SEC. 403. POWERS OF COMMISSION.
(a) Hearings.--The Commission may, for the purpose of
carrying out this title, hold hearings, sit and act at times
and places, take testimony, and receive evidence as the
Commission considers appropriate. In carrying out the
preceding sentence, the Commission shall ensure that a
substantial number of its meetings are open meetings, with
significant opportunities for testimony from members of the
general public.
(b) Quorum.--Seven members of the Commission shall
constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold hearings.
The approval of at least 9 members of the Commission is
required when approving all or a portion of the recommended
legislation. Any member of the Commission may, if authorized
by the Commission, take any action which the Commission is
authorized to take under this section.
SEC. 404. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
(a) Pay and Travel Expenses of Members.--(1) Each member of
the Commission shall be paid at a rate equal to the daily
equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay payable for level
IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5,
United States Code, for each day (including travel time)
during which the member is engaged in the actual performance
of duties vested in the Commission.
(2) Members of the Commission shall receive travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in
accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United
States Code.
(b) Staff Director.--The Commission shall, without regard
to section 5311(b) of title 5, United States Code, appoint a
staff director, who shall be paid at the rate of basic pay
payable for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section
5315 of title 5, United States Code.
(c) Staff of Commission; Services.--
(1) In General.--When the approval of the Commission, the
staff director of the Commission may appoint and fix the pay
of additional personnel. The Director may make
[[Page H4857]]
such appointments without regard to the provisions of title
5, United States Code, governing appointments in the
competitive service, and any personnel so appointed may be
paid without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and
subchapter III of chapter 53 of that title relating to
classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that an
individual so appointed may not receive pay in excess of the
maximum annual rate of basic pay payable for grade GS-15 of
the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United
States Code.
(2) Experts and consultants.--The Commission may procure by
contract the temporary or intermittent services of experts or
consultants pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United
States Code.
SEC. 405. REPORT AND RECOMMENDED LEGISLATION.
(a) Report.--Not later than the expiration of the 180-day
period which begins on the date on which the second session
of the One Hundred Fifth Congress adjourns sine die, the
Commission shall submit to the President, the Speaker and
minority leader of the House of Representatives, and the
majority and minority leader of the Senate a report of the
activities of the Commission.
(b) Recommendations; Draft of Legislation.--The report
under subsection (a) shall include any recommendations for
changes in the laws (including regulations) governing the
financing of political activity (taking into account the
provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this Act),
including any changes in the rules of the Senate or the House
of Representatives, to which 9 or more members of the
Commission may agree, together with drafts of--
(1) any legislation (including technical and conforming
provisions) recommended by the Commission to implement such
recommendations; and
(2) any proposed amendment to the Constitution recommended
by the Commission as necessary to implement such
recommendations, except that if the Commission includes such
a proposed amendment in its report, it shall also include
recommendations (and drafts) for legislation which may be
implemented prior to the adoption of such proposed amendment.
(c) Goals of Recommendations and Legislation.--In making
recommendations and preparing drafts of legislation under
this section, the Commission shall consider the following to
be its primary goals;
(1) Encouraging fair and open Federal elections which
provide voters with meaningful information about candidates
and issues.
(2) Eliminating the disproportionate influence of special
interest financing of Federal elections.
(3) Creating a more equitable electoral system for
challengers and incumbents.
SEC. 406. EXPEDITED CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF
LEGISLATION.
(a) In General.--If any legislation is introduced the
substance of which implements a recommendation of the
Commission submitted under section 05(b) (including a joint
resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution),
subject to subsection (b), the provisions of section 2908
(other than subsection (a)) of the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 shall apply to the consideration of
the legislation in the same manner as such provisions apply
to a joint resolution described in section 2908(a) of such
Act.
(b) Special Rules.--For purposes of applying subsection (a)
with respect to such provisions, the following rules shall
apply:
(1) Any reference to the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives shall be deemed a reference to the
Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives
and any reference to the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate shall be deemed a reference to the Committee on Rules
and Administration of the Senate.
(2) Any reference to the date on which the President
transmits a report shall be deemed a reference to the date on
which the recommendation involved is submitted under section
05(b).
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (d)(2) of section 2908 of
such Act--
(A) debate on the legislation in the House of
Representatives, and on all debatable motions and appeals in
connection with the legislation, shall be limited to not more
than 10 hours, divided equally between those favoring and
those opposing the legislation;
(B) debate on the legislation in the Senate, and on all
debatable motions and appeals in connection with the
legislation, shall be limited to not more than 10 hours,
divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the
legislation; and
(C) debate in the Senate on any single debatable motion and
appeal in connection with the legislation shall be limited to
not more than 1 hour, divided equally between the mover and
the manager of the bill (except that in the event the manager
of the bill is in favor of any such motion or appeal, the
time in opposition thereto shall be controlled by the
minority leader or his designee), and the majority and
minority leader may each allot additional time from time
under such leader's control to any Senator during the
consideration of any debatable motion or appeal.
SEC. 407. TERMINATION.
The Commission shall cease to exist 90 days after the date
of the submission of its report under section 05.
SEC. 408. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Commission
such sums as are necessary to carry out its duties under this
title.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, my amendment which I offer
along with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and with the
support of the gentleman of Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), it is a bipartisan amendment.
It would create an independent commission to study and recommend
changes to our campaign finance laws. This amendment is identical to
the substitute introduced earlier this week by the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. White) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks)
except for one important point.
The White amendment, had it passed, might have blocked and killed the
Shays-Meehan bill. Due to the structure of the rule, had the White
amendment received more votes than Shays-Meehan, it would have
prevented Shays-Meehan from becoming law.
This amendment works in conjunction with Shays-Meehan. It strengthens
and supports Shays-Meehan. It lets us fix some of the most important
problems with our campaign finance system today and creates a
commission to solve the problems that remain tomorrow.
I think this option is the best of both worlds. Shays-Meehan can be
signed into law so that we can ban soft money and provide for greater
disclosure of our third-party expenditures; but, at the same time, we
will create a commission to fix problems that are not addressed in
Shays-Meehan.
Mr. Chairman, I see that we have many, many amendments ahead of us on
this substitute. I am sure that many of these amendments are strong.
But if the House agrees to this commission proposal, then I hope my
colleagues will withdraw their amendments. I certainly plan to withdraw
the amendments that I had hoped to introduce, not because I do not
think that they are strong and important, but, with this commission, we
now have another vehicle to take a serious look at all of these issues
that remain to be done and report back with a proposal for addressing
them.
Mr. Chairman, we have a choice before us. We can spend until August
debating every problem, every issue on campaign finance and the
hundreds of amendments made in order under this rule, and we may never
finish this debate. Or we can pass this amendment and pass Shays-Meehan
and let the commission address the remaining problems. I think the
choice is clear.
I urge all Members to support the Maloney-Dingell amendment and to
withdraw any of their own amendments so that we can finally pass Shays-
Meehan and take a real step toward restoring the faith of the American
people in their electoral process.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Shays), who has worked so hard on campaign finance in a bipartisan
spirit.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. On
behalf of those who are supporting this reform legislation, we gladly
accept this substantive amendment by the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
It improves the bill. It will enable us to deal with issues that are
not dealt with in the Shays-Meehan reform legislation. I urge the
amendment's passage. I do not think we to have too much debate about
it.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment. As many of
my colleagues know, I have a major bill that is also going to be
considered. But I think the most important bill, the one that everyone
is consolidated around and can be passed is the Shays-Meehan bill.
I ask this body, when it comes time to vote for that bill, if you do
not vote for it now, when will you vote for it? If you do not vote for
it, who will vote for it?
This body has been able to rise to the occasion when asked by the
American people to address the issue of campaign finance reform. This
body in the 101st
[[Page H4858]]
session of Congress passed a comprehensive campaign finance reform
bill. In the 102nd session, this body passed a bill. In the 103rd
session, this body passed a bill.
All of those bills received far in excess the minimum number of 218
votes. They were all bipartisan votes. So we have in the past been able
to rise to the occasion and adopt very comprehensive campaign finance
reform.
This amendment should be adopted because we always need to be looking
farther than what we are able to legislate. America is changing, and
the style of campaigning and the style of running for office is
changing.
We will not have all the answers in one bill. A commission needs to
look at where we go as we merge into the 21st Century. For a democracy
to survive, we have got to have active participation. Politics is not a
spectator sport. It is a participatory requirement to sustain a
country, to sustain a government in an era when people are getting
turned off and thinking that their vote does not make any difference or
thinking that money in politics buys such influence so a common voter
cannot have an influence.
Yet, we see time and time again where elections around this country
are won by just a few votes. Even in this House, we have had Members
who have won by as little as four votes. We know that votes count. We
ought to be doing things to really engage people in participating in
the process.
We are moving into an era where telecommunications is playing more
and more of a role in communication. Our old ideas about regulating
campaigns have not really taken that into consideration. A commission
certainly can look into that.
A lot of voters in a lot of States are now voting by mail. In
California, it has been very popular. Oregon elected a United States
Senator entirely by a mail ballot election. A lot of issues were raised
in that. A commission can look at that and figure out whether those are
things that we as a Congress ought to be looking at.
Public financing has been suggested as a voluntary effort. Maine has
adopted it. Is it good for other States. Is it good to Congress at a
national level. These are options that a commission can look at. We
certainly need to all encourage a greater participation. We need to
encourage greater participation.
I do not think we have all the answers. We, as Members, go home every
weekend. We go out and have constituent meetings. We are always trying.
We are talking to schools. The galleries are filled. We have students
in here all day. There are probably classrooms on the steps right now
if it is not raining outside. We are always engaging them and telling
them the importance of participating in the process.
But as we say this, we watch how many people participate in
elections. You have to register to vote in this country. Even those who
are registered are not all the qualified adult persons. Those who are
18, American citizens, and have resided at least for 30 days in a
community, those are the qualified voters in America. Yet, only half of
the qualified voters register to vote, and only half of the registered
voters turn out to vote.
