[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 93 (Tuesday, July 14, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5459-H5486]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN INTEGRITY ACT OF 1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wicker). 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}  1836


                     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. Shimkus (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 
earlier today, pending was Amendment No. 82 by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle) to Amendment No. 13 by the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I asked to rise into the House so that I could propound 
a unanimous consent request. However, a point of order was reserved and 
a speech was then made and then objection was heard. Unfortunately, I 
was not able during that monologue to explain why I offered the 
unanimous consent, so I am doing so now.
  The majority leader has committed that the campaign finance debate 
will end prior to the August recess. That coincides with the gentleman 
from Massachusetts' specified dates of somewhere between August 3 and 
August 7. His complaint was that we do not have a complete agreement in 
which they have structured it and they have signed off on it.
  What I am trying to do as the manager of a bill, if I cannot meet the 
entire structural agreement, I thought that it would be appropriate to 
move us along, to at least begin to structure it day by day. What I 
offered was a structure for today.
  Contained within that unanimous consent was a desire to continue to 
debate this particular amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Doolittle) to the substitute by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) for 30 minutes. We have consumed far more than 30 minutes prior 
to my unanimous consent being propounded. I am quite sure we are going 
to consume far more than an additional 30 minutes.
  So I have some difficulty in understanding the argument from the 
other side in which they continue to make a point without listening.
  The majority leader has said, we will finish this debate prior to the 
August recess. It would seem to me that it would behoove all of us who 
want to have an orderly process, give a fair opportunity for as many 
people who wish to enter into the debate as possible, to structure it. 
What we got was an objection from the other side because we could not 
structure from today until August. What I was offering was a structure 
for today. But, clearly, that was objected to.
  So if we cannot do it day by day, we must propound something that is 
going to extend over a long period of time. It just baffles me that the 
debate that goes on is that we want to move through this in an orderly 
fashion, but then they object to an orderly fashion being offered for 
today. If the complaint is it is not everything, why would they object 
to today? If we can get order for today, maybe we can get order for 
tomorrow. If we can get order for tomorrow, maybe, working together, we 
can get order for the entire period.
  But they seem to want to make the argument that they want to move 
forward; and when we try to propose an opportunity to agree to move 
forward,

[[Page H5460]]

they object. That was the reason I tried to offer it, to move us 
forward under an orderly time frame. I am just sorry that they are more 
interested in the point of debate rather than the substance of moving 
forward.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 
minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object. Does the 
gentleman now, after refusing to set a structure for orderly debate----
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous consent request.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 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.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, what we are looking to do here is try to 
find an agreement that gets us to a vote. Nobody rationally believes, 
given the UC agreement that we got on campaign finance reform before we 
left, that 25 hours of debate on this UC agreement, in order for us to 
have any chance at all of getting a vote by August, we would have to 
have at least three-fifths, four-fifths of the amendments that have 
been proposed withdrawn.
  So I will be glad to work all evening to try to find a way to reach 
an agreement that results in a definite vote, a vote that would take 
place sometime in the week, the last week we are here, the 3rd through 
the 7th of August.
  And I appreciate the gentleman from California's work on this. I 
would love to work with him further to get an agreement, but to propose 
four amendments for tonight, given the fact that campaign finance 
reform is not even scheduled for the rest of the week and is scheduled 
for possibly 1 day next week and there is only 2 weeks left after that. 
So no reasonable, rational person really thinks that we are going to 
get through 250 amendments by August 7.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Today I rise in strong opposition to the Doolittle amendment. I 
think, if we really ask ourselves honestly, if we are indeed committed 
to enacting campaign finance reform, we have to do so in a manner which 
addresses the greatest loophole which we are currently facing, and that 
loophole is the one which allows for unlimited amount of funding of 
issue advocacy ads.
  Mr. Chairman, it is somewhat remarkable to me that we have spent a 
lot of time this year with congressional investigations into what have 
been perceived as illegal campaign violations. But the sad fact of it 
is is that one of the greatest problems we face is with legal problems 
with our campaign system. When we have a system in place that can allow 
for unlimited sums of money to come in to influence an outcome of an 
election, unlimited sums of money that can come in without any 
requirement that the people that are contributing that money be 
identified, we have a serious problem.
  What Shays-Meehan does, it clearly ensures that everybody that 
contributes to a campaign or to an effort in order to influence the 
outcome is that we ask them to be identified. We are not saying that we 
are going to restrict anybody's right of speech. We are saying that 
everyone has the right to participate; everyone has the right to 
express their feelings and their concerns about an issue and about a 
candidate.
  But what we are saying also is that the voters of any district, the 
voters of this country also have a right to know who is trying to 
influence those elections. And what the Doolittle amendment clearly 
does, it would undermine that. It would once again allow this loophole 
to continue, because it would allow printed material and campaign 
fliers to be mailed out to every household with what could be 
misleading information about a candidate's position.
  And those could be funded by anyone. They could be funded by foreign 
interests. They could be funded by a criminal interest, and there is no 
way for the voters of that district and the family in the household in 
which that mailer went into to know who was behind those and who was 
trying to influence the outcome. That is the problem.
  That is why, in order for us to have any legitimate campaign finance 
reform, we have to continue to be strong and vigilant in ensuring that 
people who try to influence the outcome have to disclose who the 
contributors are.
  I would identify just this one chart that I have here. It is 
somewhat, it seems to me, just inequitable that a person who makes a 
contribution to my campaign or anyone else's, who contributes in excess 
of $200, has to include their name, their address, their employer, 
their occupation, the date of the contribution, the aggregate amount of 
the contributions that I have received.

                              {time}  1845

  But someone who contributes up to $250,000, maybe $1 million, and 
funnels that through an issue advocacy campaign effort, they are not 
required to identify themselves. They are not required to identify 
their address or their employer, even the country they might be coming 
from.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people understand that they want control 
of their elections. That is what we are trying to achieve here. The 
only way we will be able to achieve that is by closing the issue 
advocacy loophole. Doolittle tries to open the barn doors wide open 
once again, and that clearly is not in the interests of the American 
people and the interests of having fair elections.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's point, but what 
we are doing is here is debating the Doolittle amendment.
  I would ask the gentleman, is he for or against the Christian 
Coalition, the NAACP, or others to be able to offer those kinds of 
voter guides we have put up as examples?
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I clearly support that right, 
and the Shays-Meehan legislation is carefully crafted to ensure that 
voter guides will be able to continue to be published.
  Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield further, what about the 
language in Shays-Meehan that says or offers the opportunity to 
regulate voter guides when it says that, in context, it can have no 
reasonable meaning other than to urge the election or defeat of one or 
more clearly-identified candidates? Is that not a huge loophole that 
would prohibit the Christian Coalition from offering those kinds of 
voter guides, say in the gentleman's church?
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, as the authors of this 
legislation have clearly stated, the clear intention of the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) was not to infringe in any way on the ability of the Christian 
Coalition, the Sierra Club, or anyone else who wants to provide 
information to the voters which is clearly designed to identify the 
source.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, interestingly enough, the language in here 
that is the appropriate language is ``expressly unmistakable and 
unambiguous support for or opposition to one or more clearly identified 
candidates when taken as a whole and with limited reference to the 
external events, such as proximity to an election.''
  So this is not something that is a reasonable person's standard at 
all. In fact this is ``expressly, unmistakable, unambiguous.''
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Reclaiming my time, the issue here is very 
simple: Do we think that the voters of this country have the right to 
know who is trying to influence them?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dooley) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Meehan, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Dooley of 
California was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, the issue is clear, do we 
believe as a Congress that the voters of the United States have the 
right to know who is trying to influence the

[[Page H5461]]

outcome of an election? Unless we close the issue advocacy loophole, we 
are not giving the voters that right. We would certainly be doing an 
injustice to the American people in our efforts to reform campaign law 
if we do not close the issue advocacy loophole.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has been discussing our 
right to know, and on any ad run on television or on the radio there is 
a disclaimer required, so the gentleman knows the organization that is 
paying for the ad.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Let me give the gentleman a real, live 
example, if I could respond, with an independent expenditure that was 
issue advocacy on the Coalition for our Children's Future.
  They have a board of directors that was in place, and had an 
executive director that was approached by a party who asked them 
whether or not they would agree to give blank checks that were signed 
to a third party, and would also sign an oath of secrecy that they 
would not disclose the identity of the person that was trying to 
influence the outcome.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dooley) has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Whitfield, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Dooley of 
California was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, the point I am making is the 
disclosure was on the bottom of the ad, Coalition for our Children's 
Future. But the board of directors of Coalition for our Children's 
Future did not know who was funneling the money through them.
  They also have an executive director that signed basically an oath of 
secrecy that he would not disclose who was funneling this money in. 
They also had an executive director that signed blank checks given to 
this entity that they had signed a nondisclosure agreement with so that 
they could keep that secret.
  This third party entity that was using Coalition for our Children's 
Future could have been a foreign entity, foreign sources, it could have 
been criminal sources.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, if it is not a campaign ad, there is no 
disclosure. You have to have it be a campaign ad in order to require 
disclosure.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I think we are ready for a vote on this. 
Maybe we could move and get a vote.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think that we have yet made the point of what 
happens with these voter guides. I think the problem is that, once 
again, we come into that problem of jeopardizing freedom of speech 
whenever we try to achieve some kind of change in the campaign finance 
system.
  Who is going to decide, in context, what is reasonable and what is 
not reasonable? At what point are they going to decide that? What is 
the timing going to be in which they decide that? Do they decide that 
after the organization has had these voter guides printed? Do they 
decide that after they have been distributed? Do they decide that the 
day before they are distributed, on the weekend before the election, 
when it is too late to replace them with whatever the objection was?
  Once again, we get right into the whole question of whether or not we 
want to limit the ability of people to make their points, their freedom 
of speech points that can be made.
  The groups that support the Doolittle amendment and the groups that 
consider the Shays-Meehan exception for scorecards bogus is a list that 
just goes on and on and on. Seldom do we see the same groups in 
agreement that we see in agreement supporting the Doolittle amendment. 
The ACLU, the National Rifle Association, the Christian Coalition, the 
National Right-To-Life Committee, all agree that the Doolittle 
amendment protects their right to express their view of how candidates 
have voted on issues.
  Who is going to decide? I know we are probably tired of seeing this 
voter guide of our colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Greg 
Ganske), but the voter guide itself that was handed out said clearly at 
the bottom that this is a pro-family citizen action organization.
  Then if we look at the things they are reporting on, a reasonable 
person might very well decide that this advocates one of these 
candidates over another. Because they are pro-family, they are 
Christian, discussing taxpayer funding of abortion, homosexuals in the 
military, and we have one question here, promoting homosexuality to 
schoolchildren, and one candidate is seen as opposing that, and another 
supports that, I think it is pretty clear with this piece of literature 
that this group is likely to come down on the side of one of these 
candidates, even though they do not say that on this literature.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I want to just read from the Shays-Meehan language. 
Their language says, ``. . . words that, in context, have no reasonable 
meaning other than to urge the election or defeat of one or more 
clearly identified candidates.'' Those are two clearly identified 
candidates.
  I think reasonable men and women could have a difference of opinion 
as to whether or not this is urging the election or defeat of a 
candidate. Many of these scorecards can. I think the gentleman would 
agree with me that that could be interpreted to mean you cannot issue 
these during campaigns. Would the gentleman agree with that?
  Mr. BLUNT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say that I agree 
totally. I say that the greater point here is that who is giving the 
authority to ultimately decide that the FEC or some other location can 
decide that, in a manner that is very, very disruptive to people trying 
to freely express their view of the public debate in the country?
  If we decide that, are we going to have to get pre-clearance from the 
FEC? Do we expect the ACLU, the Christian Coalition, the National 
Right-To-Life Committee, to send in these things in advance? How long 
does that take? How many things happen after the time they sent their 
proposed literature in and the time that we would actually want to 
distribute it that we would in a normal context just simply add before 
it went to the printer?
  We cannot do that because we put this clearance idea in, that 
somebody has to decide what is reasonable and what is not reasonable. 
So we have this group of people who are supporting the Doolittle 
amendment. We have a group of people who consider the exemption we are 
talking about for scorecards bogus. That includes the American Civil 
Liberties Union, the American Conservative Union, two groups that do 
not agree very often on issues; the American Council for Immigration 
Reform; the Association of Concerned Taxpayers; the Abraham Lincoln 
Foundation, and the list goes on and on and on.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman being from 
Missouri, because Missouri just cuts through all the lawyerspeak and 
gets right to the bottom line.
  That is exactly what we have, what we find here. We find a bunch of 
lawyer language, and that is what we are trying to point out here. It 
is lawyer language that you can drive a truck through to stop these 
kinds of voter guides put out by these organizations that every Member 
that has stood up and opposed the Doolittle amendment has said they do 
not want to stop.
  They claim that because Shays-Meehan has some sort of exemption for 
voter guides, that that makes it all all right.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Blunt) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. DeLay, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Blunt was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

