[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.

                          ____________________