If we are in the business of selling democracy, we are doing a very
lousy job. We need to have commissions take a look at how we can better
encourage people to do that. This amendment will do that. But most
important, I think, to build confidence in America, we need to show
them that, in 1998, this House, the House of Representatives, can pass
a bipartisan bill that is both comprehensive and substantive that leads
us another step towards regaining confidence in the American citizens,
that their government in Washington can be a government that is true to
the principles of this country. That is why we need to pass the Shays-
Meehan.
I started this support for this amendment indicating that, if not
now, when? My colleagues, Shays-Meehan, if not now, when?
Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support for this amendment. I
supported the amendment of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White),
which was similar, but this is somewhat different. This amendment will
strengthen this bill. I think that it is very critical to do that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, the Meehan-Shays bill provides for a soft
money ban. It recognizes that sham issue ads. It are truly campaign ads
and treats them as campaign ads. It codifies Beck and improves FEC
disclosure and enforcement. The legislation provides that we put a ban
on unsolicited franked mass mailings 6 months to the election, that is
May on, and makes it clear that foreign money and fund-raising on
government property are illegal. It presently is not illegal to raise
soft money from foreigners or on federal property.
{time} 1145
Believe it or not, it is not illegal. We make sure that people know
it is.
I would just reiterate that we are prepared to vote right now on the
commission bill. We have debated it long and hard, and pointed out when
we debated the White proposal as a standing substitute, that we agreed
with many of the merits, as long as we took a stand now to deal with
soft money, deal with the sham issue ads, codify Beck and so on.
So we are prepared to support the Dingell-Maloney amendment to the
reform bill, the Meehan-Shays bill, and I hope we can move forward on
this because I know we have lots more amendments to deal with that
Members would like to introduce.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I want to just add that campaign finance
reform is critical to restoring citizen confidence in our election
process, and I think this is a part of it.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I first want to commend my good friend,
the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), and my
colleagues the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White), the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Franks), and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Horn) for the good work which they have done on the commission
amendment, something which I believe will be helpful to the
legislation. I believe that their dedication and effort in this matter
does them great, great credit. I particularly want to pay tribute to
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for the remarkable
courage, fortitude and diligence which she has shown in this matter.
It was, I would observe, Mr. Chairman, yesterday that I chose to vote
``present'', with great regret, against the amendment which I had hoped
to offer in the form of a commission substitute. I did not vote this
way because I believed that the commission was no longer a viable idea
but, unfortunately, because of the rather extraordinary rule structure
making the commission bill a possible roadblock to passing desperately
needed comprehensive campaign reform in the form of the Shays-Meehan
proposal. This is something which we must do in the public interest,
because I think almost every Member of this Congress, and certainly the
public at large, is disgusted with the regrettable situation we find
with regard to financing our campaigns.
I originally joined with the other lead sponsors to create a device
which would bring about a quick assured vote on a responsible proposal.
We have that before us in the form of Shays-Meehan. I would observe
that it is a proposal which is endorsed by both my good friend the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), and I want to commend them for their effort
on this matter and thank them for their assistance to us in this
undertaking.
The amendment that is offered by the gentlewoman from New York and I
not only strengthens the Shays-Meehan substitute, but it will study
campaign reform ideas that are not already addressed in Shays-Meehan.
It should please any Member that believes Shays-Meehan does not go far
enough. The commission will clearly have the authority and the ability
to study and
[[Page H4859]]
address any additional improvements needed in our campaign system,
consistent with the policies in the Constitution.
I should note that this is a good proposal. It enhances, it expands,
it enriches, and it benefits the system that we would find under Shays-
Meehan. And I would note that yesterday a large number of my colleagues
voted for this. I would note that they now have an opportunity to vote
for it and Shays-Meehan both, and I urge them to do so. That is in the
public interest and is what the public wants.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
We had a vote the other night on the commission bill, and it was not
quite as successful as I would like, and I think many of those of us
who voted for the commission are considering whether we should vote for
this particular amendment. If possible, I would like to engage the
gentlewoman from New York or the gentleman from Michigan in just a
brief colloquy to make sure I understand exactly how this would work.
It is my understanding that if this amendment is adopted, the
commission would be part of the Shays-Meehan bill. And if the Shays-
Meehan bill passes, the commission, in the form that we had originally
proposed it, would be included in that bill. Does that mean that,
assuming it is signed into law, that the commission could then go to
work, come back to Congress with a package that would amend Shays-
Meehan; or would its hands be tied in any particular way?
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. As the gentleman knows, the commission bill
is an appendage of Shays-Meehan. We would enact in this Congress, send
to the Senate, the President would sign into law Shays-Meehan. All of
the aspects of Shays-Meehan would become law.
Then, as the gentleman knows, our bill in the next Congress, the
commission would go into effect for 180 days with 12 appointments, 4
Republicans, 4 Democrats, 4 Independents. It must have a supermajority
of 9 votes to come back with an expedited review. That ensures that at
least one Republican, one Democrat and one Independent agree. They can
then come back to this floor for an up or down vote.
The likelihood of any part of Shays-Meehan being repealed, although
it could be, is about as likely as a two-headed cow coming out of this
commission, coming back. I do not think it would happen. I do not
believe it would happen. It is beyond belief to me. But it possibly
could. Again, it would have to be passed by this House.
Mr. WHITE. That is my understanding, too. Let me just ask the
gentleman from Connecticut whether that is his understanding.
We do not exactly know what the commission would do, but it would at
least be possible the commission could come back and propose changes
that might change the Shays-Meehan approach?
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITE. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. SHAYS. We accept the commission bill without any restraints. It
is the gentleman's bill, as it is the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Franks), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
It could recommend whatever it wants. We would make an assumption
that they might not deal, and probably would not deal with items that
had already been dealt with, but they are free to do it, and we know
that and accept it. And we know the House ultimately has a chance to
vote on it. It is truly the gentleman's amendment without any
restraints.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that very much and, based on
those representations, I intend to vote for this amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Before I make my presentation, I would like to ask the gentlewoman a
question. As I understand it, the gentlewoman will have four
Independents as part of the commission. As the only Independent in
Congress, that issue is of some significance to me.
We know how Democrats and Republicans might be appointed. Ross Perot
is not the only Independent in America. Some of us do not have many
billions of dollars but also consider ourselves Independents. How would
those Independents be selected?
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. How they are selected is the members are
appointed by the President on recommendations made by the four leaders
in the House and in the Senate. The Republican Speaker, the Democrat
minority leader, the Republican leader in the Senate and the Democratic
minority leader would make the recommendations.
Mr. SANDERS. Including Independents?
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Yes.
Mr. SANDERS. Maybe we might want to chat on that. I am not so sure it
would be a great idea for the leadership of the Democrat and Republican
Party to decide who represents the Independent political movement in
this country, of which there are more of than there are Democrats and
Republicans. But having said that, I thank the gentlewoman for her
efforts.
I would say this, Mr. Chairman. As a strong supporter of Shays-
Meehan, and understanding that I would go further, but I think that is
the likely legislation that might pass and I will support it, the main
point that we have got to understand is the American people know very,
very well today that the political process in Congress and throughout
this country is controlled by big money interests who make huge
contributions to both political parties.
Just this past week we know that the Republican Party held a fund-
raising dinner in Washington for some of the wealthiest and most
powerful people in America and they walked away with $11 million in one
night. And, of course, the Democratic party, maybe not quite so
successfully, tries hard to do the same thing.
Mr. Chairman, sometimes I think people think that when we talk about
campaign finance reform this is an inside-the-beltway issue; that it is
something esoteric; that it does not affect them. Wrong. Campaign
finance reform is an issue which affects every American in every aspect
of public policy.
This week the Republican leadership in the Senate killed legislation
that would have required the tobacco industry to compensate our society
for the death and disease it has created. Was there some connection
between the defeat of this legislation and the many millions of dollars
in soft money that went to the Republican Party from the tobacco
interest? I think one has got to be very naive not to see the
connection.
Mr. Chairman, Americans, people in our country, pay more money than
any other people in the industrialized world for prescription drugs,
and the Federal Government continues to provide hundreds of millions of
dollars in corporate welfare to the pharmaceutical industry. Is there
any connection between the $18 million that the drug companies have
provided to both political parties since 1991 and the outrageously high
cost of prescription drugs in this country? Once again, one would have
to be very naive not to see the connection.
Mr. Chairman, this Congress continues to spend billions of dollars
for weapons that we do not need, including B-2 bombers that cost us
over $2 billion a plane. Meanwhile, we cut back on health care,
education, desperately-needed housing, Medicare, Medicaid, and many
other programs that ordinary Americans need. Is there a connection
between the fact that the aerospace industry and military contractors
contributed $5 million during the 1996 election cycle to the high rate
of military spending? I think, again, you have got to be naive.
Last year, Mr. Chairman, in the budget bill passed by this Congress,
we provided huge tax breaks to some of the largest corporations and
wealthiest people in America. Meanwhile, and this is an important point
to be heard, the wealthiest one quarter of 1 percent contributed over
80 percent of all campaign contributions. Should we be shocked that,
having received all of
[[Page H4860]]
this money from the richest people in America, Congress decided that
most of the tax breaks would go to the very rich while, at the same
time, we cut back on Medicare?
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a whole lot about the role that labor
unions play in the political process. Do they contribute a lot of
money? Yes, they do. But let us not forget that in the 1995-1996
election cycle corporations and groups and individuals representing
business interests outspent labor 11 to 1.
Announcement By The Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Collins). The Chair reminds Members not
to refer to Senate actions on any other measures.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, sometimes we hear about a commission and we wonder what
more do we need to do to study what we should do to reform the way we
raise money for campaigns in this country. And while I have some
reservations about this, I do want to say that we do have a vote here
today on the Shays-Meehan bill, and I will support that, because I
think it is a step in the right direction. However, maybe it does make
sense that after passing Shays-Meehan we also talk about what steps we
might take in the future, and perhaps this commission is the way to
address that.
I view the passage of that measure, the Shays-Meehan bill, as a step,
an important step, but only a step towards where we need to end up. I
am going to vote for it because it will eliminate the insidious
influence of soft money, but it still preserves an element of the
status quo in the current way we do business.