[[Page H5462]]

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, it is the same organizations that the 
opponents to the Doolittle amendment say they are trying to save that 
are supporting the Doolittle amendment.
  The whole point here is how in the world, other than taking the 
Christian Coalition or NAACP or others to court and penalizing them, 
how in the world are we going to decide what does ``reasonable'' mean, 
other than going to court and getting a bunch of lawyers together, 
costing a lot of money, and restricting people's rights to stand up and 
say, this Congressman's voter record says this, this challenger's voter 
record says this, you can compare it for yourself and make a decision. 
It does not advocate the election or defeat of any one candidate.
  What it does say, and I think we are just clearing it up, in Shays-
Meehan they make an exception for voter guides. We are just saying, 
fine, but we want to stop the loopholes that you have written in here, 
and we want to make sure that we are protected in being able to put out 
voter guides.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman from Texas. I would also say that 
when we put the word ``reasonable'' in the law itself, we really create 
a barrier to groups who do not want to throw their money away; to 
groups who clearly cannot spend all their time in court, and who see 
``reasonable'' in the law, do not know what that means, decide they 
really cannot in all likelihood get their message across, so they just 
believe that their first amendment rights are gone, whether they are 
truly gone or not.
  Who knows what ``reasonable'' means? How is that defined in the law? 
Are we going to leave that up to the FEC to decide how that is defined 
in the law?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUNT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the nonlawyer from Missouri for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be interested in my colleague's point of view. 
Would a campaign piece of literature that simply says nothing more than 
``Neal Smith is a terrible congressman because he opposed voluntary 
school prayer,'' is that a voter guide, in the gentleman's opinion?
  Mr. BLUNT. The gentleman's opinion may or may not be reasonable.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Blunt) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. DeLay, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Blunt was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUNT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to answer this. That is one of 
the reasons I have a problem with the Shays-Meehan language. They say 
it exempts voter guides, as long as they present information in an 
educational manner solely about the voting record on the campaign issue 
of two or more candidates.
  The gentleman is absolutely right. If an organization wants to take 
on one Congressman and talk about his voting record and send out a 
voting guide, even if he is unopposed, even if he is unopposed, Shays-
Meehan prohibits that from happening.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUNT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, my point was simple. If it is a voter 
guide exemption, make sure it is a voter guide.
  The example I have given to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Doolittle), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), and to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is not a voter guide. It says, this 
candidate is terrible because of his view on this issue. That is a 
campaign ad. I thank the gentleman for his courtesy in yielding to me.
  Mr. BLUNT. In response to my friend, the gentleman from California, 
the voter guides that include multiple candidates clearly do show the 
voting record. Those are the traditional voting guides under the law 
now. I think it is unlikely that that process would continue. I think 
it is unlikely that those organizations would be able to distribute 
those guides.
  I think the mechanics of putting the guidelines in place as to what 
was reasonable and what was not reasonable would be so prohibitive that 
what we are really saying here is that this is not going to happen, 
because anybody can take a voter guide and decide who that group was 
most likely for, whether it is the AFL-CIO or the Christian Coalition.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUNT. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. HEFNER. I have heard a lot about free speech, but I have not 
heard anything that talked about, when you send mailers or what have 
you, truthfulness. When you talk about somebody's voting record, you 
take just partial voting records or amendments that were in the 
committee or what have you and distort them, then do not identify who 
sent it out, this is absolutely not free speech. You do not stand up in 
a theater and holler fire.
  The whole thing, the Doolittle, in my view, the Doolittle amendment 
opens it up. If some group wants to get together and say, like happened 
in my district, we had a mailer that said Bill Hefner and Mike Dukakis, 
if you want to kill babies, vote for Mike Dukakis and Bill Hefner. This 
is not a voter guide.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The time of the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Whitfield, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Blunt was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BLUNT. I think there are viable laws that do come into effect 
here. The Doolittle amendment specifically talks about voter guides. If 
the voter guide that some group sends out is untruthful, there is 
recourse in that. I think for the Congress to decide what organizations 
can say, that is the job of the courts, not the job of the Congress. 
The first amendment did not give to the Congress the right to determine 
what was truthful language and what could be said in a free society.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Missouri goes right to 
the point of the gentleman from North Carolina. The Shays-Meehan bill 
is an attempt by incumbents, incumbents, to decide what you say is the 
truth, not the courts. They want this Congress to decide and set up 
regulations to regulate people's participation in the process.
  We want to get rid of all these uncomfortable ads that are being run 
against us because I do not like them and they make me uncomfortable. 
We want to get rid of the opportunities of people to stand up and say, 
I voted this way or I voted that way and they either like the way I 
voted or they dislike the way I voted. We want to get rid of all that 
so that we could be a little more comfortable and limit people's 
ability to participate in the process. That is what this is all about. 
The gentleman from North Carolina pointed that out very well.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I think it is clear that the job of the 
Congress is not to be comfortable. The job of a Member of Congress is 
to represent the people of their district and for that, the way they do 
that, to be an item of public debate.
  Certainly, if people make up untruthful things and distribute them, 
there are laws that govern that, but the Congress of the United States 
is not in a position to enforce those laws. We are in a position to 
encourage that some of those laws be passed, though generally those are 
going to be State laws. We are not in a position to enforce those laws. 
That is for somebody else.
  What we are trying to do here is decide what is reasonable or not. 
What we are trying to do here is decide what is comfortable or not.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said you have recourse for suing someone 
for sending out information that is untrue. But that is really not, an 
elected official is pretty much immune from being able to sue anybody.

[[Page H5463]]

  What makes it so bad is in the closing parts of a campaign where the 
incumbent or the challenger has no way to respond to a negative mailing 
or, what we have done in broadcasting, we have done away with the 
fairness doctrine. There is no fairness doctrine anymore. So in my view 
the Doolittle amendment absolutely opens up a floodgate to let people 
do dishonest things for their own personal and for their own special 
interests with no regard for the truth or the consequences of it.
  To me, I just think that the Meehan bill, I do not think that we need 
the Doolittle amendment. I think it does great harm to the work that 
these men have done over the years.
  I think that there is a move to delay this and draw it out until, 
hopefully, it will die of old age.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line to this debate is quite 
simple. Meehan-Shays does not in any way prevent voter guides from 
happening. But to assure that there was no question in this Chamber, we 
made sure that we added a section to make it unambiguous that you can 
provide for voter guides. The gentleman from California deletes our 
section which protects voter guides.
  The bottom line to this issue is, where you have a campaign ad, 
including those sham ``issue ads'', then an individual can advertise 
under the campaign laws. It is bogus, it is wrong, it is totally 
incorrect to suggest that people do not have a voice. They have a voice 
outside the campaign law through using voter guides and other non-
campaign activity. And they have a voice inside the campaign law by 
abiding by the same rules as everyone else. They have freedom of 
speech. We limit what people can raise. We do not limit what they can 
spend.
  And any individual who wants to run an ad on their own can do so as 
long as it is not coordinated. Coordinated expenditures become campaign 
ads. But our Supreme Court has made it very clear that individuals 
cannot be limited on what they spend.
  What you are hearing tonight is a bogus debate on the part, in my 
judgment, of the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) to suggest, 
one, that we do not allow these. We do allow them. We make it clear. 
First, we do not forbid them; and, secondly, we make it clear that they 
are allowed.
  Secondly, I would like to take this time, if the gentleman would 
allow me to proceed, to say that Republicans who received the House 
Republican conference floor prep were given a very misleading statement 
about what the Doolittle proposal does and what Meehan-Shays does. I 
urge my colleagues to totally discount this very inaccurate statement 
put out by my own Republican Conference.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, if I have not spoken before and I move 
to strike the last word, can Members object to that?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The fact that the gentleman offered a pro 
forma amendment, the Doolittle amendment on the 19th on his own time 
requires him to ask unanimous consent.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the real concern that we have today, the crux 
of this issue of the debate that we are really talking about today, 
gets down to this definition of express advocacy. The Supreme Court has 
consistently and very clearly said that express advocacy is language 
that explicitly requests the defeat or the election of a candidate. And 
if it says that, if the ad says that, you must use hard money. And that 
is money regulated by the Federal Election Commission.
  The gentleman was correct. Any wealthy individual, a multimillionaire 
can go out any time they want to and buy an ad, and that is an 
independent expenditure. They can expressly advocate the defeat or the 
election of a candidate.
  What we are talking about today is issue advocacy; and these are the 
many organizations around our country, the thousands of organizations 
that may want to participate in the political system. The Supreme Court 
has made it very clear that that is, goes to the very core of a 
democracy, of the right to speak about issues in an election.
  What this bill does is it makes it unclear about what can and cannot 
be done. That is a chilling of the first amendment right of political 
free speech.
  Now, the gentleman from Massachusetts, one of the cosponsors of this 
bill, read from paragraph 3 of express advocacy; and he said:

     Expressing unmistakable and unambiguous support for or 
     opposition to one or more clearly identified candidates when 
     taken as a whole and with limited reference to external 
     events such as proximity to an election.

  Now, reasonable people can have different views about what is and 
what is not, taken as a whole means this or means that. But the point 
that I would make, the Supreme Court has already ruled half of that 
language as unconstitutional in the FEC versus Maine Right to Life 
case. It has already been ruled unconstitutional, this language that is 
in this bill. Yet they still want to proceed with it.
  In addition to that, they go on and further complicate it by saying 
that if one of these voter guides urges the election, if words that are 
in context can have no reasonable meaning other than to urge the 
election or defeat of a candidate, then it cannot, it is not covered 
under this exception. And these voting guides have, different men and 
women have differences of opinion about what they are urging and what 
they are not urging.
  The thing that is so disturbing about the Shays-Meehan bill is that 
it does nothing about the election money spent by candidates. It does 
nothing about independent expenditures spent by wealthy individuals, 
but it shuts the door to all sorts of organizations, if they violate 
the definition of express advocacy as determined in this bill.
  Any ad run 60 days within an election is express advocacy. It has to 
be hard money. So, in essence, what we do with this language is that we 
allow the Federal Election Commission to determine who can speak, what 
they can say and when they can say it.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman says shut the door, I 
wish the gentleman would clarify what he is saying. If it is, in fact, 
a campaign ad, it is true it comes under the campaign law. It means 
that people can raise money and advertise. They still have a right to 
advertise, they just come under disclosure rules and contributions 
limits. But they can spend as much as they raise.
  Certainly the gentleman would not suggest that the Christian 
Coalition National Right to Life Committee, the National Rifle 
Association or any other group would have any trouble raising money and 
spending. They simply would, for the first time, have to disclose 
campaign ads.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. They would have to go through all the process, the 
complicated process, the legal process of filing a political action 
committee, setting up a political action committee, forming all kinds 
of reports. And that is a chilling effect. We live in a democracy where 
groups and individuals can talk about elections whenever they want to. 
And the Supreme Court has consistently said that the only thing that is 
express advocacy is if you expressly urge the defeat or the election of 
a candidate. And you all are broadening this so broad that, as the 
gentleman from Missouri said, you would almost have to go to the FEC in 
advance and get their permission for running the ad.
  I think that is the part of this that disturbs us and the reason that 
we are supporting the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Whitfield) has expired.