The current system is, to many Americans, broken, Mr. Chairman, and
it is broken for them beyond repair. They believe it cannot be fixed
and they really believe it must be replaced. I have an alternative
amendment before this House that we will address within the next few
weeks. Unfortunately, several weeks down the line because, as I
understand it, we are not going to debate this issue next week, and
then we have 2 weeks in the District. But at some point, perhaps, we
will get to the alternative that proposes to end the private money
chase in campaign finance.
It is called the Clean Money Option. And it is just that. It is an
option for those that want to continue to raise money privately and to
use private resources in the campaigning. They will be able to proceed
on that basis. But there is an option for those of us and the American
public who believe we should do away with private resources and
influence. It is an approach that has already been passed into law by
the Vermont State legislature and the Maine ballot initiative.
Under the clean money system, a candidate agrees to forego all
private contributions, including his or her own, and accepts spending
limits and a limited allocation to run their campaign from publicly-
financed election funds.
{time} 1200
It is not a blank check. Participating candidates must meet all local
ballot qualification requirements and gather a significant number of $5
qualifying contributions from the voters they seek to represent.
Clean-money campaign reform is both simple to understand and sweeping
in its scope. It is a voluntary system, as I said, that meets the test
of constitutionality under the Supreme Court's ruling in Buckley vs.
Valeo that effectively provides a level playing field for all
candidates who are able to demonstrate a substantial amount of popular
support.
It strengthens American democracy by returning political power to the
ballot box. None of the other approaches currently under debate or that
will be under debate come close to this comprehensive solution because
they all preserve a central role for private money.
What makes the clean-money campaign reform different is that it
attacks the root cause of the crisis, namely, a system funded on
private money that comes from a small fraction of the electorate and is
dominated by wealthy special interests.
As elected public officials, we should owe our allegiance to the
people who sent us here, not to the largest campaign contributors. It
comes down to this, Mr. Chairman: Who should own the office in which we
serve, the public or the private-monied interests?
The public gets this issue, Mr. Chairman. They know what needs to be
done. Various clean-money campaign reform bills and ballot initiatives
and grass root movements are now in motion in at least 3 dozen states
across this country. If we cannot act here in Washington to change this
system, the voters will do it for us. Get ready. Because if it is not
happening in the states of my colleagues already, it will be; and this
is in fact the wave of the future.
Mr. Chairman, the clean-money reform has solutions to particular
problems. There are 4 major complaints that voters have about the
current system. One is that political campaigns cost too much money and
last too long. The solution in our bill would be that campaigns have
strict spending limits that could only begin once the money is
disbursed.
Another problem cited is that special interests have too much
influence and certainly the perception of that. The solution is that
participating candidates could not receive direct contributions from
private sources.
People complain that candidates spend way too much time chasing
campaign contributions. The solution in the bill would be that there
would be no need for that fund-raising. Candidates can focus on the
issues and the public concerns if they choose, although they have the
option to continue the private-money chase if they like.
The fourth complaint is that good people cannot win. The solution is
that the clean-money option would create a level playing field and
encourage more people to run.
This clean-money option, Mr. Chairman, is not a pipe dream. It is the
law in two states and the subject of budding grass roots advocacy
campaigns in nearly 40 others. Four states and localities, Arizona,
Massachusetts, Missouri, and New York City, are poised to place similar
initiatives on the November ballot.
Moreover, extensive polling has found public support in around 2-1
across all social and demographic groups, even among the self-described
conservative Republicans. Newspapers from around the country have
editorialized the support of clean money, including U.S.A. Today, The
Boston Globe, St. Louis Post Dispatch, The Minneapolis Star Tribune,
and many, many others.
Mr. Chairman, this is the direction we go. I hope the commission
brings us closer to that point.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues,
especially the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for the merging of their
substitute with the Shays-Meehan bill.
In putting together a comprehensive campaign finance reform bill, it
is a very difficult task and we look to get proper compromises on both
sides of the aisle. The fact is that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) have a good
proposal. It is a proposal that stems out from the meeting in
Claremont, New Hampshire, 3 years ago, where the Speaker and the
President shook hands and greed to establish a commission, and the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) in a race to the floor of the
House to introduce a bill. And I support that effort.
I also want to acknowledge the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White)
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn) on the Republican side for all of their efforts.
The merging of the supporters of a commission with the supporters of
the Shays-Meehan bill means that we are now at that critical majority
where we have a majority of the Members of this House finally ready,
willing, and able to pass real campaign finance reform.
That would not be possible without compromises being made, like
people
[[Page H4861]]
like the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) all who have excellent proposals who are
merging and coming together with the Shays-Meehan substitute so that we
can forge a majority in this House.
If we look at the votes that have been held thus far, it is very
encouraging to those who have been fighting for reform. The vote on the
commission bill with Members voting present or against it so it will
not provide an impediment to passing the Shays-Meehan bill and the most
recent votes that would have gutted the Shays-Meehan bill was resoundly
defeated.
What we see here is a critical mass of Members from both sides of the
aisle, from all parts of the country, who have joined together to reach
compromise to pass real campaign finance reform.
I thank the Members on both sides of the aisle who are forging this
very important critical majority. I look forward to getting through
these amendments as soon as we can. Because the evidence is clear and
overwhelming that we have a majority of the Members of this House who
are prepared to pass the Shays-Meehan bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Collins). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) to
the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 325,
noes 78, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No. 250]
AYES--325
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickett
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
NOES--78
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Bateman
Boehner
Bonilla
Brady (TX)
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Canady
Cannon
Chenoweth
Collins
Combest
Crane
Cubin
DeLay
Doolittle
Everett
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Gekas
Granger
Hansen
Hastert
Hayworth
Hefley
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Johnson (CT)
King (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McKeon
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Neumann
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Oxley
Paul
Paxon
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Radanovich
Rogan
Sabo
Salmon
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sessions
Shadegg
Skeen
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stump
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Watt (NC)
Whitfield
Wicker
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
English
NOT VOTING--29
Barr
Blunt
Coburn
Cooksey
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goodling
Green
Gutknecht
Hastings (FL)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Klug
Lewis (GA)
Martinez
McDade
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Morella
Parker
Pomeroy
Reyes
Rothman
Sununu
Torres
Weldon (FL)
Wise
{time} 1224
Messrs. TIAHRT, FOSSELLA, BURTON of Indiana and Mrs. NORTHUP changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. McHUGH and Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was
agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I want to state my strong
support for the amendment offered by Representative Carolyn Maloney to
the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill. This amendment creates a
12-member commission to recommend changes to current campaign finance
law.
I am a strong supporter of the Shays-Meehan bill and look forward to
its enactment, but we all recognize that there may be some aspects of
the current system of financing political campaigns that may not be
addressed by the Shays-Meehan bill. The commission will serve as a
necessary backstop, so as we encounter unanticipated campaign finance
issues, we have a process to review and make recommendations to resolve
these issues. I think this commission amendment is an important
addition to the Shays-Meehan bill.
I did not support and voted against an earlier substitute to the
underlying campaign finance bill that just provided a commission
approach to address the abuses in the current campaign finance system.
It is way past time for more review and study of the problems in our
current system. We know what the problems are and the Shays-Meehan bill
addresses these problems. To just enact a review commission would only
further delay legislating on this important issue.
Our job here is to make laws. We can not continue to abdicate that
responsibility on the issue of campaign finance reform. We have a good
bill before us--the Shays-Meehan bill. The Maloney amendment will make
this good bill better. Therefore, I strongly support the Shays-Meehan
bill with the Maloney commission amendment and I urge all my colleagues
to work together to enact this important bipartisan legislation.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
[[Page H4862]]
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is the next amendment will
be the Gillmor amendment, at which time a vote would be expected
sometime just after 1 o'clock. Then we would go to other amendments,
but there would not be a vote after the Gillmor amendment, that would
be sometime after 1 o'clock. That is my understanding, and I think it
would be helpful to Members to get what the schedule is.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MEEHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman has a correct
understanding with the only correction being that if we can begin the
Gillmor amendment and we can conclude it before 1 o'clock, there is no
reason to wait until 1 o'clock to vote on it, if there are only two or
three speakers on the Gillmor amendment.
My understanding is that both of the authors of this particular
substitute are willing to accept the amendment as written if we could
keep to a minimum the discussion of that amendment. As soon as the
Gillmor amendment is voted on, that would be the last vote for the day.
But if we begin discussing any other amendments, there would be no more
votes and we would rise at 2 o'clock regardless of where we were in the
discussion of any amendment.
Mr. MEEHAN. Certainly there may be some other people that want to
speak on amendments, but I just wanted to get a clear understanding of
what the schedule was so that Members could make their plans.
Mr. THOMAS. If the gentleman will yield further, the bottom line is
the Gillmor amendment will be the last vote of the day, whenever that
occurs prior to 2 o'clock.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gillmor to Amendment No. 13 in the Nature of a
Substitute Offered by Mr. Shays
Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gillmor to Amendment No. 13 in the
Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Shays:
Add at the end of title V the following new section (and
conform the table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 510. PROTECTING EQUAL PARTICIPATION OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS
IN CAMPAIGNS AND ELECTIONS.
Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 431 et seq.), as amended by sections 101, 401, and
507, is further amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``protecting equal participation of eligible voters in campaigns and
elections
``Sec. 326. (a) In General.--Nothing in this Act may be
construed to prohibit any individual eligible to vote in an
election for Federal office from making contributions or
expenditures in support of a candidate for such an election
(including voluntary contributions or expenditures made
through a separate segregated fund established by the
individual's employer or labor organization) or otherwise
participating in any campaign for such an election in the
same manner and to the same extent as any other individual
eligible to vote in an election for such office.
``(b) No Effect on Geographic Restrictions on
Contributions.--Subsection (a) may not be construed to affect
any restriction under this title regarding the portion of
contributions accepted by a candidate from persons residing
in a particular geographic area.''.