[[Page H5464]]

  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Whitfield was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, the reason that we are endorsing the 
gentleman from California's amendment is that he, in essence, returns 
to the original Supreme Court language here. Basically, there will not 
be any question about it. That is really what this is all about.
  I realize that Shays-Meehan is a good-intentioned bill with all the 
best ideas that they can come up with. But the fact is it places so 
many things to interpretation, and the ultimate interpretation is going 
to be made by a group of commissioners at the FEC who are appointed by 
a President, and they have their political views.
  And so everybody else in America may be, the door may be closed 
unless they want to go through all this complicated procedure of filing 
reports and establishing political action committees and hiring 
election lawyers and doing that.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Hefner) a few minutes ago raised the issue of honesty in ads, there was 
quite a lot of discussion about that. The argument was that courts 
could determine the honesty of particular ads and the appropriateness 
of particular ads relative to libel. Who appoints Federal judges?
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, Mr. Chairman, I did not make that argument. The 
President, I think, still appoints them.
  I might also add, if the gentlewoman wants to come up with an 
amendment on truth in advertising for political ads, I would be the 
first to support it.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
am responding to the comments from that side of the aisle a few minutes 
ago that certainly presidential appointees were capable of making 
decisions in an electioneering context, and so I do not think it is 
reasonable to argue on one hand that presidential appointees are 
inadequate and on the other that they are perfectly adequate. One 
cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, my point is that this is the core of our 
democracy, being involved in political elections. And who can speak and 
who cannot speak and who determines what they can say and what they can 
spend, that is okay for candidates. I understand that. That is okay for 
individuals who are wealthy.

                              {time}  1915

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The time of the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Doolittle, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Whitfield 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Ms. RIVERS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I wish to ask 
him about the current system, because right now we have a series of 
categories that activities fall within. If we are engaged in an 
independent expenditure, for example, we must meet the criteria and we 
cannot step out of that.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. We do not have to abide by any FEC law.
  Ms. RIVERS. To do an independent expenditure? If we work with the 
campaign of the individual.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlewoman did not say coordinate it.
  Ms. RIVERS. That is what I was trying to say, is if we step outside 
of the law as it exists regarding independent expenditures, it is the 
FEC who enforces that; is it not?
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Of course, if it is coordinated. But a wealthy 
individual can go out and run an ad.
  Ms. RIVERS. The point I am making is that there are laws that 
currently exist that regulate the behavior we are discussing here. And 
if one steps outside of that behavior it is the FEC who enforces those 
laws. They have done it for years and years and years.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I will reclaim my time.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) indicated 
my amendment was bogus, but I thought it was interesting that these 
organizations all consider his so-called exemption for scorecards 
bogus: The American Civil Liberties Union, the American Conservative 
Union, the National Right to Life Committee, the National Rifle 
Association, the National Defense Foundation, amongst many others, the 
National Legal Policy Center.
  Would the gentleman agree that their wording actually makes ambiguous 
what is now clear and unambiguous in the present law?
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, it does. It makes it ambiguous. And reasonable 
men and women can differ as to what is and what is not allowed.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Whereas now that is clear. If we do not use certain 
words, it is clearly beyond the purview of Federal regulation. Now 
everything is arguably within the purview.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. The Supreme Court has made it explicitly clear time 
and time again. And now we are going to, in my view, make the system 
much more complicated, much more difficult, and I think we will see 
less political participation than we would without this legislation.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. And that is the design.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  I rise as author of one of the major campaign finance reform bills, a 
comprehensive cleanup bill, and it contains the same measure in it that 
Shays-Meehan does. Therefore, I rise to oppose the amendment that is 
being offered.
  This amendment really does not make any reform. It does not clean up 
anything. It takes the law back to what it is today, and that is not 
progress. So this amendment is really not about voter guides, it is 
really about special interest money remaining in politics. The 
Doolittle amendment, by removing the express advocacy language, 
maintains the status quo, it means that multi-mega-million dollar 
campaigns are not run by politicians nor by political parties but can 
be run by very special interests.
  So where in this amendment is the reform? How does maintaining the 
status quo get us further ahead? In this whole debate, of all the 11 
bills that have been brought to the floor by the Committee on Rules and 
these series of amendments, are all supposed to end up with the law in 
better shape after we have addressed it than it is today. This 
amendment does not do that. If adopted, it offers no change.
  I think that sometimes these amendments can be classified as red 
herrings, to really divert our attention from the real issue here, 
which is how do we stop the money madness that is in campaigns? How do 
we bring money out of campaigns and really get down to where people are 
talking to people, not just buying words and buying fancy television 
ads? Certainly this amendment is not the answer.
  Mr. Chairman, I support reform and I am urging strong defeat of the 
Doolittle amendment. And if there are no other speakers, Mr. Chairman, 
maybe we ought to move on.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to clear up one point. A previous Speaker 
stated that there are laws to prevent falsehoods used in ads or 
campaigns. I have had a lot of experience in campaigns, and to set the 
record straight, there are no enforceable laws to prevent untruth or 
even blatant falsehoods in campaigns.
  Today, it is not really legal to lie about an opponent in a campaign, 
but there is no enforcement and, though illegal, no punishment 
possible. So it happens frequently in political campaigns and I wanted 
to just clear up that point.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am really excited about this debate. I think the 
American people are really starting to understand what this is all 
about. This is incumbent protection. This is incumbent comfort. This is 
making sure that incumbents do not have people out there running around 
talking about their voting records, making them uncomfortable. This is 
basically about people's freedom of speech.

[[Page H5465]]

  I rise in support of the Doolittle amendment because I am not afraid 
of someone talking about my voting record. I am not even afraid about 
people going out and running voter guides that distort my voting 
record. I think that is part of the process. Unfortunately, it is the 
dirty part of the process. It is a part that makes people very cynical 
about the process, but it is part of the process.
  I feel very strongly that a vote for the Doolittle amendment is a 
vote for the first amendment. This is very critical. A vote against the 
Doolittle amendment is a vote to ban voter guides distributed by 
citizens' organizations, whether they be in union halls or churches or 
on the internet. I really believe that. Because they have written in 
lawyerese that creates loopholes that we can drive a truck through and 
stop voter guides.
  Every year thousands of national, State and local organizations, like 
the Christian Coalition or the NAACP or, as we show here, the ACLU, 
they publish voter guides comparing elected officeholders on issues of 
interest to these organizations' memberships. Now, I doubt if there are 
many in this body who would openly question the right of these groups 
to make those comparisons, but without this amendment, the Doolittle 
amendment, Shays-Meehan would threaten, I believe, the ability of these 
groups to publish and distribute these kinds of voter guides.
  Supporters of Shays-Meehan claim that there is a voter guide 
exemption in their bill. But if we take a closer look at it, at this 
so-called exemption, it shows that voter guides, such as the NAACP's 
voter guide, in my opinion, would be banned or, at the very least, 
regulated by bureaucrats in the Federal Government. The so-called 
exemption in Shays-Meehan requires a voter guide that talks about the 
position of one candidate being banned or regulated by the Federal 
Government. Under Shays-Meehan, a voter guide characterizing a 
candidate as pro life or pro choice or any other commentary describing 
a candidate as a civil rights hero, as the NAACP does, would be banned 
or regulated, in my opinion.
  Under the Shays-Meehan exemption, groups could be punished, punished, 
if after the fact bureaucrats decide that their voter guides or their 
scorecards were not written in an ``educational manner''. Decided by 
``educational police''? I do not know. Under the Shays-Meehan 
exemption, a scorecard cannot contain words, ``that in context can have 
no reasonable meaning other than to urge the election or defeat of one 
or more clearly identified candidates.''
  Now, this language would prevent the ACLU from distributing a voter 
guide that highlights Members of Congress who have a 100 percent ACLU 
voting record as members of an ``ACLU honor role''. They cannot say 
things like that because that is advocating defeat or election of a 
candidate, or it could be construed as such under the Shays-Meehan 
language.
  It also prevents the NAACP from calling a Member of Congress a civil 
rights hero. For example, last month, the NAACP president Kweisi Mfume, 
former member of this body, released the organization's annual 
legislative report card on the 105th Congress at a news conference on 
Capitol Hill. He said, ``As the report card circulates through our 
branches, it will be used in a nonpartisan fashion to punish those with 
failing grades and reward our heroes.'' Guess what? Under Shays-Meehan, 
they could not circulate that kind of report for that kind of purpose.
  The Doolittle amendment, I think, would allow groups that post their 
voter guides and scorecards on the internet to continue to do so, 
groups like the Americans for Democratic Action, not exactly friends of 
mine; the ACLU. How about the National Organization of Women? Not 
exactly my best supporters. They all carry scorecards on their web 
sites.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has 
expired.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, would the 
gentleman at some point yield to me during those 2 minutes?
  Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield, I said I would, and I would 
be glad to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I am looking forward to it.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, without the Doolittle amendment, the 
scorecards will have to be removed from the web sites.
  Now, make no mistake about it. A vote against the Doolittle amendment 
is a vote for banning voter guides and scorecards and the Shays-Meehan 
voting guide exemption is no exemption at all. They may think it 
exempts, but if we read the language, we can see, and I am not even a 
lawyer, but I know how I can get through this language and stop a voter 
guide in a very easy fashion.
  The Shays-Meehan bill would impose a chilling affect on the 
distribution of material that reports on our votes and where we stand 
on the issues, and the Doolittle amendment protects these voter guides. 
Nothing in the Shays-Meehan exemption, in my opinion, does. And I just 
urge my colleagues to vote for the first amendment by voting for the 
Doolittle amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished whip. I really 
have two brief points and I would appreciate his response to them.
  First, does the distinguished gentleman have an objection to 
requiring that a group that puts out a guide, such as the one by his 
side, that we know who contributed the money that paid for it?
  Mr. DeLAY. Yes, I have an objection.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Let me understand the gentleman. He does not believe 
the citizens of this country have the right to know who pays for an 
advertisement in a campaign of that nature?
  Mr. DeLAY. No, because we have experienced--if we believe in the 
Constitution and the right of people to petition their government, 
whether it be by writing a petition or talking about my voting record 
or however they do it, the point is that if we believe in the 
Constitution and the people having a right to petition their 
government, then we do not want the government to be able to go and 
punish these people.
  And we have seen time and time again, whether it be the NRA or NOW or 
others, people that belong to these organizations that want to express 
themselves are persecuted, in some cases oppressed by their enemies by 
being able to reveal their names. I do not know why we would want to 
get at them. Why does the gentleman want to get at them?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. If the gentleman will continue to yield. As I 
understand the logic of the gentleman's position, then, he would never 
require any disclosure of who is behind funding campaigns?
  Mr. DeLAY. Not at all.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Not at all?
  Mr. DeLAY. Absolutely not. Not at all. I am all for the Doolittle 
substitute that brings full disclosure, full disclosure of people 
participating in campaigns. Not talking about issues.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has 
again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. DeLay was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I am not advocating issues. Yes, I want my 
constituents to know who is giving me money to be used in my campaign 
and how I am spending it. Absolutely. They have the right to know, not 
some Federal bureaucrat in Washington, D.C.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. In a previous colloquy, I believe the gentleman granted 
that the loophole that is being proposed by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle) would allow an ad that says, ``Neil Smith is 
a terrible Congressman because he opposed voluntary school prayer.''
  Mr. DeLAY. No, no, no. I want to correct the gentleman's premise. It 
would allow a voter guide, a piece of paper or on the internet, a voter 
guide that lists the votes and the issues and positions that a 
Congressman has taken.

[[Page H5466]]

                              {time}  1930

  If they happen to say that he is a bad congressman because he took a 
position against their position, I know that is uncomfortable, but they 
have every right to say that.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy of the 
gentleman. He has been very kind in yielding to me.
  I will only conclude by saying that it is a remarkable position that 
the gentleman would not want to have disclosed for the light of day who 
is behind ads that in every respect are the same as campaign ads, 
listing the name of a candidate, and providing a commentary regarding 
that person's performance in office. Such an ad that does not even 
mention another candidate, just that one candidate, is exempt from 
disclosure.
  I repeat. I appreciate the gentleman's candor. It is his position. I 
just disagree with it.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is 
absolutely right. And that is the debate over Shays-Meehan. Shays-
Meehan and the gentleman from California want to shut down people's 
right to talk about issues and positions of people that are 
participating in the process. That is one issue.
  The other issue that the gentleman is talking about is campaigns. 
Campaigns, they do not have hidden agendas running around in campaigns. 
They are giving money to me to participate in a campaign. The two are 
not supposed to cross. In fact, even in Shays-Meehan they talk about 
the two are not supposed to cross.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The time of the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. DeLay was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. DeLAY. We have the opportunity to make sure that they do not 
cross, and it is against the law to do so. The Supreme Court has upheld 
our position. That is why the Doolittle Amendment reflects and almost 
quotes the Supreme Court decision.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, there are two sides of this. Do the 
American people have the right to know about these issue advocacy ads 
and who pays for them? But second of all, on the other side, my 
colleague mentioned the point, the person who makes the contribution. 
And the Supreme Court has already declared that individuals have a 
right to privacy.
  In the NAACP versus Alabama case in 1958, they say that privacy and 
group association is indispensable to the preservation of our system of 
government; and so what this bill is trying to do is making these 
people also tell who is giving money and so forth.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, would it not be 
interesting that the NAACP would have to disclose who belongs to the 
NAACP and who is supporting the NAACP to the exposure to whom? Would it 
not be interesting some of the hate groups out there that would love to 
know who supports the NAACP and would like to? But the gentleman from 
California, Shays-Meehan, wants everybody to know it and wants to lay 
it out there for everybody.
  I just find that just really frightening that they not only want to 
step on our right and freedom of speech, but now they want to step on 
our right of privacy. I think this is what this is all about is those 
kinds of freedoms.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. My colleague heard us read the ad that was used in the 
campaign against the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) in 1996. Was that 
a campaign ad?
  Mr. DeLAY. Reclaiming my time, I am not sure exactly the one the 
gentleman is referring to. The voter guide?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
the Doolittle Amendment goes way beyond voter guides.
  Mr. DeLAY. No, it does not. The gentleman is wrong.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay) has again expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I object. The gentleman has had 11 minutes, 
and I object.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have had the pleasure to work with many Members who 
are legitimately concerned about campaign reform. I especially want to 
commend the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) because they worked on it before I 
arrived and they are still working on it. And that is very important 
that I state that because I think what they have done is come a long 
ways to finally have this debate on the floor.
  I support the base purpose of the Shays-Meehan bill, and very likely 
should we deal with the voter guide issue to support the final bill. 
The base issue is to stop laundering money from one source to another 
and eliminate soft money and undisclosed contributions.
  So what we have is a base bill that says, and it offends some of the 
groups, liberal and conservative, that no longer can this tobacco 
company or group give $5 million to one of the parties and have it 
divided up and be given to one of these conservative groups in most 
cases as last year, could have been liberal the year before, and then 
it comes out with a new voter guide because that tobacco company is 
really after somebody and they cannot come through the front door.
  That is what this bill does. Soft money, which is hiding money, 
laundering money, is a corrupting force. I know there are many of the 
same groups that will fight it on the voter guide issue, but really 
they have started getting other sources of money through the two 
parties as soft money and large amounts of soft money.
  But today, if we want to move this forward, we have to think about 
how to get it through the Senate, too. One of the biggest oppositions 
that we have is voter guides. Now, the amendment to Doolittle, it does 
not go far enough for me. I think that we could have done better; and, 
as always, we always think we can individually on this floor. But the 
reality is it did something that makes sense.
  Now, is it perfect? No. But it said we are not going to focus on 
people and their voter guides, which by the way has to go, passed out, 
read, digested, they take some work, they are true grassroots politics. 
We are going to focus on the big batches of big money, TV and radio. 
That is still in here. When he amended the Doolittle Amendment, when he 
amended it, he brought it to voter guides only.
  Now, yes, I have heard the debate. I have been listening to it for 
some time. And is it perfect? No. I would have a tendency to agree with 
some of the concerns that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) 
and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) have and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell). But, on the other hand, do we want to 
pass a bill in the Senate or do we want a debate?
  Unfortunately, a lot of posturing is because we all kind of like a 
debate but we really do not want to change behavior. Soft money being 
eliminated, this bill passed will eliminate the ability to launder 
money.
  So I am standing here saying that it is not perfect, but eliminating 
micromanaging of the voter guides is something that, if we do that and 
we still have the rest of the bill, that we have taken away a lot of 
the complaints. And then they are just going to have to go back and 
say, really, we did not like the bill because we wanted to launder 
money. We liked the soft money being laundered to our groups, and we 
never had so much money before we found this loophole coming to our 
groups to fund our staff here in Washington, D.C., and our other 
activities. And all of a sudden we can fund voter guides through soft 
money because we got a million, 4 million, whatever, through soft 
money.
  This removes the smoke and gets to the base issues of the most 
important and most corrupting. And I would advise that we vote for this 
amendment

[[Page H5467]]

as amended even if it is not perfect, because then we can get to the 
real problems, and that is the huge TV buys, the huge radio buys, the 
laundering of money. And we can get about cleaning up the Senate and 
have something we can give to the Senate that also removes their 
objections and gives to them something and not just say, no, we do not 
want to clean up the system. We just want to have the debate.
  Please vote yes for the Doolittle Amendment.
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, it has been a long night. We debated this 
for a couple hours before we left on the break, and we also have 
debated it another couple of hours.
  There are a lot of Members here, Republican and Democrat, both sides 
of the aisle, who have worked diligently over a period of years to try 
to get this bill to the floor. We have before us an amendment that 
claims to want to do something about voter guides. I have worked on 
this legislation for years with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) and others who are in this Chamber.
  We carved an exemption for voter guides. We do not need this 
particular amendment. We have an exemption in the amendment. There are 
times this debate has been an outstanding debate. The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell) in particular I would cite for his lawyerly 
and scholarly articulation of what the Shays-Meehan bill does with 
regard to voter guides.
  But this is not about voter guides. This is about whether or not the 
other side is going to try to defeat this bill. So let us have an up or 
down vote now. And I urge my colleagues, if they are for campaign 
finance reform, vote no on the DeLay-Doolittle Amendment. The amendment 
is not needed, and all it serves to do is to defeat ultimately campaign 
finance reform.
  So I would urge Members to vote no on the DeLay-Doolittle Amendment. 
I would urge us to move forward on this debate and have a vote.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, there is clearly a major difference of 
opinion about the Shays-Meehan bill and what it does. And those of us 
who have taken the floor in opposition have opposition for very 
principled reasons. They support it for principled reasons. But I think 
one thing is clear that they basically, by the wording of their bill, 
are going to wipe out the voter guides.
  That is why we have got about four dozen organizations spanning the 
whole ideological spectrum, from the American Civil Liberties Union to 
the American Conservative Union and everything in between, claiming 
that this so-called exemption for voter guides in Shays-Meehan is 
``bogus.'' And it is bogus. It is bogus because it deliberately blurs 
the bright line that the Supreme Court handed down in the famous 
Buckley case in which it has been repeatedly reaffirmed.
  When we read that case we see why they gave us a bright line, because 
it is very difficult to separate issue discussion from advocacy of 
election or defeat of a candidate. They did not want to chill free 
speech. That is why they gave us the bright line. That is why they said 
we had to be clear and unambiguous in urging the election or defeat of 
a candidate, using words such as ``elect'' or ``defeat'' or ``support'' 
or ``oppose'', et cetera. Shays-Meehan, basically in the name of good 
government, subverts the first amendment.
  What could be more clear than the first amendment, which says 
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech? They 
abridge the freedom of speech, and they do it and justify it in their 
own minds because they think speech needs regulation.
  The Founders thought it was too important to be regulated. That is 
why we fought the American Revolution, and that is why we have a 
written Constitution with that express provision in it. That is why all 
of these groups that do voter guides, which is the most grassroots form 
of activity there is, are urging my colleagues to support my amendment 
to this bill.
  I think it is a bad bill, and I will oppose the bill with or without 
the amendment. But at least the amendment preserves the integrity of 
the voter guide system and allows these groups, which many Americans 
are members of, to go ahead and disseminate the information and not be 
called into question. Which one of my colleagues would want to have the 
threat of hiring attorneys, being subjected to months of publicity and 
spending $400,000 or $500,000 to defend what their own constitutional 
rights already are?
  That is what this amendment is about, to make it clear and 
unambiguous, and that is why I urge my colleagues to support my 
amendment.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as I listened tonight, the debate went back and forth, 
and I kind of had this feeling of being familiar with the debate but 
not know knowing what it reminded me of. And as I was sitting here 
thinking, I realized it reminded me of some of the children's stories 
that I used to read to my kids when they were little and it really had 
a Dr. Seuss-like quality to it. So as I was listening to the debate, I 
wrote down a few little comments. It goes like this:
  The cat in the hat caused trouble, it is clear. But nothing compared 
to the trouble right here. The cat was persuasive, as smooth as they 
come. He convinced those two kids to do things that were dumb. He urged 
them. He spun them. He did his best to distract. Sort of like this 
amendment we are told to enact. It is easy to think that the 
Constitution is on trial. This argument would surely make the cat 
smile.
  Like the cat in the hat, with good tricks at his command, this 
amendment is all about slight of hand. A loophole exists, it is known 
far and wide. But the cat in the hat is laughing inside. He laughs at 
the law. He does not like rules. As a matter of fact, he thinks rules 
are for fools. It is time to say no, to send the cat on his way, to 
close off the loopholes and start a new day.
  No cards are at stake, no genuine guide. It is only the cheaters who 
are trying to hide. Vote no on this choice, or surely you will find the 
same sort of mess that old cat left behind. Say no, say it clear. And 
with some good luck, we will label what waddles and quacks a duck.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Doolittle 
amendment and in strong support of the language in the Shays-Meehan 
substitute that protects voter guides.
  Let's look at current law. Under current law, any group can pay for a 
printed voter guide with unrestricted funds as long as that voter guide 
does not contain ``express advocacy''--that is, that the voter guide 
does not urge the defeat or election of a particular candidate.
  The Shays-Meehan substitute does not change this.
  What it does do is clarify that ``express advocacy'' is not limited 
to the use of the so-called ``magic words'' such as ``vote for'' or 
``vote against'' or ``defeat'' or ``elect''. Express advocacy would 
also include phrases that indicate ``unmistakable and unambiguous'' 
support for or opposition to a candidate.
  What does all this mean? It means that under Shays-Meehan, any 
organization may continue to use unrestricted funds for any voter guide 
or voting record at any time during the election cycle as long as it 
does not contain express advocacy and as long as it is not prepared in 
coordination with a candidate or a party committee.
  Let me repeat that.
  Under Shays-Meehan any organization may produce any voter guide at 
any time as long as it is not coordinated with a candidate or a party 
and contain express advocacy.
  Why is this important? Because it makes it very clear that voter 
guides are already protected and that veil of protection will not be 
changed by Shays-Meehan.
  What would Shays-Meehan change? It would change the way sham, 
secretly-funded campaign ads have come to dominate our electoral 
process.
  Let me draw your attention to a recent U.S. Senate race in the State 
of New Jersey. Two of my State's more famous public servants were 
seeking election and our airwaves were jammed with so-called 
``educational'' issue ads. The subjects of this avalanche of ads were 
crime, and Medicare, and Social Security, etc. And they tracked nearly 
identically with the platforms of the two candidates.
  But you know what? They were so-called independent ads run by so-
called independent

[[Page H5468]]

groups and developed totally independent of a campaign or a party.
  In some cases, they were paid for by soft money. In some cases, they 
were paid for by secret donors. In every case, they were undeniably 
campaign ads. (I would also add that in most cases they made the voters 
of New Jersey even more cynical and disheartened by the political 
process.)
  Mr. Speaker, in Shays-Meehan, we are trying to end this disgraceful 
trend toward sham campaign ads--the kind of campaign ads that make the 
American people even more cynical.
  My colleagues from Texas and California (Mssrs. DeLay and Doolittle) 
say their amendment creates a ``carve-out'' for printed voter guides.
  This carve out is not necessary.
  The Shays-Meehan amendment already protects voter guides. The 
Doolittle-DeLay amendment would go much farther. It guts the issue 
advocacy provisions of Shays-Meehan that will reign in sham campaign 
ads that masquerade as ``educational'' or issue-oriented.
  I thank Mssrs. Doolittle and DeLay for adding to this debate. But I 
submit that their amendment is not necessary. Shays-Meehan protects 
voter guides. Shays-Meehan attacks secret, sham campaign ads.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate 
on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Doolittle) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 
by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) be limited to the time 
already expended.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment, as 
modified, offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) 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. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201, 
noes 219, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 275]

                               AYES--201

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fossella
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--219

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     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
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Baesler
     Deal
     Engel
     Fowler
     Gonzalez
     Hilleary
     John
     McDade
     McNulty
     Olver
     Payne
     Rush
     Stark
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2007

  Mr. GALLEGLY and Mr. LAZIO of New York changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. GUTKNECHT, EWING, CHAMBLISS, WATT of North Carolina, MURTHA, 
COSTELLO, COBURN and BACHUS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment, as modified, to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, was rejected.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I know that certainty is valued highly by 
this body, and in an attempt to provide a degree of certainty, I move 
that debate on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays) and the following six amendments thereto, if offered by the 
following Members: First the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella); 
second, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker); third, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns); fourth, the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Pickering); and, fifth, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), be limited such that no amendment may be debated for longer 
than 40 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The motion is not debatable.
  The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas).
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending that, 
make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman was on his feet and is 
entitled to be recognized.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of 
turn for 30 seconds.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

[[Page H5469]]

  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, it would be my hope that in order to 
expedite things here, we would be able to come to an agreement on 
limiting debate, but at this point, that we could roll votes until 
tomorrow on any amendments that we take up, and I would ask that we 
amend the gentleman's unanimous consent request so that votes will be 
rolled until tomorrow.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would tell 
the gentleman that it was not a unanimous consent request, because the 
gentleman objected to a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am asking for unanimous consent.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, we moved this measure. It seems to me, 
given the time, it would be appropriate, since it is only 40 minutes, 
that we debate and vote on the motion that the Chair was going to 
recognize, the Fossella amendment, and, if we moved to any others, we 
would roll the other votes.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Reclaiming my time, what my request of the leadership 
would be is that I am suggesting we would agree to limit debate, but 
let us make the last vote the last vote of the night, and then come 
back tomorrow. It is a reasonable request. It is 8:50 at night.