Mr. GILLMOR (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Collins). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, the amendment which the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) and I are offering would reaffirm in law a vital
national interest, namely, that all Americans eligible to vote be
treated in the same way by the Federal Election Campaign Act. The
Gillmor-Tanner amendment is necessary because proposals have been made,
both in this body and at the FEC, which would treat nearly 5 million
Americans as second-class citizens politically. Namely, such proposals
would deny American citizens who work for American subsidiaries of
companies which are headquartered abroad an avenue of political
association and participation that is guaranteed all other Americans,
namely, the right to voluntarily contribute money to political
candidates through political action committees sponsored by their
employers.
Mr. Chairman, in my home State of Ohio, more than 218,000 Ohioans are
employed by American subsidiaries of companies headquartered abroad,
and there are more than 5 million Americans nationwide. That number is
growing daily. It will get larger still as soon as the merger between
Chrysler and Daimler-Benz is completed to form a new Daimler-Chrysler
corporation.
{time} 1230
It makes no sense to tell these Americans that today they may
contribute to their company's political action committee, but the day
the merger is completed they instantly become second class citizens and
are denied this avenue of political participation. Even though the name
on the paycheck may change, these employees remain American citizens,
and the vagaries of corporate mergers should not be permitted to deny
them their rights as Americans.
Just as past barriers were erected to discourage participation in the
political process, some of today's propositions attempt to deny
participation based on where an American chooses to work. Just as
discriminatory behavior was wrong then, it is wrong now. Foreign
nationals should not be allowed to contribute to American campaigns.
That practice is already against the law, and I believe we ought to
uphold that law, and this amendment in no way changes the illegality of
foreign campaign contributions.
Furthermore, both the current law and the Federal Election Commission
regulations prohibit foreign nationals' contributions to or any foreign
national decision-making with respect to either corporate or labor-
sponsored political action committees, and those prohibitions would not
be amended by this amendment.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, the political rights of American citizens
must not be limited by race, gender or place of employment, and a vote
for the Gillmor-Tanner amendment would protect the right of American
citizens to be treated equally by our current election law and any
reforms that may eventually be enacted.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Tanner) wants to speak. I just want to speak on behalf of the
Meehan-Shays supporters, that we do support this amendment. It is a
right of American citizens today.
I know we will have other amendments to consider, but we do support
it and would urge others to support it as well.
Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Fazio).
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
this amendment which I think is really an affirmation of existing law
and one, however, that is needed because the debate, the discussion, of
overseas contributions has been muddled to a point where some have
implied that perhaps those who work for corporations that are
headquartered in other parts of the world should be prevented from
participating in our political system.
We are part of a global economy, and increasingly who we work for is
going to change during the time in which we work for them. Gentleman
pointed out the Daimler-Benz-Chrysler merger as a good example of a
long-standing American corporation where its employees have contributed
both to its union's political action fund and its corporate PAC, and
under some proposals that have been made their rates will be truncated
and eliminated.
It seems to me the American people ought to be able to participate in
politics regardless of the vagaries of who they work for at any given
time. We all know that increasingly the subsidiaries, or even the
companies that once were independent have become affiliated with
entities that have not only multiple owners in terms of stockholders in
most countries in the world, but perhaps the corporate headquarters
anywhere else.
This amendment is, I think, an important reassertion of what should
be a fundamental right for every American.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
[[Page H4863]]
(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I would associate myself with the remarks of
the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio).
Obviously the vagaries of employment are that on any given time a
corporate entity may or may not be a foreign-held corporation, but the
American citizen who wants to participate and contribute through such
devices as are legally available to American citizens to do so should
be maintained, and I think that is appropriate, and I support the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. TANNER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand the
sponsors of the amendment are going to agree to this, and so in order
to save time I submit my statement in support of the Gillmor amendment
for the Record.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support an amendment
which I have cosponsored with my colleague from Ohio, Mr. Gilmor, which
would very simply protect the rights of all American citizens who are
eligible to vote by ensuring that they will not be discriminated
against as the result of changes we make to our campaign finance law.
In our zeal to pass some kind of campaign finance reform, let's not
inadvertently take away rights from Americans to participate in our
electoral process. I think we all agree that we should be very careful
not to pass any reform which hinders Americans from participating.
Our amendment would make it clear that U.S. citizens who work for
companies in the United States which happen to be foreign-owned will
not lose the rights they presently enjoy to fully participate in
federal campaigns.
An amendment being proposed later in this debate would bar U.S.
subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies from operating PACS. Under this
proposal, the definition of ``foreign'' would be decided by degree of
ownership. Any company that is more than 51 percent foreign-owned would
not be allowed to operate a PAC--regardless of the number of employees
they have in the U.S. or the extent of their contributions to the U.S.
economy.
Let me first reiterate that U.S. law presently forbids foreign
nationals from participating in any way in federal elections, including
contributing to and making decisions about a PAC.
Many U.S. subsidiaries make substantial contributions to our economy
and are stellar corporate citizens. To discriminate against them and
the U.S. citizens they hire is simply wrong. For instance, both Hardees
and Burger King are foreign-owned, yet they--like U.S.-owned
McDonalds--are U.S. institutions which hire American citizens to work
in the thousands of restaurants all across my state and throughout this
country. It would simply be unfair to deny American employees of
Hardees and Burger King the basic right of participating in a PAC while
ensuring American employed of McDonalds that they would continue to
have the right to fully participate in their own government's election
process.
After all, those employees at Hardees and Burger King pay taxes, shop
at local stores, volunteer for the local charities and otherwise
contribute to their communities just as their neighbors do who work for
U.S.-owned companies. I urge all of my colleagues to ask constituents
in your district who work for U.S. subsidiaries if they should be
treated as ``foreign''. I am sure the response will convince you that
it is patently unfair to discriminate against these American workers.
U.S. subsidiaries of companies based outside the U.S. are
increasingly important participants in the American economy. In my home
state of Tennessee:
138,200 Tennessee workers are employed by U.S. subsidiaries.
From 1980 to 1995, Tennessee employment at U.S. subsidiaries
increased more than five times faster than all jobs in Tennessee.
Employees at U.S. subsidiaries constitute over 6% of Tennessee's
total work force.
Support the rights of ALL Americans to participate fully in our
political process and give these employees at U.S. subsidiaries the
assurance that we will not treat them as second class citizens.
Support the Gilmor-Tanner amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to take this opportunity because I will be
offering amendments later in the month concerning foreign contributions
to U.S. campaigns, and I respect my colleague from Ohio and his desire
to preserve the rights of U.S. citizens regardless of where they work
to participate in our political system. But I have to say to both the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) that sometimes what appears is not always
everything that should appear in the offering of an amendment, and I
think, as we move through this bill, there may be the opportunity to
refine some of the concepts in the amendment currently on the floor
from other issues that also bear on the subject of national interest
versus any purely private interest. And I think under our laws it is
pretty clear that U.S. elections should be for U.S. citizens and that
we have a problem in this country in foreign money infecting U.S.
campaigns on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Chairman, we have seen what has happened when millions and
millions of dollars manages to come into this country either as
independent expenditures or for various candidates not being disclosed
properly, and in some cases, even though the law says foreign citizens
shall not contribute, in fact they end up contributing because the
disclosure requirements for foreign contributions are not kept in a
separate category at the FEC.
This issue is not as simple as it first appears on the surface, and
so I would say with all due respect to my colleague from Ohio, though I
respect the right of individual Americans to contribute to campaigns, I
draw the line where in fact those contributions are coming from foreign
interests. I do not care who those foreign interests are, this is a
nationally sovereign country, and we should be able to safeguard the
election processes inside our nation.
Now let me draw an example for those of us who served during this
period of time when Toshiba Company through a subsidiary in northern
Europe gave away U.S. submarine technology to the then Soviet state,
and if I were asked if I think Toshiba should be able to contribute to
U.S. elections, I would say absolutely not. Their ability to try to
subvert the rightful penalties that they should have paid for that
incredible act against this country and our national security should
not have been rewarded by allowing that corporation to participate in
any way in the U.S. political process.
Now for their employees, for their employees to be able to
participate as U.S. citizens they should be able to participate in
their elections if they wish to support a candidate absolutely. But
there are serious problems with the way in which foreign contributions
are booked and with the way in which records are kept at the FEC.
I have studied this now for almost 10 years. I know this issue inside
and out.
So I would just say that I would vote present on the proposal offered
by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) if it were brought to a full
vote here. I would encourage the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays)
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) to work with us as we
try to get equal disclosure on foreign contributions into the elections
in this country and to try to draw a very clear line here on what we
are talking about.
Mr. Chairman, there is a difference between U.S. citizens and foreign
interest participating in U.S. elections.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur) for the tone of her message and the strength of her message,
and I agree with her comments, and one of the challenges that we have
is, as these amendments come in, make sure we are touching base with
all sides and making sure that we are able to meld this process so we
can accommodate the various sincere and real concerns that Members have
such as the gentlewoman, and I appreciate her present vote, and I
appreciate her comments.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays) very much, and I thank my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) for
alerting me to the fact that this amendment would be discussed, and we
look forward to working with the gentleman as our amendment comes up on
the floor.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in strong support of the Gillmor-Tanner amendment
which seeks to ensure that all American citizens are treated equally
under the law. The political rights of American voters
[[Page H4864]]
should not be determined by where they work.
Just as our Nation has assured equal political participation for all
citizens regardless of race, gender or national origin, we should
ensure that no class of Americans are denied an avenue of political
participation that is available to all other Americans.
In my home State of New York nearly 349,000 American citizens work
for American subsidiaries of companies headquartered abroad. It makes
no sense that my constituent who works at their American-owned
McDonald's can join with fellow employees and contribute to campaigns
through a political action committee while their neighbor who works at
a foreign-owned Burger King or Hardee's is denied this avenue of
participation in our political system.
Mr. Chairman, it is only fair and common sense that we provide in our
election law a provision to ensure that all Americans receive the same
opportunities and avenues of political participation. I urge my
colleagues to support the Gillmor-Tanner amendment.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gillmor-Tanner amendment. I
come from a State where the number of employees of U.S. subsidiaries of
corporations headquartered in other countries has grown by 233 percent
since 1980. Two of the largest employers in the high-tech Research
Triangle Park, for example, Nortel and Glaxo-Wellcome, collectively
employ 15,000 people in North Carolina. They make tremendous
contributions to the U.S. economy, to the North Carolina economy, and
to our local communities. It is unfair to discriminate against American
citizens who are employees of these companies.
It is already illegal, Mr. Chairman, for foreign nationals to
participate in political action committees. PACs are operated by U.S.
employees, and funds for PACs are provided only by U.S. employees.
There is no reason to deny U.S. citizens the right to participate fully
in the political process, and that includes financial participation.
The Gillmor-Tanner amendment is a straightforward amendment ensuring
that all U.S. citizens are treated equally under our campaign finance
laws regardless of where they work.
I encourage all colleagues to support this sensible and fair
provision.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gillmor
amendment. This amendment has a simple objective: it ensures that
American citizens who can vote in elections are not prohibited from
participating in the political process solely because they work for
U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies.
Although Federal election law already bars foreign nationals and
foreign corporations from contributing to Federal candidates, in the
current debate on campaign finance reform, amendments have been filed
that would not only restrict foreign nationals from participating, but
American citizens employed by foreign-owned companies as well.
Mr. Chairman, while intended to reduce foreign influence on our
elections, such a change in election law would only end up excluding a
class of Americans from enjoying rights held by all others. This
approach would not only be unfair to the 209,000 residents of my state
of New Jersey who work for U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-owned
companies, but would also be constitutionally indefensible. The Gillmor
amendment makes clear that campaign finance reform should apply equally
to all Americans, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 395,
noes 0, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 35, as follows:
[Roll No. 251]
AYES--395
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Jones
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--3
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Leach
NOT VOTING--35
Baker
Barr
Blunt
Callahan
Coburn
Conyers
Cooksey
Cox
Everett
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goodling
Green
Gutknecht
Hastings (FL)
Holden
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Lewis (GA)
Martinez
McDade
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Morella
Ortiz
Parker
Reyes
Rothman
Salmon
Smith (NJ)
Solomon
Sununu
Torres
Weldon (FL)
[[Page H4865]]
{time} 1300
So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was
agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, regrettably I was unavoidably detained
for rollcall votes 250 (Maloney Amendment) and 251 (Gillmor Amendment).
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on both rollcall votes
250 and 251.
personal explanation
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, because of a family matter, I
unfortunately missed three rollcall votes (249, 250, 251) pertaining to
campaign finance reform.
I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 249, the Thomas amendment
to add a nonseverability clause, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 250, the
Maloney amendment providing for a commission on campaign finance
reform, and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 251, the Gillmor amendment to
ensure every voter can participate in the political process.
I strongly oppose the Thomas amendment. It goes too far; the
amendment strikes the provision in Shays-Meehan stating that if any
part of the bill is found unconstitutional, the remainder stays intact,
and it adds a provision stating that if any part is found
unconstitutional, the entire bill is invalid. This Congress has passed
several bills with severability clauses, including the Balanced Budget
Act of 1997. Bills that are silent on the issue are considered by the
courts to be severable. The Thomas anti-severability approach is highly
unusual, and found in only four of the thousands of bills introduced
this Congress.
I support the Maloney amendment, which would create a 12-member
commission to recommend changes to current campaign finance law. The
commission must submit recommendations, approved by at least 9 of the
12 members, within six months of the end of this Congress, and be
considered under expedited procedures. The commission would be
comprised of an equal number of Republican and Democratic appointees.
While I strongly support the Shays-Meehan bill, I favor further reforms
to our system, and this commission gives us the opportunity to further
reform our system.
Amendment No. 82 Offered by Mr. Doolittle to Amendment No. 13 in the
Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Shays
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Collins). The Clerk will designate the
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. 82 offered by Mr. Doolittle to amendment No.
13 in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Shays:
Strike section 301(20)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971, as added by section 201(b) of the substitute,
and insert the following:
``(B) Nonapplication to publications on voting records.--
The term `express advocacy' shall not apply with respect to
any communication which provides information or commentary on
the voting record of, or positions on issues taken by, any
individual holding Federal office or any candidate for
election for Federal office, unless the communication
contains explicit words expressly urging a vote for or
against any identified candidate or political party.''.
(Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I am going to offer this amendment which
is short and to the point. I believe I will just read it, because it
makes the point.
It is entitled the Nonapplication to Publications on Voting Records:
The term ``express advocacy'' shall not apply with respect to any
communication which provides information or commentary on the voting
record of, or positions on issues taken by, any individual holding
Federal office or any candidate for election for Federal office, unless
the communication contains explicit words expressly urging a vote for
or against any identified candidate or political party.
Mr. Chairman, the effect of this language is to preserve the Buckley
opinion, which of course is going to stand whether or not we enact
Shays-Meehan. But it is to make sure that we do not place citizens in
jeopardy for exercising their God-given right to free speech protected
in the U.S. Constitution.
The Buckley case, which is so demeaned by our left-wing reformers, is
quite clear on this. And it was a case that was a very strong case by
judges, most of whom supported it. We have heard Buckley defamed time
and time again. I want to quote a couple of things from Buckley and my
colleagues will see why it has remained the constitutional foundation
for so many years.
In the words of Buckley, The Federal Election Campaign Act, known as
FECA, their regulation:
. . . apply only to expenditures for communications that in
express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly
identified candidate for public office . . . this
construction would restrict the application of FECA
regulations to communications containing express words of
advocacy of election or defeat, such as ``vote for,''
``elect,'' ``support,'' ``cast your ballot for,'' ``Smith for
Congress,'' ``vote against,'' ``defeat,'' ``reject.''
Now, here are the so-called magic words that are demeaned by our
left-wing reformers. But the reason we have such words is further
explained by the Court itself.
``. . . the distinction between discussion of issues and
candidates and advocacy of election or defeat of candidates
may often dissolve in practical application. Candidates,
especially incumbents, are intimately tied to public issues
involving legislative proposals and governmental actions. Not
only do candidates campaign on the basis of their positions
on various public issues, but campaigns themselves generate
issues of public interest.''
And then we come to this, and this really is the philosophical
underpinning of the First Amendment. It explains how that applies to
these disastrous attempts such as Shays-Meehan to abridge our freedom
of speech. And it goes on to say:
Whether words intended and designed to fall short of
invitation would miss that mark is a question both of intent
and effect. No speaker, in such circumstances, safely could
assume that anything he might say upon the general subject
would not be understood by some as an invitation. In short,
the supposedly clear-cut distinction between discussion,
laudation, general advocacy, and solicitation puts the
speaker in these circumstances wholly at the mercy of the
varied understanding of his hearers and consequently of
whatever inference may be drawn as to his intent and meaning.
Such a distinction offers no security for free discussion.
In these conditions it blankets with uncertainty whatever may
be said. It compels the speaker to hedge and trim.
This is why we have all said on our side that Shays-Meehan is
patently unconstitutional on its face, because its regulation compels
the speaker to hedge and trim.
Now, in Shays-Meehan, they claim they allow voter guides, but their
regulation compels the speaker to hedge and trim. Why? Because there is
a requirement that it be done in an ``educational manner.'' Clearly, it
is intended to require only a flat recitation of facts and to bar
commentary or advocacy on an event or issue.
But certainly the scorecards and voter guides put out by issue groups
and labor unions do reflect a point of view. They do contain
commentary. And under the First Amendment, they have every right to do
so.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California
(Mr. Doolittle) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Doolittle was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, also the requirement in Shays-Meehan is
that the publication must contain, ``no words that in context have no
reasonable meaning other than to urge the election or defeat of one or
more clearly identified candidates.''
See, this is the inference they are talking about here where whatever
inference may be drawn as to its intent and meaning. All of a sudden a
Federal bureaucratic czar is going to determine whether or not what
citizens have said in their voter guide fell within the law or outside
the law. It chills the speech.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to just think of this. Any
organization that wants to distribute a voter guide, such as the
Christian Coalition, such as National Right to Life, such as, I think
the Abortion Rights Action League does them, any organization is now
going to have to have in the back of its mind, and in its bank account,
a half-million dollars, knowing that they will then be prepared to
withstand a prosecution by the Federal bureaucratic czar who may
determine that through the inference and so forth of the words, that
the words fell within the scope of the Shays-Meehan law and, therefore,
can be punished.
[[Page H4866]]
Now, the First Amendment of course would never allow this. But as we
all know, when we have statutes that infringe on the Constitution, the
only way to deal with that problem is to go through the extremely time-
consuming and costly litigation process. So this puts every issue
advocacy group in the country in jeopardy. They will all have to raise
more money in order to fight the half-million dollar legal battle. I
think that is wrong.
By the way, a voter guide, here is one from the Christian Coalition,
this is what a lot of the incumbents who are not casting votes
consistent with the wishes of the Christian Coalition get very upset
by. This is very influential and it is definitely determined to
influence the outcome of elections, which the Constitution says they
have the right to do.
But it takes a Member's vote, they have votes probably of 20
different things or so, and it lists the voting records of everybody
around the country. But it is an advocacy thing. It does have a point
of view, because it says, ``How did your congressmen and senators vote
on issues critical to the family?'' And on the backside it says,
``Christian Coalition, giving pro-family Americans a voice in their
government again.''
Well, I think would it not be safe to infer that if Members are
casting antifamily votes as related by the Christian Coalition, that
they would think that Member should be defeated rather than elected? I
do not think it is a large jump in logic to understand that that would
be the intent.
When we get into the language of Shays-Meehan, they then are
violating what can be done because this is not neutral. They now have
words and context that can add no reasonable meaning other than to urge
the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidates.
Under Shays-Meehan, they are not just doing a flat recitation of facts
such as they intend by the words ``educational manner.''
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we need this amendment and I urge my
colleagues to adopt it.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I am looking for the language of the
amendment. It does not really state it correctly. It says
nonapplication to publications of voting records. And everybody should
understand this goes far beyond voting records. It goes to all
communications.
Let me read it. ``The term `express advocacy' shall not apply with
respect to any communication which provides information or commentary
on the voting record of or positions on issues taken by . . .'' So it
is anything in a political campaign. ``. . . by any individual holding
Federal office or any candidate for election for Federal office, unless
the communication contains explicit words expressly urging a vote for
or against any identified candidate or political party.''