                          Parliamenary Inquiry

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Is the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) propounding a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. MEEHAN. Yes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I did not understand that to be a unanimous 
consent request.
  Mr. MEEHAN. I make a unanimous consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair has the authority to postpone all 
requests for recorded votes on amendments. The Chair will take under 
advisement the question of whether to postpone votes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, my understanding was the gentleman from 
Massachusetts offered a unanimous consent request, is that correct?
  Mr. MEEHAN. Yes, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. THOMAS. Does the Chair understand that the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) offered a unanimous consent request, the 
content being there be no more votes on any amendments tonight? Is that 
my understanding of the unanimous consent request?

                              {time}  2015

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The Chair has not entertained 
that request because the Chair has the authority to postpone recorded 
votes under the rule adopted by the House.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas), it is my understanding, and tell me if I am correct or 
not, that the Chair has the authority, and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) has the right to request that there be 
unanimous consent that there be no more votes tonight, and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has the right to reserve and 
comment on whether that would be agreeable, in which case I think we 
could avoid another vote on the gentleman's motion and finish the vote 
for tonight and go on with the debate.
  Does not the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) have the right 
to move that, even though the Chair has the right to postpone votes at 
his discretion?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. There is no right to move to postpone a 
vote in Committee of the Whole, and the Committee of the Whole cannot 
alter an authority conferred by the House.


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

  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment Offered by Mr. Fossella 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. PROHIBITING NON-CITIZEN INDIVIDUALS FROM MAKING 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH FEDERAL 
                   ELECTIONS.

       (a) Prohibition Applicable to All Individuals Who Are Not 
     Citizens or Nationals of the United States.--Section 
     319(b)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441e(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``and who is not 
     lawfully admitted'' and all that follows and inserting the 
     following: ``or a national of the United States (as defined 
     in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to contributions or expenditures 
     made on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will recognize 40 minutes of 
debate evenly divided by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) and 
a Member opposed.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of 
turn for 30 seconds to clarify the schedule.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman already has 20 minutes in 
opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. MEEHAN. But I want to know if this is the last vote and if we are 
going to roll it until tomorrow like I asked, so Members will know.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Will the Chairman be rolling votes per my unanimous 
consent request earlier?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair has been requested to put to the 
Committee the debate and the vote on this amendment and then postpone 
recorded votes on subsequent amendments debated tonight.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. THOMAS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, my understanding was there was a motion 
presented to the House for 6 amendments, not more than 40 minutes. That 
amendment was adopted.
  On what basis does the Chair now propound a procedure for dealing 
with that which has not either been a unanimous consent or an offering 
on the floor?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair is only proposing putting the 
question for a vote after the pending amendment is debated.
  Mr. THOMAS. In other words, the Chair is now exercising the Chair's 
right to explain to a Member what may be the parliamentary procedure 
and the order of business on the floor as determined by the Chair?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) is 
recognized.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer a very simple, straightforward, and I think a 
common sense amendment. Under current law, one does not have to be a 
United States citizen to make a campaign contribution to a candidate 
for Federal office. My amendment would establish that only United 
States citizens or United States nationals would be permitted to make 
an individual contribution to any candidate running for Federal office. 
Indeed, earlier this year following up on introductions by the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) this House, by an overwhelming margin, sought 
to ban contributions to Federal elections by noncitizens.
  My amendment would also allow the request of the gentleman from the 
territory of American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), that would allow 
noncitizens and U.S. nationals, many of whom reside in the territory of 
American Samoa, to contribute to Federal campaigns.
  I believe fundamentally that American citizens should determine the 
outcome of American Federal elections.

[[Page H5470]]

  Mr. Chairman, again, let me just reiterate what this amendment does. 
Essentially it allows United States citizens, including United States 
nationals, to determine the outcome of Federal elections.
  Currently, noncitizens can contribute to Federal elections. I think 
that is bad policy; I think that we have seen in the last couple of 
years how noncitizens have played a major role in funneling illegal 
money to Federal elections. Indeed, just in today's paper we see how a 
Thailand firm lobbyist was indicted as a conduit of campaign cash. The 
indictment brings to total the number 11 of persons charged so far in 
the Justice Department's campaign finance investigation which began in 
November of 1996, and all of them have a very similar trait in that 
they funnel money through people who are residents of the United 
States, but are noncitizens.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that is why we have before us an amendment that 
just a couple of months ago by a vote of 369-to-43, this House 
overwhelmingly banned the contributions to Federal elections for 
noncitizens. As I stated earlier, I think this would go a long way to 
bring integrity back into the system we have before us, and essentially 
and in effect, allow foreign influence of the United States political 
process to be kept to a minimum.
  Mr. Chairman, 369 votes to me is a strong indication of the 
bipartisan support that this legislation shares in this House, and I 
would think that every American who is watching this or every American 
who believes there should be integrity in the system, that American 
citizens should control the electoral process, particularly those at 
the Federal level, and would support such an amendment, and I think 
this would go a long way to clarify the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 20 minutes 
of time allotted to me be controlled by the gentlewoman from Hawaii, 
(Mrs. Mink).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, in our efforts, our bipartisan efforts over 
a period of the last several years to forge a partnership between 
Republicans and Democrats and find an agreement to comprehensive 
campaign finance reform, we have made a number of agreements and 
concessions along the way. We have a majority of the Members of this 
body who I believe and many of us believe now favor the McCain-
Feingold, Shays-Meehan legislation.
  The only thing that can defeat the Shays-Meehan legislation is an 
effort to have an amendment that is harmful to our ability to get it 
passed. I believe strongly that we should vote on this amendment. If 
Members are concerned about the specifics of this amendment, we voted 
and sent the bill over to the United States Senate, we can deal with it 
that way, or we can deal with it through the Commission as part of the 
bill that this House passed. We sent a Commission bill, gave them the 
responsibility to look at what changes there ought to be, other 
changes, in the campaign finance law.

                              {time}  2030

  I would suggest that this would be a change that the Commission could 
make a judgment on. This may well be an unconstitutional provision. The 
Commission would have an opportunity to talk to constitutional scholars 
and determine whether or not this should be part of some other 
amendment at some other time.
  What we need to do at this point is to move forward, to get through 
this very cumbersome, difficult process, and have a vote up-or-down on 
the Shays-Meehan bill. I would urge my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very harmful amendment to add to this 
legislation. I ask this body to take a look at me as a person. I ask 
this body to examine this amendment and the impact it would create in a 
large percentage of the population of this country.
  Just take a good look at me. If I were to hand over a campaign 
contribution to a Federal candidate, what would be the first thing that 
the recipient would do? It would be to ask me whether I was a citizen 
of the United States. I am a third generation American, but they would 
be forced to ask me that question because of my appearance, whereas the 
gentleman from New York, the gentleman from Massachusetts, tendering a 
contribution, would never have to be offended by such a request.
  That is the cardinal offense that comes with the acceptance of this 
kind of provision, because it is implicitly discriminatory upon a large 
segment of our society that looks different than the basic majority.
  There is nothing in this Constitution that says that the protections 
of the Bill of Rights extend only to United States citizens. Throughout 
it there is reference to people, to persons. There have been court 
decisions time and again that have extended the protections of the 
Constitution to all persons living within the United States.
  We have had a great problem in the Congress making a distinction 
between illegal residents and legal permanent residents. Legal 
permanent residents have gone through all the processes. They have 
spent years to even come to the United States. They have come here with 
the purpose of being lawful, participating people in this great 
democracy. What are we afraid of, of these legal residents? We should 
not be. We should be welcoming them as participants in this democracy.
  This Congress first took away their food, threatened to take away 
their health care, refused to give them disability protections, injured 
the elderly and the children and the sick among this category of so-
called legal permanent residents.
  Let us not make a mockery of the openness of this society, of the 
fierceness with which we defend the Constitution, and tonight adopt an 
amendment that says, yes, we welcome you into the country, but we will 
not allow you to be participants. We forbid you to make contributions 
to candidates. To me that really offends not only the core symbol of 
this democracy, but it is absolutely unconstitutional.
  Pass this amendment and I am sure it would be taken to the courts and 
it will be stricken from the bill. Do not disgrace the Constitution by 
supporting this kind of amendment.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the 
gentlewoman on an outstanding presentation to her colleagues. I think 
many of us who, as the gentlewoman said, look like the majority in this 
country would not have thought of the implicit distinction that people 
would have to make in order to make clear that a contributor was a 
citizen or legal resident of this country who had not attained nor 
sought citizenship.
  There are thousands and thousands and thousands of people who, since 
the Federal election law has been in place, have contributed to 
candidates of both parties and to third and fourth parties all across 
the country, raising no issue, no scandal, no problem. They simply have 
attested to the fact that they care about the country they live in; 
that as people who go to work every day and invest in it and create 
jobs for others, they want to have some say about the atmosphere in 
which they go about living their life.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I make the assumption in my 
district that everyone who wants to participate in my campaign is 
welcome. If they want to make a contribution to my campaign, they are 
welcome. I am not going to ask them to prove to me that they are a 
citizen of the United States. I do not carry around anything in my 
pockets or anywhere in my possession that I know of that proves that I 
am an American citizen.
  I pay taxes, I was born in America, my parents were born here. Why do 
Members want to impose this kind of incriminating disability on tens of 
thousands of honest, hard-working people in districts like mine? But 
that is what Members are going to force me to do. They are going to put 
me in jail and make me a criminal because I have taken a contribution 
from someone in

[[Page H5471]]