So the amendment offered by the gentleman from California is not
really related to voting guides. What it does is try to strike all of
the language within Shays-Meehan relating to express advocacy, to issue
ads. Let no one be unclear about that.
{time} 1315
Secondly, I wish we would stop talking about people who are for this
bill as left wing reformers, I say to the gentleman from California,
because when he says that, he is demeaning the gentleman across the
aisle from him, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). He is
demeaning the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) who has been actively
involved, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from California (Mr.
Campbell), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), and others,
and Mr. McCain.
My colleagues may disagree with their fellow or sister Republicans.
Do not call them by an epithet. This debate serves better than that. No
one is calling my colleagues a right wing nut.
We are also not demeaning the Supreme Court. By the way, if it is
patently unconstitutional on its face, then do not present an
amendment. The court will eliminate it. The problem with my colleague's
position is that that is not true, and that is what they are worried
about.
The 9th Circuit, which is not filled with left wing reformers, has
interpreted the decision, the Buckley decision. There is a circuit that
disagrees with it. But the 9th Circuit has said this, and we
essentially, in this bill, attempt to follow the language in Furgatch
or the gist of it.
Here is what they say: 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 opinion
in Buckley does not exhaust the capacity of the English language to
expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, Furgatch is an express advocacy case and
is perfectly consistent with our beliefs in the Buckley case. Furgatch,
as I understand the case, the court named, I do not know, seven or
eight words in the Buckley case, and Furgatch, the facts of the case
amounted to essentially the same thing. That is all it says. But it is
express advocacy. It does not advocate blurring the line between
express advocacy of election or defeat of a candidate versus everything
else.
Mr. LEVIN. I say to the gentleman, then, go back and read Shays-
Meehan. Go back and read it, because all it says is, within the last 60
days, especially if there is express advocacy, if you attack a
candidate, but do not say vote against, or if you say things that do
not exactly say vote for, that, still, if the clear purpose is a
political ad, it shall fall within independent expenditures and be
controlled by the regulations with the FEC.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield again?
Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Only to say, right up until now and even now, it is
clear we do not have to look at what the purpose or the intent is.
Unless the words themselves are express and advocating the election or
defeat of a candidate, then it is not subject to regulation.
The man in Furgatch said, I think it is Harvey Furgatch ran this ad
and said, do not let them do this, meaning defeat them. I think they
were talking about Jimmy Carter. It is quite clear. We should not seek
to blur the line.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Levin was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, then, between now and next
week that the gentleman should get together with the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Meehan) because I just think that his language is contrary to what he
says he understands Furgatch to be.
He says, unless the communication contains explicit words expressly
urging a vote for or against any identified candidate. That is, rewrite
your amendment, then.
Let me just go on. Let me just finish, if I might. It goes on to say,
a test requiring the magic words elect, support, et cetera, or their
nearly perfect synonyms, for finding of express advocacy would preserve
the First Amendment right of unfettered expression only at the expense
of eviscerating the Federal election campaign ad.
No one is trying to gag anybody. If they want to do a political ad
that essentially wants people to vote for or against, what they say is
fall within the independent expenditure and other provisions of the
law, which has limits on what can be expended and has requirements for
disclosure, which is not true of these ads that are clearly campaign
ads, that are clearly political ads.
But the people do not know who put the money up. They are hidden.
They are endless. There is a flood of hidden, in terms of its support,
of hidden money. That is what we say should not happen.
Now, look, in terms of the brochures, voter guides, if you think the
language on voter guides is not clear enough, then amend that. But the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) have carefully tried to spell this out.
[[Page H4867]]
They say that a printed communication is not included if it presents
information in an educational manner solely about the voting record or
position on the campaign issue of two or more candidates. If it is not
education, if it is essentially political, it should fall within the
purview of the ad.
Now, look, no one is talking about a czar. We have laws on
independent expenditures that the FEC has to enforce. The Supreme Court
was worried about this 20 years ago. A lot has happened in the last 20
years, to include this bombardment of so-called issue ads that are
really political ads.
If Members adopt this amendment, they are essentially eviscerating
the issue advocacy provisions, the effort in Shays-Meehan to call and
regulate political, what is really political and a campaign ad that is
really a campaign ad.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to lend my voice to the debate on campaign
finance reform and reluctantly stand in opposition to the amendment of
my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
The issue at hand is express advocacy, and the courts have made a
number of statements on this, and there are a number of conflicting
comments on express advocacy and whatever the magic words are. Buckley
makes a statement. Lower courts have been split on this issue.
But I think it is very important, if for no other reason, for the
Congress to have some legislative history on what express advocacy is.
I am of the strong opinion that when we do this, the Shays-Meehan
legislative framework provides the kind of structure we need to ensure
that those who want to advocate a position, an issue, or even a
candidate be heard in a responsible manner.
Shays-Meehan does not limit the First Amendment rights for free
speech. It provides a framework in which rigorous mental debate,
rigorous mental effort, intellectual discussion can be pushed for. It
does not limit free speech. It holds speech to a standard. It holds
free speech and those who are giving it to be held accountable. It just
does not let the broad array of anybody's opinion based on good
judgment, good facts, or based on absolutely nothing go out into the
free media. So I have a strong position, and I would hope my colleagues
vote for Shays-Meehan.
I just want to make a couple of other points. Our responsibility as
Congress is to ensure protection from the public against corruption. I
do not think anybody in this House Chamber would say that too much
money or money expended in years passed or in this election cycle,
especially in some of the elections and special elections that are
going on right now do not put forth or masquerade as putting forth the
truth.
We have too much money in certain instances being put forth against
Republicans and Democrats that do not support good, legislative,
fundamental, sound issues. We as Members of Congress, I strongly feel,
have the broad ability to protect the public in the political process
from corruption and the appearance of corruption.
The Supreme Court specifically noted on a number of times that
contribution limits do not undermine robust and effective discussion
for candidates. Myself, I do not take, and I am not advocating this for
everybody, even though I have an amendment, I do not take any PAC
money. I do not take any money out of the district. You have to be
eligible to vote for me as a candidate to contribute to my campaign.
That way, I do not raise a whole lot of money in campaign, but I can
tell my colleagues that my campaigns, my discussions in campaigns, and
my debates, even though I have been outspent six to one, seven to one,
eight to one all across the board in most of my campaigns, I still have
a rigorous and robust debate.
I would advocate that for everyone. But I think this Congress has the
right, the power, and the broad responsibility to protect the public
from political corruption and the appearance of corruption.
The Shays-Meehan bill does not affect, I will throw this in very
quickly, State campaigns or State politics or State elections. It does
regulate State party activity to the extent that it affects Federal
elections. I think this is a positive thing.
Mr. Chairman, I will make two last quick points. Number one, the
Supreme Court makes a statement. They make a ruling, and that is fine.
To the extent we live with that, but we still have the option and the
ability and the freedom and the responsibility to question that
decision. That is what democracy is.
We are debating this issue. It is an exchange of information with a
sense of tolerance for somebody else's opinion wherever they lie on the
political spectrum. Then we vote. That is what is happening here.
The last point I would like to make is, in my judgment, the question
here is, will we continue to allow campaign ads to bypass campaign
finance laws simply because they appear to be such?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Gilchrest) has expired.
(On request of Mr. DeLay, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Gilchrest was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, let me make this one last point, the
question is should campaign ads escape finance laws simply because they
are crafted to masquerade as something else? I do not think so. So I
strongly urge my colleagues to vote for Shays-Meehan.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
He is a dear friend of mine, and I appreciate my dear friend's well
intentions. But we are debating the Doolittle amendment that exempts
certain groups like the Christian Coalition from this bill and allows
the Christian Coalition to pass out their voter guides.
The gentleman made two statements, and I ask him to clarify them for
me. The gentleman said these groups should be held accountable. My
question is, by whom? Second, that these groups are corrupting. They
are corrupting. What about the Christian Coalition is corrupting the
process by handing out a voter guide?
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think, number one,
we, as Members of Congress, should continue to debate the kinds of
language and the kinds of things that the overall American public would
consider as real campaign advocacy.
There is an election in New Mexico right now, I would tell my
colleagues of this House, where the kinds of campaign rhetoric against
one of the candidates, which happens to be a Republican, is absolutely
false. There are blatant lies. That is what I would assume and strongly
feel that this legislation would get at.
I would never say that the Christian Coalition in its information
packet about candidates and their voting record is masquerading as
something other than what it is. I think they would be protected under
Shays-Meehan. I do not see the Christian Coalition packet of
information about Members of Congress any different from that of the
League of Women Voters.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Gilchrest) has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Doolittle, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Gilchrest
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, what does the gentleman understand the
term in the Shays-Meehan to mean in an educational manner?
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? I can answer.
Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, we just need to know exactly what is in the
bill, and then we can argue it. We say a voting record and voting guide
exception. 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 candidate issued on two or
more candidates that is not made in coordination with the candidate,
political
[[Page H4868]]
party, or agent of the candidate or party or a candidate's agent or a
person who is coordinating with a candidate's agents. Third, it does
not contain a phrase such as vote for, reelect, support, cast your
ballot for, name of candidate for Congress, name of candidate in 1997,
vote against, defeat, reject, and so on.
{time} 1330
This 1994 Christian Coalition guide is legal. And what the gentleman
wants to do is he wants to strike out the very language we put in the
bill. I would just point out to the gentleman this is allowed under our
bill, and the gentleman is taking it out.
Mr. GILCHREST. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the
gentleman from California that I would agree with the interpretation of
the author of the bill; that the statement the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) just read in no uncertain terms protects the
brochure that the gentleman is holding for the Christian Coalition.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Then support my amendment and then it will make it
unambiguous. The problem with the Shays-Meehan language is it is
ambiguous because we have the phrase ``in an educational manner''.
Mr. GILCHREST. Reclaiming my time, my interpretation of the bill and
that section of the bill is that if we take that out, then what the
gentleman is trying to do becomes more ambiguous. I think the specifics
of the Shays language offers a concrete protection for the Christian
Coalition's advocacy material.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I wish to say to the gentleman from California that he
says it relates to voting records. It is a misstatement of what it
applies to. It applies to any communication. And it says that it will
not be covered by Federal regulation unless there are explicit words
urging a vote for or against.
What the gentleman is doing is trying to totally vitiate the express
advocacy provisions. And the gentleman has said it so well, the
gentleman who has the time. The gentleman is so right in saying that we
should not allow ads to masquerade for something that they are not.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. The gentleman is absolutely wrong. He is reaffirming the
express advocacy affirmed by the Supreme Court through Buckley-Valeo,
Colorado, and many other decisions.
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak to two issues which are very much
related around this issue, which is soft money and express advocacy.
Both are currently being used to deliver campaign ads by skirting
campaign laws.
Soft money is meant to be used for general party building. It is
meant to benefit the party as a whole, not to benefit any particular
candidate. Express advocacy ads are meant to speak to issues and not to
expressly advocate for the election or defeat of any single candidate.
Currently, both of these laws and both of these activities have huge
loopholes that are being exploited shamelessly by groups across the
political spectrum.
Consider a real, not hypothetical, series of ads that ran this last
cycle in New York. The people who ran these ads argued that publicly
attacking one candidate in a race is not a benefit to the other
candidate and should not be considered so. It is an interesting
interpretation. $750,000 of soft money was spent to attack one
candidate in a two-candidate race under the argument that this should
be protected because it was, of course, not a benefit to the other
candidate.
Let me tell my colleagues what the express language used was. On the
air, the suggestion was that candidate number one was for more taxes,
for more welfare. Candidate number one would tax and spend. Candidate
number one was responsible for the mess in Albany. And the ad finished
up by flashing the telephone number of the candidate and urging viewers
to call and tell this candidate to cut taxes, not take another bite out
of our paychecks.
Now, my understanding is that when these ads aired, there were no tax
votes imminent in the assembly where that candidate was serving. There
was no specific issue that was mentioned. The only message that one can
glean from this particular ad was the one that was meant to be gleaned,
which is to turn public opinion against the featured candidate, and
$750,000 of soft money was used to air these ads.
The reforms embodied in Shays-Meehan are meant to shut down these
sort of semantic shenanigans. Changes are needed because parties and
organizations on both sides of the political aisle are currently
abusing the system. My belief is that those who are pursuing real issue
advocacy should have no problem doing so in a system reformed by Shays-
Meehan. This is just another alarmist argument meant to frighten
Members away from the reforms that our constituents want.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. RIVERS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MEEHAN. Actually, Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman has brought up an
interesting point. These ads, that are supposedly issue ads, let us
talk turkey here and do one of the ads. I have it right here.
Now, this is an ad we cannot find out where the money came from, but
it was spent by a tax exempt organization founded on June 20th, 1996
called Citizens For a Republic Education Fund. Here is the ad.
``Senate candidate Winston Bryant's budget as Attorney General
increased by 71 percent. Bryant has taken taxpayer funded junkets to
the Virgin Islands, Alaska and Arizona. And spent $100,000 on new
furniture. Unfortunately, as the State's top law enforcement official,
he's never opposed the parole of any convicted criminal, even rapists
and murderers. And almost 4,000 Arkansas prisoners have been sent back
to prison for crimes committed while they were out on parole. Winston
Bryant: government waste, political junkets, soft on crime. Call
Winston Bryant and tell him to give the money back.''
Now, if somebody wants to run an ad like that, that is fine, but the
American public has a right to know who funded that ad. The American
public has a right to know what money is behind that kind of a negative
ad.
And that is what we are talking about here. The gentleman's amendment
would gut our ability to have the public know who has funded that ad.
Voters in any district, in any State, anywhere in America have an
absolute unequivocal right to know who funded that particular ad, as
well the first amendment guarantees a right to run that ad. That is a
negative ad that can be run anywhere in America. But the public
deserves to know who funded an ad like that.
And that is what this debate, by the way, is all about. The question
is does the public have a right to know when somebody blatantly uses a
negative political ad in a race and spends $300,000. The public has a
right to know.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to save at least 2 of those 5
minutes for any individuals who wishes to engage me in debate so that
we have a good exchange of views, and, indeed, I would like to begin
with a point that has, to my judgment, not yet been raised.
The amendment by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Doolittle), not only puts in a provision regarding the
use of the so-called magic words as the only definition of express
advocacy, but it strikes the provision in the bill that has other
tests, and that is where I wish to focus. I have not heard the debate
focus on it yet. Because one of those other tests says that the so-
called advocacy in question cannot be ``made in coordination with a
candidate.'' Instead, the amendment of the gentleman from California
says that as long as the magic words are not used, ``vote for this
candidate'', ``vote against this candidate'', it is to be permitted.
So the legislative history will be absolutely clear, if the amendment
of the
[[Page H4869]]
gentleman from California passes, it will replace this language in the
bill of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). So that it was the
intention of the author and the intention of the House, if we pass
this, to allow, as express advocacy, to allow as any advocacy so long
as it does not use the words, ``even if it is in coordination with a
candidate.''
Now, here is the example that I want to emphasize. Suppose, for
example, then, that the Christian Coalition or the National Abortion
Rights Action League, to choose a different point of view, sits down
with a candidate and says, ``When do you want the voter guide to go
out; how big print do you want; which issues do you want to suggest
that we inform the public about; give us the good photograph instead of
the bad photograph.'' In other words, they operate hand in glove with
the candidate. That would be permitted under the amendment of the
gentleman from California so long as the words ``vote for'' or
``against'' were not used.
Because I think that has to be an inadvertent error, I will now yield
to my colleague from California as much time as he would like to take,
hoping he will save me some time to respond, to explain if I have it
wrong.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me say that my amendment is pretty
clear, I think. What the gentleman was describing was exactly what Bill
Clinton and Al Gore did in this last election.
Now, Shays-Meehan wants to make that illegal. I do not want to make
that illegal, although I will render it unnecessary because we will
wipe away this monstrous regulation in present law that the big
government, is that okay to say, or the pro-government reformers gave
us 25 years ago, and instead we will just remove the limits and then
the contributor can give to the candidate. That is the natural flow of
money. We will not have to have these diversions and circumventions,
soft money, issue advocacy, et cetera. It can just go right to the
candidate.
I do not outlaw any of that, because we have a first amendment which
protects speech.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I want to reclaim my time so I can respond to the
gentleman, and then maybe we will get unanimous consent to continue,
but I would like to respond. It is always a pleasure dealing with my
colleague from California. He is honest, direct, and he has admitted my
point was right, and let me repeat it.
What President Clinton did in the last campaign, which would be
outlawed by the gentleman from Connecticut, is permitted by the
gentleman's amendment. And that means, to wit, that the candidate sits
down with a group, works through which issues will be identified in the
so-called legislative information card, works out the text, works out
the timing, works out the printing, works out the picture, works out
everything to help the candidate, but so long as the magic words are
not used, it is permitted.
My friend from California is candid. He admits that is what his
amendment will do, and that is why we must vote against it.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. I wanted to quickly point out, Mr. Chairman, the fact that
the gentleman from Massachusetts, when he brought this ad up, has
nothing to do with the gentleman's amendment. What we are talking about
are voter guides. That is what his amendment addresses and has nothing
to do with what the gentleman from Massachusetts is trying to portray.
We are talking about voter guides here.
And the point I would make is a different point than the gentleman
was pointing out. The gentleman from Connecticut failed to read, if he
had read the last of his bill, where it says, ``no reasonable meaning
other than to urge the election or defeat.'' And I pointed out that in
the voter guide I held up, the Christian Coalition guide, if we took
that guide and distributed it in a church, then a reasonable meaning
person would describe that as advocacy for the person that was against
abortion, against homosexual type things that are on that voter guide.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California
(Mr. Campbell) has expired.
(On request of Mr. DeLay, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Campbell was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?
Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. So the point is that the Christian Coalition, NARAL, or
anybody else would not, under the Shays-Meehan bill, be able to put out
their voter guides.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the gentleman for his courtesy, Mr. Chairman,
and I want him to stay in the well just to be sure. My point was a
different one, and I will just hammer my point home, because I believe
I have the right to do so.
The language in the Doolittle amendment removes the prohibition
against coordinated expenditures for voter guides. So I am not now
dealing with what the gentleman's dispute with the gentleman from
Massachusetts may be, but just on this one question. I read the
Doolittle amendment as saying that even if an organization works with
the candidate for choosing the issues, for how they phrase them, for
when the voter guides go out and how many people get it, indeed, the
addresses that it is sent to, so long as they do not use the words
``vote for'' or ``vote against'', it would be permitted.
Now, that issue, the gentleman from Texas did not address. I want to
make clear he is not disagreeing with me that that is the effect of the
amendment of the gentleman from California.
Mr. DeLAY. Well, if the gentleman wishes to continue to yield, I
would suggest he yield to the gentleman from California, because he
knows more about his amendment on that particular point.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I will be happy to do so, but I wanted to hammer home
the point first that the gentleman from Texas was not disagreeing with
me.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California
(Mr. Campbell) has expired.
(On request of Mr. Doolittle, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Campbell
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. What I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, is
that while I support the coordination language that we talked about, I
want to make the point that this amendment does not deal with it. All
this amendment deals with is basically allowing communication with
regard to voting records to require terms of express advocacy.
Mr. CAMPBELL. The gentleman's amendment begins, and I am reading,
``Strike section 30.120(b)'', and what the gentleman strikes in that is
exactly what I quoted, the prohibition on coordination. So I really did
think the gentleman did not intend this. That is what I prefaced this
by.
But if the gentleman looks at his amendment, it begins, ``Strike
section 30.120(b)'', and section 30.120(b) says we cannot do this if,
among other things, it is coordinated.
{time} 1345
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
I am trying to get a copy of the language to respond. I am looking at
what our language strikes, and it does not say anything about
coordination.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I direct the attention of the gentleman to 30.120(b) on
page 12 of the draft bill, line 14 of the voting record and voting
guide exception. I draw the attention of the gentleman to little 2,
line 21, that is ``not made in coordination with the candidate.''
You are striking that provision. Your amendment says ``strike section
30.120(b).''