my constituency that I love and I respect, because I did not have the 
whatever it was to insult him by saying, are you a citizen?
  That is really what we are doing tonight, we are absolutely tearing 
away the very shreds of this democracy which says that people who come 
to this country and love this country ought to be able to participate 
in it. I ask this House to please defeat this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would just note for the Record, Mr. Chairman, I noticed, 
respectfully, of course, that my colleague, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), objects to this amendment, but earlier this 
year he, along with 369 of our colleagues, voted to support almost 
identical legislation. Indeed, this is broader than the piece of 
legislation we voted on earlier.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Bereuter).
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Meehan), if he is here, that the Meehan-Shays bill is not a 
perfect bill. If the gentleman expects to have support from Members of 
this body, do not tell us to take it the way it is and do not try to 
amend it. That is not acceptable in this body.
  I have great respect for the gentlewoman from Hawaii, but I am amazed 
and surprised at her comments here tonight. It is patently absurd to 
suggest that the gentleman's amendment is unconstitutional. It is 
discriminatory in only one way, only one way. It differentiates between 
citizens and non-citizens. It also takes into account the fact that we 
have U.S. nationals in places like American Samoa, to the credit of the 
author of the amendment. The House has voted on this very type of 
amendment and approved it before by a very large vote.
  To this Member, it is very simple. If you want to be fully involved 
in our political process, then you must become a citizen of the United 
States. If you do not make the full commitment to our country by 
becoming a U.S. citizen, then you should not have the right to 
participate in our political system in the ultimate fashion, by making 
a campaign contribution and affecting the lives of American citizens. 
You should not have a role in electing American officials.
  Most Americans believe this is the law already, but in fact, as we 
learned last year, you can simply be a permanent resident of the United 
States, and in fact be a resident, and then it is not illegal to make a 
political contribution.
  There is no requirement on the gentlewoman, for example, to do a 
citizenship test of the people that might make contributions to her 
campaign. All she would have to do is simply say, ``Are you a 
citizen?'' And when you fill out a contributor's form you would have to 
attest that you are a citizen.
  We have had problems in the recent presidential campaign which have 
cast a cloud on Asian Americans. That is deeply, deeply regretful, 
because that is an inappropriate cloud. But there is no reason why 
there is any additional discriminatory scrutiny given to a Caucasian 
from another country or a Hispanic from South America than there is an 
Asian American who is a citizen or a U.S. national.
  I think it is a very obvious conclusion that the process of electing 
our officials should be a right reserved for citizens. It is wrong and 
dangerous to allow even the potential to exist for undue foreign 
influence in electing our government. That is what the American people 
expect. That is what they want. That is what the gentleman's amendment 
does.
  I urge Members to support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today in support of the amendment 
offered by the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Fossella], 
which would prohibit foreign individual campaign contributions or 
expenditures and allow such contributions or expenditures only from 
United States citizens or United States Nationals. The Fossella 
amendment is almost identical to H.R. 34, which this Member sponsored 
as one aspect of necessary campaign finance reform legislation, and 
which was previously passed by the House by a vote of 369 to 43 (with 1 
Member voting present) on March 30, 1998. The only difference between 
the Fossella amendment and this Member's original legislation (H.R. 34) 
is that the Fossella amendment would appropriately allow United States 
Nationals (as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act) to make 
individual campaign contributions or expenditures to Federal 
candidates.
  However, it is apparent that a serious problem really for the first 
time came to the attention of the American public during the 1996 
presidential election season--campaign contributions from foreign 
sources. The abuse that allegedly resulted from foreign campaign 
contributions in the recent presidential campaign is a terrible 
indictment of our current campaign finance system.
  Many Americans believe that it is already illegal for foreigners to 
make Federal campaign contributions. The problem is that they are both 
right and wrong under our current Federal election laws. The fact of 
the matter is that under our current Federal election laws, you do not 
have to be a U.S. citizen to make campaign contributions to Federal 
candidates. Under our current Federal election laws, you can make a 
campaign contribution to a candidate running for Federal office if you 
are a permanent legal resident alien--a permanent legal resident alien 
and you, in fact, reside in the United States.

  This Member believes that this situation is wrong, this Member 
believes that most Americans would agree it is wrong, and this Member 
believes that it is a problem begging for correction. Therefore, this 
Member introduced H.R. 34 on the first day of the 105th Congress to 
change our current Federal election laws so that only U.S. citizens are 
permitted to make an individual contribution to a candidate running for 
Federal office.
  An overwhelming number of this Member's colleagues agreed with the 
purpose of H.R. 34 as on March 30, 1998, the House passed H.R. 34 by a 
vote of 369 to 43 (with 1 Member voting present).
  Indeed, the Congress must be concerned about the issue of legal and 
illegal foreign campaign contributions. Everyone here today should be 
concerned about this recent insidious development in our presidential 
election process, and should understand that these statutory and 
procedural changes like the passage of the Fossella amendment are 
necessary to protect the integrity of the American electoral process. 
We must insure that it is Americans who choose our President and 
Congress.
  We simply cannot allow foreign corporations and foreign individuals 
to decide who is elected to public office at any level of our 
government. Therefore, the Fossella amendment, which would require that 
only U.S. citizens and U.S. Nationals be allowed to make individual 
contributions to candidates for Federal office (and which is virtually 
identical to this Member's bill--H.R. 34), must be a priority for the 
105th Congress. This issue must be addressed and this Member intends to 
push for this change until successful.
  In conclusion, this Member would ask his colleagues to strongly 
support the Fossella amendment--the essentially identical text of this 
Member's bill, H.R. 34, which previously passed the House by an 
overwhelmingly majority--as an important step forward campaign finance 
reform.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Paxon).
  (Mr. PAXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAXON. Mr. Chairman, there are many controversial amendments that 
are being offered and have been offered, but not this one. On this one 
there is near unanimity in this body, whether we are on this side of 
the aisle, Republicans, or that side of the aisle, Democrats, liberals 
or conservatives, from whatever region of the country, there is 
agreement that this amendment needs to be part of this legislation.
  As a matter of fact, in March when we voted on a similar amendment, a 
similar piece of legislation, H.R. 34, the Illegal Foreign 
Contributions Act, it passed with 369 votes. There are few things in 
this body that have enjoyed the depth and breadth of support that this 
idea did in the form of the legislation then, H.R. 34, and today in the 
form of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Fossella).
  Why should there be such unanimity? It is just common sense, for two 
reasons. First, only U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals should be allowed 
to contribute to Federal campaigns. Back at

[[Page H5472]]

home this is not rocket science. People would assume this should be the 
case. We should not even be talking about this, because they would have 
assumed long ago we would have made sure this was the case.
  Of course, number two, common sense is a result of this amendment in 
the action of the gentleman from New York, no foreign dollars would be 
allowed to be part of our system. We know what has happened in recent 
months, and we have been witnessing in the papers even today about the 
influence, the attempted influence, of our system by foreign dollars.
  I am very pleased that the gentleman from New York is taking this 
step so we can be certain that whatever reform legislation passes this 
House, that this idea, this important step to ensure the integrity of 
our American political system, is part of it.
  I tip my hat to the gentleman from New York, and most importantly, to 
the Members of this Chamber who I know will be voting overwhelmingly, 
as we did last March, to make this important part of this reform move 
forward.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to support the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii, and say that I was one of those, part of that overwhelming 300 
or so, who voted when we had this amendment on suspension a couple of 
months ago, who voted in favor of eliminating the right for permanent 
residents to be able to contribute.
  After that time I was overwhelmed, if you will, by so many 
constituents in my district, which is a very multi-ethnic district. A 
lot of Asian Americans live in my district. They explained to me how 
insulting this was, if you will, that to say that people who are here, 
who become permanent residents, who would like and in most cases are 
trying to become citizens of the United States, that this is the one 
opportunity they have, really, or one of the few opportunities they 
have to express their will and get involved in the political process.
  I think it is a mistake for us to deny them that. I think that I 
understand the point of view that says, well, you should be a citizen 
to fully participate in our democracy, but this is not--this is a form 
of participation, a very small form of participation, that I think we 
should allow permanent residents to be able to contribute and 
participate in this way.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Fossella amendment. It seems like deja vu. We have been here before.
  Just a reminder about 1996, during the election cycle, the Democratic 
National Committee was forced to return over $2.8 million in illegal or 
improper donations. I was surprised and dismayed by that. The American 
people were dismayed and, frankly, frustrated over the ability of 
foreign nationals to wield such influence over our election process 
without casting a single vote.
  It is why I introduced H.R. 767, which was the Common Sense Campaign 
Reform Act. That bill provided a common-sense, three-step approach to 
address the problems inherent in the current system. One step of the 
three would prohibit individuals who are not eligible to vote from 
contributing to candidates for Federal office or political parties.
  I commend my colleague, Mr. Fossella, for incorporating into his 
amendment the spirit of H.R. 767. Banning contributions from non-U.S. 
citizens reinforces the important message that American citizens and 
only American citizens elect their representatives in government, not 
foreigners.
  Now, contrary to what I have heard over here, this is not harmful. It 
does not need a commission. It simply needs a vote, just like the last 
time.
  By the way, this bill is more inclusive than the last bill. It is a 
better bill in response to the comments over here.
  Mr. Chairman, foreign influence in our elections has eroded the 
American people's confidence in our democratic process and left far too 
many voters feeling demoralized and disenfranchised. While this bill is 
no sweeping reform effort, it does address one of the system's most 
glaring problems, the influx of foreign money in our political process.
  I urge my colleagues to support this vital, common-sense piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
bringing this amendment to the floor. I think it clearly does what most 
Americans think is already the case.
  Some of my colleagues tonight have even said, I thought that is what 
the law already said, wondered why we passed this with such an 
overwhelming vote just a couple of months ago. Even the Shays-Meehan 
language tries to address this issue but I think does not adequately 
address the issue of expenditures.
  This amendment clearly takes foreign citizens out of our election 
process as contributors. We have seen that ability of foreign citizens 
living in the United States to use our system in a negative way in just 
the last cycle of elections. We have heard example after example after 
example of citizens of other countries living in the United States who 
gave money, a lot of questions as to where that money came from, some 
apparent proof that that money was funneled into our politics through 
these people living in the United States from other governments. But if 
this law was on the books, that would not be allowed.
  The House overwhelmingly voted to make this common-sense reform. This 
clarifies not only that people cannot give money to campaigns, they 
cannot independently spend money to affect campaigns, something that 
virtually all Americans believe to be the case today.
  This amendment avoids the problem simply by banning all expenditures 
by noncitizens. H.R. 34 amended the law by banning contributions from 
foreign nationals. This clarifies that.
  I urge my colleagues not to change their vote, not to have to explain 
why their vote 2 months ago is different than the vote they cast 
tonight but to be consistent on understanding this problem that has 
already seen abuses in the most recent series of campaigns, to change 
our laws so that those abuses cannot occur in the future, to make that 
part of any changes we make in campaign finance reform so that the laws 
are enforced, the laws are enforceable, and we do not continue to have 
the same kinds of problems that everybody understands were part of the 
last cycle of elections.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this. Actually, I would be delighted 
just to see my colleagues who voted for it the last time to vote for it 
this time or to come up with a pretty good explanation when they go 
back and talk about this topic, to talk about why that vote was one way 
60 days ago and another way today.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this. I think it will pass. I am 
grateful to the gentleman from New York for offering this amendment 
tonight.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment. Like a lot of 
other Members, in the enthusiasm of the early days following the last 
election I supported the idea that we should constrain the rights of 
new Americans and permanent residents to participate to the fullest in 
our election process. That was a mistake. It was wrong.
  These are not citizens but they are people who have been permitted to 
come here. They will become citizens almost without exception in the 
orderly passage of time. They serve in our Armed Services. Indeed, 
there are better than 20,000 of these permanent residents who now serve 
the United States in our Armed Services. I would say that we ought to 
permit them to have full participation.
  After all, it is the main thesis of my good colleagues and friends on 
the Republican side of the aisle that the giving of campaign 
contributions is an exercise of the right of free speech. Indeed, the 
Valeo case says so. Why then is it that we should deny these people who 
have come here, who have entered

[[Page H5473]]