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I just got a copy of the bill. Give me the line again.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Page 12, line 21.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I guess we are not going to be able to clear this up
because I do not really have the same text that the gentleman does.
This is going to continue and we will address the issue upon
continuation.
Mr. CAMPBELL. In closing, anyone can make a mistake. I am not
suggesting that the gentleman has. But if he has, I do not think he
intended that result. It is, nevertheless, a devastating
[[Page H4870]]
result and it is reason to vote against the amendment.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment by my
colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) and I oppose
this amendment because it strikes me at the very heart of what is good
about the Shays-Meehan campaign finance bill, a bill which, although it
is not a perfect bill, but which addresses two of the major loopholes
in current campaign finance law.
Current law, and under Shays-Meehan as well, free speech is not
opposed, people have the right to address issues. But the topic that I
want to speak about in a very personal and direct way, because it
happened to me just a few months ago, has to do with so-called issue
ads. These ads are not issue ads when they directly support or attack a
candidate's point of view even though they do not expressly say ``vote
for'' or ``vote against.'' They use the picture of the candidate. They
mention the candidate's name.
I want to even become more personal with my own experience. In a
hard-fought race in the 22nd District of California, my opponent and I
both faced this new phenomenon in our current campaign situation. I am
speaking now about $300,000 ads that were used to support me. And I
opposed those ads because they were issue ads that did direct voters to
vote for me but did not do so under current laws, which, in the right
way, regulate the way campaigns should be run.
In other words, they did so under this giant loophole which we have
allowed and these laws, these issues and the people behind them which
are not disclosed, the amount of money that they can contribute is not
limited, the source of their funds are not disclosed, and these ads are
not accountable. They directly influence the way campaigns are handled.
It even became common knowledge in my race in the special election in
California in March that eventually these issue people said, candidates
themselves will be incidental in congressional races, that they are
looking for these people who espouse particular issues, particular
ideas about issues, who want to have a platform and they see the
congressional campaign as a very good platform on which to run their
issues.
They do not care about the people who live in the district. They do
not particularly care about the candidate. They want a national
platform and a national voice for their issue. And maybe it is a good
issue. Maybe it is not.
But by not regulating this particular part of campaigns, we are
allowing them access to the way candidates become elected officials and
it is really doing an injustice I believe to the very core of what this
House of Representatives is about.
If we are elected to represent constituents, then we owe it to those
constituents to speak to the issues which they care about and which we
feel legitimately qualified to speak about. And it is the
responsibility of this House to do something about our races.
I am not talking about presidential races. I am not talking about
state raises. I am talking about how we are elected to this House. We
are elected every 2 years. These people, those folks who want their
issues put before the public, they know they have got a great audience
in our congressional races. And they told us in March, in California in
the 22nd District, ``You watch out now, we are going to do this in your
races,'' I am talking about people that supported me, ``and then we are
going to go full bore in November across this country and we are going
to change the way elections occur.''
We have the responsibility I believe. And that is why, when I came to
Congress, the day after I was sworn in, I knew I owed it to my
constituents to get busy on this and I asked, where is the bill that is
bipartisan that will address this issue of these so-called sham ads?
I feel very deeply about this particular part. I am not talking about
the voter cards. I am talking about the ads on television, very
expensive ads. They crowded our airwaves in California to the degree
that constituents came up to me and said, ``What is this? This does not
sound like anything we have been talking about in your race.''
It is demeaning to the process by which we come to this place. It is
turning off our constituents. It is making them feel like we and they
are pawns to a national idea, a good idea or a bad idea. I am not
debating the merits of the issue. I am talking about what we are doing
here in this body.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Collins). The time of the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Capps) has expired.
(On request of Mr. Doolittle, and by unanimous consent, Mrs. Capps
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CAPPS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman and I think feel
similarly about the trend of our elections. We draw different
conclusions as to what is the cause of this. But in response to the
question ``where is the bill that addresses this?'' I would submit my
bill addresses this, H.R. 965. Because I would submit it is the severe
limits on hard-money contributions, which are contributions by
contributors directed to candidates, that are driving this problem.
The Constitution allows, under the various court rulings, which I
think are generally correct, people to contribute and express their
point of view. It limits contributions right now to candidates. But
they can still, under the Constitution, comment on issues.
As my colleagues heard me quote from Buckley the line between issues
and candidates, it is hard to distinguish. That is why the Court in
order to preserve free speech, said that, in order to fall under the
scope of regulation, they have to have words of express advocacy which
are clearly related to the election or defeat of the candidate.
What I think this bill is going to do is actually go against the
result my colleague seeks to achieve and I frankly seek to achieve,
which is that more of our money in campaigns should be centered from
the candidate, not from groups out on the periphery that are getting as
close to the line as they can without crossing it and influencing the
election.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CAPPS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FARR of California. The campaign of the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps) is very well-known in this country. And what
she is saying is her campaign was taken over by outside influences,
both her campaign and her opponent's, and these outside influences were
not accountable to anybody in their district because they did not have
to disclose who they were and where the money came from.
Basically, what is happening here is the American public knows there
is a campaign season, there is a beginning and there is an end and they
know what goes on in between. There ought to be something we know who
is saying it.
They could call somebody a rotten SOB. They could call somebody good.
They could call somebody evil. They could say all kinds of things about
them. But as long as they do not have to say vote for or against them
but they say everything but that, they can destroy them. And they as a
consumer, as a voting person, they have no idea who has paid for all
that. They do not even know who it is because they usually make up fake
titles about what they are. They are always good citizens for
something, but then all they do is talk about evil.
So the campaign of the gentlewoman showed to America something that
we in Congress were not even aware was going to happen, and that is
that it is totally out of control, that we are going to have messages
all over this country by people that are totally unaccountable.
If we pass this amendment, it will make it worse. Because the
amendment says they can have any commentary, any commentary, they can
say anything about anybody they want to as long as they do not say vote
yes or no. So they put out this message that is very evil and
derogatory and they do not have to be accountable.
That is not the way the American public is. Everything we are doing
in
[[Page H4871]]
this country is trying to make consumers have more information. We are
labeling what they eat. We are labeling what we sell them. We are
labeling what they borrow their money from. And we ought to label what
their candidates have to deal with. It is a bad amendment.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
First of all, I know the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) a
while ago was talking about this ad that ran, and I am assuming it ran
on television. I assume it ran on television.
Mr. MEEHAN. If the gentleman will yield, I did not see it on
television, but I read the transcript of it and it was a television ad
and about $300,000 worth.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Reclaiming my time, I think all of us are very much
concerned about any ads that run without a disclaimer.
I talked to some FEC lawyers yesterday about that very point; and it
is my understanding that if an ad like that runs anywhere without a
disclaimer, they can go to the Federal Communications Commission
because they have a law and regulations that prohibit those type of
ads.
I agree with the gentleman that we do not need ads running on
television or anywhere else that does not have a disclaimer on them.
But the FEC does have some rules that disclaimers are required.
Mr. MEEHAN. If the gentleman would further yield, it is not so much
the problem of the disclaimer on the bottom of the advertisement. The
problem is that nobody knows where this money came from. The problem is
we have an ad that is clearly meant to influence an election; and when
we run ads that are clearly meant to influence an election, the public
has a right to know where the money came from. That is what the issue
is.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The only point I would raise there is that that brings
up the whole issue of the right of privacy of individuals who
contribute or organizations that contribute; and the Supreme Court, in
certain cases, has indicated that they have a right to keep that
private. But that is another issue that we could talk about another
day.
Mr. MEEHAN. If the gentleman would continue to yield, people have a
right to privacy. However, when people spend their money to influence
elections in this country, the Supreme Court has clearly indicated that
the public does have a right to know who is spending money and how much
they are spending and where it is coming from to influence elections.
Under this amendment that is being offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Doolittle) basically, it says, any communication, any
commentary on the voting record positions or anything else would be
okay. That is a different right to privacy.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, all I would say is that, if the gentleman is
talking about the hard money, of course, anybody can go down to the FEC
and get a record and they will know who gave him money or anybody else
in this Chamber and it is spelled out very explicitly.
I think soft money is a little bit of a different issue. If it is
independent expenditures, they are required to file their report with
the FEC anyway. In issue advocacy, if it is a political committee, it
is required to file a report.
But my colleague is right, other groups do not have to file a report.
And I think we can find some cases where the Court has said that is
free speech and it is a little bit different than hard money and they
do not have to go file all these reports, because they can make the
argument that in filing all these reports it provides an obstacle for
people engaging in the political process.
I want to just touch on for a moment, the reason that I object to
what my colleagues all have done on this voting record guide is that in
paragraph 3 they basically lay out the language as set out in Buckley
vs. Valeo, the so-called bright line, and if they had stopped after the
word ``reject,'' I mean, I would not have had any problem with it
myself. But the Court has repeatedly said that they do have to use
these express words.
{time} 1400
As a matter of fact, the question I would ask, the FEC is a group of
government employees and they are going to have to make the decision
about what does this mean. Does this ad, or a campaign slogan or words
in context have no reasonable meaning other than to urge the election
or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidates? I think
different people looking at a particular ad can come up with different
conclusions.
I would say to the gentleman that in the Maine case, almost the exact
language was used in that case where it said could only be interpreted
by a reasonable person as containing advocacy of the election or defeat
of one or more clearly identified candidates, and the Supreme Court
ruled that as unconstitutional. I think the point we are trying to make
is I think you are going to be inviting another overturn by the Supreme
Court on that.
The gentleman mentioned the Furgatch case which is exactly right.
Basically they said the simple holding of Furgatch was in those
instances where political communications do include an explicit
directive to voters to take some course of action, then they are going
to say that that is express advocacy. In that case, they said, ``Don't
let him do it.''
I would also say to the gentleman that that case was decided in the
Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit has been turned over 27 of 28 times it
went to the Supreme Court. I think we have a legitimate concern about
the stifling of speech that could go on by the way you are expanding
this definition. That is simply the point that I would like to make.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, subject to the agreement I think of all
sides, this debate will continue, and we will have further information
provided from both sides, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Coble) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins, 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.
____________________