the country legally and who are for all intents and purposes, from tax 
paying to serving in the defense of this Nation, acting almost 
completely as American citizens?
  Almost without exception, they intend to become American citizens. 
Almost without exception, they have a great reverence and love for this 
country. I think there is nothing wrong with permitting them to have 
that additional right of participating in our election process by 
making campaign contributions under the same basis that any other 
person who resides legally and permanently here.
  I would urge my colleagues to reject the amendment offered by my 
friend and colleague on the Republican side. I would urge them to err 
in this matter, if we do err, and I do not believe so, on the side of 
seeing to it that the fullest of participation of citizenship in this 
important aspect is extended to those who are permanent residents of 
the United States.
  With regret, I say this is a bad amendment. With regret, I say let us 
vote it down. And let us then proceed towards the enactment of the 
Shays-Meehan bill, which is a good piece of legislation in the public 
interest, and let us allow permanent residents, legally entered into 
the United States, to participate in the full exercise of free speech, 
looking to the day when they can become citizens and can actually have 
the right to vote.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, it is certainly a 
pleasure this evening to join the gentleman from New York in support of 
the Fossella amendment.
  I have found it amazing to hear the discussion on this amendment, an 
amendment that says you must be a citizen of the United States to 
contribute to and influence elections. You must be a citizen of the 
United States to participate in elections. But it seems for some to be 
all right to give thousands of dollars that might change thousands of 
votes when you are not a citizen.
  I find it incredible. Some have said it is unconstitutional. We know 
that is a joke. Someone said it was harmful to the bill if it passed. 
But they did not explain how it was harmful.
  Maybe if it is not right, they said, we can fix it in the Senate or 
maybe in a conference committee. And then the one that amazed me, 
because bureaucrats always scare me, it was said, we can deal with it 
over at the commission if it is not right, telling the commission that 
they must determine whether it is appropriate for people that are not 
citizens to give to campaign contributions.
  I also found it amazing that someone called it a cardinal sin and 
very offensive to be asked if you are a citizen. My grandparents came 
from Sweden. If someone asked me if I am a citizen, I will say, you bet 
I am and proud of it. Most of the newest citizens that I know, when 
asked if they are a citizen, they beam. They are so proud to be an 
American. It is not offensive to be asked. It is not an insult to be 
asked if you are a citizen.
  What will be the impact if we do not do this? If we do not do this, 
it will be easy for those who are seeking the White House to continue 
to funnel foreign money into their coffers. That is what it will do.
  Do my colleagues like what happened in 1996? I do not. Future 
Congress races, future Senate races will be easier to get foreign money 
and use it to win elections, which is wrong in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a clean, simple amendment. The law says you 
must be a citizen to vote. Why should you be able to influence 
elections with cash if you are not a citizen? You may influence 
thousands of votes.
  This is the simplest, cleanest amendment we will face on campaign 
finance reform. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 
let us stand for the Constitution. Let us stand for citizenship. Then 
if we are going to participate in elections in this country, you need 
to be a citizen, to vote and to contribute.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I voted in favor of this amendment when 
it stood separately. I now will vote against it. Why?
  Since it passed before, we do not need it to be attached to this bill 
for its substance. The only reason it is being attached to this bill 
now is to defeat Shays-Meehan. Why? Because Shays-Meehan has to stay as 
close to identical to what passed or came close to passing with 57 
votes in the Senate for cloture. Do not support this amendment if you 
are committed honestly to campaign finance reform. The further Shays-
Meehan departs from what could pass in the Senate, the less our chance.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Fossella) pointed out that his amendment has already passed this 
body as a stand-alone bill. So why are we debating it now? We are 
debating it because, I would venture to say, many Members who support 
this amendment and who are trying to add amendments to Shays-Meehan are 
trying to defeat the bill, which has 218 votes to pass this body if we 
keep it in the form that it is in that is like the McCain-Feingold bill 
that has the majority of votes in the Senate.
  I call on my colleagues, if they are for reform, vote against this 
amendment.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for allowing 
me to say a few remarks with reference to the amendment now at hand.
  I would like to ask my good friend from New York for a dialogue 
concerning his amendment because there does seem to be a lot of 
misinformation going around here concerning the gentleman's amendment. 
I do want to thank him for his understanding of the uniqueness of the 
situation.
  I know my colleagues probably are not aware I am the only 
representative that represents U.S. nationals in the great United 
States of America. By definition of the U.S. immigration law, a U.S. 
national is any person who is born in the confines of American Samoa, 
who is a permanent resident, not permanent resident, born and raised in 
American Samoa who owes permanent allegiance to the United States but 
he is neither a citizen nor an alien.
  You tell me what that means? But I would like to ask the gentleman 
from New York if his understanding of a U.S. national is in that 
category and the reason for his amendment is that U.S. nationals can 
contribute to Federal elections?

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. To my colleague from American Samoa, Mr. Chairman, it 
was in a conversation that my office had with his office, in an effort 
to address this issue and his concern, and particularly with the letter 
dated May 12 of 1998, that we sought to allow U.S. nationals to 
contribute to Federal elections.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Reclaiming my time to just ask, because I was 
hoping that maybe the issue of permanent resident aliens and green card 
holders would be addressed at another time, but this is very key and 
important, and I want to ask my friend does his proposed amendment 
exclude permanent resident aliens from participating and contributing 
to U.S. elections?
  Mr. FOSSELLA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, this amendment 
simply allows for United States' citizens and United States' nationals 
to contribute to Federal elections.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So, by omission, permanent resident aliens cannot 
contribute in U.S. Federal elections?
  Mr. FOSSELLA. That is correct.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Is the gentleman aware that permanent resident 
aliens are subject to the U.S. draft?
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H5474]]

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from New 
York, I would be glad to take 2 minutes and allow 1 extra additional 
minute for the gentleman from American Samoa so he can finish his 
colloquy, because I think he is on a point the Members should 
understand.
  Because I have an amendment that comes later which is very similar to 
the amendment of the gentleman from New York, and I support his 
amendment, but my amendment goes a little further and takes it down to 
the State and local level and also points out that one cannot solicit 
contributions. So this means that a U.S. citizen cannot go out and 
solicit contributions from people that are not citizens.
  I support the gentleman's bill, but I would like to point out for the 
Members here that there is a controversial point here and it all pivots 
around the idea that we are not talking about U.S. citizens, we are not 
talking about U.S. nationals, we were talking about U.S. permanent 
legal aliens, is the term. And in many parts of the country these 
people want to participate.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, 
because we do need to understand exactly what is a permanent resident 
alien. A permanent resident alien is an alien who petitions the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service for his status, for which he is 
then issued a green card under the provisions of a quota number that is 
given to that person.
  By those conditions, a permanent resident alien is subject to the 
draft in times of a national emergency. I had several friends who were 
permanent resident aliens who were Vietnam veterans. They were 
subjected to the draft. Also, a permanent resident alien, after 3 years 
serving in the military, can also become a U.S. citizen, if he so 
wishes.
  Mr. STEARNS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for that clarification.
  I think the Members on this side who are saying they are against the 
gentleman's amendment must go back and realize that they have voted for 
this identical language and they are going to be flip-flopping on this 
floor because that bill passed 368; overwhelming.
  The fact it is a stand-alone bill has no relevance here because it is 
the same words. So my colleagues have to know in their heart of hearts 
that they are going to flip-flop tonight if they do not support the 
amendment of the gentleman from New York.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, this is one of those difficult moments in 
the process of bringing forth a comprehensive bill with many 
supporters. We tried to identify amendments as killer amendments, 
harmful amendments, benign or helpful amendments, and essential 
amendments to help the bill pass. For some, this is a killer amendment. 
I have to be candid with my colleagues, those who support Meehan-Shays, 
we are going to lose some supporters in the end if this amendment 
passes. It is likely to pass.
  But one of the things I find extraordinarily ironic is I hear Members 
say there is agreement this amendment has to be part of Meehan-Shays. 
Yet the people who are saying it are not going to be voting for Meehan-
Shays. So this is not particularly a friendly amendment. We already 
passed this legislation last year. It is waiting in the Senate. It can 
be dealt with there. To attach it to this bill will do what I think it 
is intended to do, which is to make it more difficult to pass Meehan-
Shays. I accept this. I understand it.
  What I would also like my colleagues to understand is that the real 
foreign money problem is with soft money, and the opponents of Meehan-
Shays do not want to ban soft money. The foreign nationals who gave 
money gave soft money. They did not give hard money contributions. All 
the outrages that people are thinking of are soft money and yet so many 
who are concerned about foreign money are opposed to banning soft 
money.
  When I look at this legislation, I have to tell my colleagues I 
understand that some just think people who live in this country, who 
are not legal, should not be allowed to contribute. I am grateful they 
are legal. I am grateful that they ultimately want to become citizens. 
And I regret my vote when I voted for it in the past, and I will vote 
``no''.
  I will say this. I encourage my colleagues who feel strongly against 
this amendment, do not let them win in the end. If they succeed in 
attaching this amendment, do not walk away, because that is the real 
reason why they are presenting this amendment. And I encourage my 
colleagues to realize that we cannot allow this amendment, if it 
passes, to be a killer amendment because they will have won.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to urge all Members just to reflect upon the highest oracle of wisdom, 
and that is the experience of voting for this same, almost identical 
piece of legislation, but broader, just a few months ago.
  The reality is that if Shays-Meehan were to pass, I think we would 
like as perfect a bill as possible and, in effect, what my amendment 
would do would only allow United States' citizens and United States' 
nationals to contribute to Federal campaigns.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  Please, Members, do not confuse the term foreign national with what 
this bill really does, and that is it goes after lawful permanent 
residents. Foreign nationals are people who may be visiting, may be 
coming to this country on occasion, but they are nationals, citizens of 
another country and do not have intentions of staying. Lawful permanent 
residents are exactly what the term says, they are lawfully here, they 
are permanently here and they are on their way to becoming U.S. 
citizens.
  This amendment is a sweeping indictment of the 8 or 10 million people 
who are lawful permanent residents, 2 million of whom are waiting up to 
3 years to become U.S. citizens. This amendment is telling all those 
folks, tough luck. This Congress has been very good at stripping rights 
from lawful permanent residents, but it is very bad, and I am willing 
to give them what they deserve, the opportunity to participate.
  We tax lawful permanent residents. We expect them to defend this 
country in times of war, and they do, and we have Medal of Honor 
winners to prove it. We expect them to adopt a civil life in America, 
yet we want to now with this amendment exclude them from future 
participation.
  Members should vote against this amendment if they are serious about 
campaign reform. Vote against this amendment.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, 
the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Neil Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, it has been said several times tonight 
that we had an overwhelming vote on this before, and I think that is 
probably because we did not necessarily have the full implications 
before us.
  I certainly do not fault what the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Fossella) is trying to accomplish in terms of trying to keep money that 
should not be in our campaigns out of it. But here I want to emphasize 
to all of my colleagues that we are talking about legal permanent 
residents; people who have served in the armed forces. We are in a 
situation in which we can have convicted felons who cannot vote, they 
can give money to a political campaign, but a legal permanent resident 
who is paying taxes, working hard, raising their families is not going 
to be allowed to give.
  I am speaking right now because my colleague over there is the one 
who is going to be asked. I get out of it. I listened to some people on 
the floor say ``if I was asked''. I guarantee if someone looks like me, 
with the same physiognomy that I do, they will probably not get asked. 
But who is going to get asked are the people who are likely to be seen 
as foreign.
  Anybody who is in this country under the protection of the 
Constitution is deserving of participating fully in our constitutional 
and Democratic government.

[[Page H5475]]

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I rise in very, very strong opposition to this amendment. 
We all came to this body, we took an oath of office, we swore to uphold 
the Constitution of the United States.
  We all came to this body and we took an oath of office: We solemnly 
swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The First 
Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment 
of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the 
freedom of speech, and to petition the government for a redress of 
grievances.
  Nowhere does the Constitution say that this right under the First 
Amendment is reserved to U.S. citizens. This affront today denying the 
right of legal people who have come through the process from exercising 
their right to petition to those who seek to represent them in the 
Congress from contributing is an absolute denial of free speech, a 
violation of the First Amendment and absolutely unconstitutional. I do 
not believe that we, as a dignified body, should adopt this amendment 
in this reform legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The time of the gentlewoman 
from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) has expired.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me remind my colleagues again that 369 of them voted just a few 
months ago to support the almost identical legislation. The reality is 
that you can think what you want about what the Americans think about 
the campaign finance system and how important it is to their lives 
relative to education or taxes. The reality is that if you vote against 
this amendment you are going to continue to allow noncitizens to 
influence the electoral process in this country.
  I submit, Mr. Chairman, and every colleague of mine in this House 
that what the American people want is for United States citizens and 
United States nationals to control the process, to vote and to 
contribute. If we vote no on this amendment what we are saying is that 
noncitizens can continue to influence the American election. If we vote 
yes on this amendment what we are saying is United States citizens, 
United States nationals, have the right to contribute, have the right 
to vote, have the right to influence our process.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) 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

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 282, 
noes 126, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 276]

                               AYES--282

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--126

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Farr
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Pombo
     Porter
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanford
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stokes
     Talent
     Tanner
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Baesler
     Burton
     Deal
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Fattah
     Fowler
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Hall (OH)
     Hilleary
     John
     Martinez
     McDade
     McNulty
     Olver
     Payne
     Rush
     Schaefer, Dan
     Shuster
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Stark
     Wexler
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2129

  Mr. Sanders and Mr. McInnis changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
agreed to.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I seek unanimous consent to explain a 
proposition in an attempt to bring additional order to the process on 
the floor regarding the Shays-Meehan amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, this is to request in an attempt to 
propound either a unanimous consent request or a motion, if necessary, 
all of those individuals who have offered amendments to Shays-Meehan 
who are interested in pursuing those amendments to notify me, the 
Committee on House Oversight, that they have an interest in having 
their amendments considered in order on Shays-Meehan so that we

[[Page H5476]]

will have the universe of those that are serious about their amendments 
by about 1 o'clock tomorrow so that we could perhaps begin to put 
together either a unanimous consent request or, as I said, a motion to 
create a defined universe of serious amendments to Shays-Meehan rather 
than the universe that is out there.
  So I would request by 1 o'clock tomorrow that any individual who has 
an amendment that is in order on Shays-Meehan who wishes to have it 
considered as part of a unanimous consent or a motion to notify the 
Committee on House Oversight.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MEEHAN. One of the concerns that the minority would have, Mr. 
Chairman, is that we get a full list of which amendments people respond 
to and get it in a timely fashion. In other words, if it is at 1 
o'clock tomorrow, that we could have the list at 1:15 or 1:20 so that 
we are in a position where we have a clear understanding what all the 
amendments are and who has voiced concern about having their amendment 
pulled or who really wants to go forward.
  Mr. THOMAS. Yes, exactly. I will tell the gentleman that one of the 
things I have been trying to do is determine the accuracy of the list 
of proposed amendments; that is, the seriousness of them. What we are 
going to try to do is to get a notice out and leave a little time 
tomorrow morning for it to circulate, that anyone who is serious, let 
us know. It seems appropriate that if they are serious, it could be 
part of a propounded UC or a motion, and certainly as soon as we have 
that have list, we will provide our colleagues with it to get an 
understanding of where we are trying to go in an orderly fashion.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. THOMAS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. THOMAS. My only question, Mr. Chairman, is can we in fact strike 
the last word under the amendment which was passed governing only those 
amendments under a time limit whose time limit is being drawn on if, in 
fact, the gentleman strikes the last word and there is no underlying 
amendment in front of us.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A pro forma amendment is in order.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say to my 
friend from California (Mr. Thomas) and I was going to ask him: I heard 
him say that anyone who is serious about an amendment should come to 
him.
  As I looked at the list of amendments and at the people who offered 
them, it had not previously occurred to me that being serious about an 
amendment was a prerequisite for offering one.
  Is this a new, and it is my time, is this a new rule that will only 
people on his side who are serious about their amendments will be 
allowed to offer them? Because if the people who are offering unserious 
amendments for unserious reasons were to be excluded, we could probably 
finish this in about an hour.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman once again does make a meal 
of a term which I used in an attempt to determine whether or not 
someone wanted to be included in a unanimous consent or a motion. In 
using the term ``serious'' it seems to me that someone who may have 
been serious previously, watching the political antics of the 
gentleman's side of the aisle in arguing that they are serious about 
moving forward, but failing to do so, may have lost some interest, and 
I am hoping to make sure that everyone who involves themselves in the 
process has a level of interest equal to the gentleman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, apparently by ``antics,'' 
and let us be very clear, he refers to the antics on our side. 
``Antics'' apparently is the gentleman's phrase for defeating 
amendments aimed at killing the bill. Certainly the antics have 
consisted of defeating amendments with some help on the other side. I 
think the gentleman unfairly denigrates the serious remnant on his own 
side.
  Finally, the gentleman objected that I put too much meaning into use 
of ``serious.'' I apologize for taking the gentleman at his word, and I 
will try to do an individual doing that this the future.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, since the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) has been serious and raised a serious issue, I would just like 
to repeat what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) said to 
the gentleman from California.
  If there is going to be unanimous-consent request, it must in the 
eyes of many of us, and I just speak for many of us, have a cut-off for 
a vote on Shays-Meehan and the other substitutes, because if there are 
50 amendments, we do not see how there is time between now and August 7 
to bring this to a vote, and we want not only order now, we want order 
to the end in that case.
  So I wanted to mention that to my colleague in terms of his request.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I tell my friend from Michigan (Mr. Levin) 
that it seems to me that the gentleman's request is within his own 
realm of concern reasonable. What we were able to do tonight was to 
create a degree of certainty for today, and my attempt is to begin to 
do it one day at a time.
  If the gentleman will recall, we attempted to place order on this 
process earlier. Our failure to do that or failure to get unanimous 
consent cost us a full day of legislative time in the debate of Shays-
Meehan.
  I do not want in the pursuit of order to lose any more time than is 
necessary, and if the gentleman is holding out an absolute complete 
resolution in lieu of a day-by-day resolution, I will tell the 
gentleman he will probably create more of a delay than would otherwise 
be the case.
  Let me at least now work day by day, and we will move from there, and 
I will tell the gentleman from Massachusetts that I never did intend, 
nor will I ever intend, to define for him what ``antics'' are to him.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield just briefly?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will yield to the gentleman from 
Michigan so that I can ponder.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas) we need not only order day by day, but a guarantee that order 
day by day leads to a conclusion to this before we leave.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time to say my 
understanding is we have already gotten such a guarantee, so the 
question is not whether we get a guarantee, but whether we get a 
guarantee of the guarantee because we are now several removed from the 
original guarantee, and I will now yield to the guarantor.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I am not the original guarantor, but I will 
renew that guarantee from the original guarantor, the Majority Leader, 
that we will finish campaign reform debate prior to the August recess.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let me first ask the gentleman one 
question. Just one question, and then the gentleman from California can 
finish.
  By ``complete'' does the gentleman mean a vote on the final version 
of Shays-Meehan? And I will yield again to the gentleman.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. My belief is that it would be more than 
that because Shays-Meehan is not the completion.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would it be at least that?
  Mr. THOMAS. Oh, yes. I will tell the gentleman that Shays-Meehan is 
only one of the substitutes under the rule.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman wishes it was only one.

[[Page H5477]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has expired.


   Amendment No. 59 Offered by Mr. Wicker to Amendment No. 13 in the 
              Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Shays

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment 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. 59 offered by Mr. Wicker to Amendment No. 13 
     in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Shays:
       Add at the end the following new title:

 TITLE   --PROHIBITING USE OF WHITE HOUSE MEALS AND ACCOMMODATIONS FOR 
                         POLITICAL FUNDRAISING

     SEC.   01. PROHIBITING USE OF WHITE HOUSE MEALS AND 
                   ACCOMMODATIONS FOR POLITICAL FUNDRAISING.

       (1) In General.--Chapter 29 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 612. Prohibiting use of meals and accommodations at 
       White House for political fundraising.

       ``(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to provide or 
     offer to provide any meals or accommodations at the White 
     House in exchange for any money or other thing of value, or 
     as a reward for the provision of any money or other thing of 
     value, in support of any political party or the campaign for 
     electoral office of any candidate.
       ``(b) Any person who violates this section shall be fined 
     under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or 
     both.
       ``(c) For purposes of this section, any official residence 
     or retreat of the President (including private residential 
     areas and the grounds of such a residence or retreat) shall 
     be treated as part of the White House.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     29 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new item:

``612. Prohibiting use of meals and accommodations at white house for 
              political fundraising.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) for 20 minutes.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, as many of my colleagues know, I do not agree with much 
of what this body is attempting to do in this legislation. I do not 
agree with cutting down on free speech, I do not agree that we have too 
much political expression in this country, and so I disagree with the 
direction that many of my colleagues are going in, and I think the 
American people are sort of with me on this.
  I was encouraged to see the Washington Post/ABC News poll on the 
front page of the Washington Post newspaper this morning where it said 
that some of the things that we seem to be interested in here in this 
body and inside the Beltway are not really important to the voters out 
there in the public. When asked about changing the way political 
campaigns are financed, only 32 percent of the American voters think 
that is a very important issue, and only 1 in 10, only 1 in 10, Mr. 
Chairman, will let that issue decide how they will cast their ballots 
in November.
  So I think we have been spending a lot of time talking about things 
like cutting down on free speech that we ought not to do and changing 
our campaign laws which maybe the people are not really interested in.
  Here we are right now though at a very important issue, at a problem 
which exists, and does it ever exist, as shown by these headlines from 
around the Nation:
  ``Donors Pay and Stay at the White House''; Lincoln Bedroom a Special 
Treat, a Washington Post headline, my colleagues.''
  So I rise today to bring an issue that is most important, and that is 
a problem, and that is to prohibit fund-raising in the White House, the 
actual sale of coffees and overnight stays in the White House.
  Let me make it clear that I believe the Pendleton Act of 1883 already 
makes it illegal for the President and Vice President to solicit 
contributions from the White House or the executive office buildings. 
The problem is that the law has not been enforced because courts have 
been hesitant on how to interpret the law.

                              {time}  2145

  President Clinton and others have seized upon this ambiguity and 
flagrantly violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. For this 
reason we need to pass this amendment.
  This amendment goes further than the Shays-Meehan language, and, as a 
matter of fact, I would hope the authors of Shays-Meehan would vote for 
this amendment and accept it as an amendment that perfects the language 
they had offered previously.
  This amendment would close the loopholes President Clinton and Vice 
President Gore have succeeded in driving trucks through. And, make no 
mistake about it, they drove those trucks all the way to the bank. 
There can be no doubt as to the need for this provision.
  In the history of the presidency, there has never been such an 
orchestrated effort to subvert the law and misuse public property for 
the express purpose of netting political donations. The integrity of 
the White House has been compromised by shamelessly putting it up for 
sale.
  The facts are shocking. President Clinton and Vice President Gore 
hosted more than 100 coffees inside the White House, which resulted in 
a staggering $27 million in Democrat contributions. Among the more than 
1,500 guests attending these thinly disguised political fund raisers 
were Chinese arms dealers and business executives from Thailand. 
President Clinton invited more than 300 Democrat party donors to stay 
in the Lincoln bedroom in exchange for campaign contributions.
  White House documents confirm that President Clinton solicited 
contributions by telephone from the White House, raising at least half 
a million dollars. Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., has admitted that 
he made phone calls from his White House office, and further stated 
that there was ``no controlling legal authority'' which precluded his 
actions.
  Tonight we can provide that controlling authority. This president has 
done what no president before him has ever done; he has put a price tag 
on the highest office of the land. He has sold access to the White 
House and its accommodations to raise millions of dollars for the 
Democratic National Committee and his own reelection.
  At no time did Bill Clinton and Al Gore have ownership of the White 
House. At no time did they have authority to sell or rent the White 
House. The White House belongs to the people, to the people of the 1st 
Congressional District of Mississippi, and to every Congressional 
District in the United States of America. It belongs to the American 
people.
  The passage of this amendment would make it clear that the White 
House should never again be used and abused for political fund-raising 
purposes. This short and straightforward amendment makes it illegal for 
White House meals and accommodations to be used for political fund-
raising.
  The language is very plain. There is no ambiguity, there are no 
loopholes. Neither Mr. Clinton nor Mr. Gore nor any others would ever 
be able to skirt around the law, should this be enacted.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to put an end to the sale of the White 
House and vote for this amendment.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, but I 
ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) is recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we agree with this amendment. In fact, we could 
probably get through this pretty quickly. Our bill, by ending the soft 
money loophole, would take away the incentives for any of this to 
happen.
  We have spent a lot of time over a period of the last year or so 
reading about problems in our campaign finance law. I think we can all 
agree that the White House, any White House, a Democratic or Republican 
White House, should never trade meals or accommodations for political 
fund-raising.
  So we would agree with this amendment, and we could have a vote on it 
right now and pass it unanimously.

[[Page H5478]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield five minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Mississippi for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I hear some encouraging notions from the other side, 
but silent assent is not enough, because, you see, despite the talk of 
soft money, hard money and all the different slang that is bandied 
about this House, there is a clear and explicit problem. Our British 
cousins have an expression for it. It is called ``being too clever by 
half.''
  What we have seen in this White House is nothing short of deliberate 
and despicable and dishonest, for the Vice President of the United 
States to have the audacity to stand in front of the Nation's press 
corps and say ``my legal counsel informs me there is no controlling 
legal authority,'' in the wake of a memo from the former White House 
counsel, Judge Abner Mikva, who at the time precisely warned 
administration personnel of the real problems inherent in violating the 
Pendleton Act, an act that was strengthened, my colleagues, in the 
Carter administration in 1979.
  But because there are those who attempt to be too clever by half to 
the extent that they open fund-raising to the likes of Chinese arms 
merchants and other despicable characters, we must come to this floor 
now in this vehicle to articulate that those who would seek to be 
clever and surreptitious and gain the system again will be given no 
quarter. That is why this amendment is so vitally important.
  I would go a step further, Mr. Chairman. I believe the very existence 
of the Constitution of the United States and the oversight capacity of 
the Legislative Branch over the Executive Branch ensures in fact that 
there is controlling legal authority. But to those who shamefully, 
cynically, put the Lincoln bedroom up for sale, had sadly what now 
appear to be cash-and-carry coffees, where ``Starbucks'' takes on an 
entirely different meaning, we must stand four square against that type 
of behavior.
  It is not enough to have the almost reflexive defense that 
``everybody does it.'' Mr. Chairman, nothing could be further from the 
truth. Everybody does not do it.
  So, as we continue to follow the revelations that I suppose will 
continue to emanate from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, let us 
rise with one strong voice to say enough is enough; quit putting the 
White House up for sale.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Mississippi put it appropriately, it 
is the people's House, belonging to the people of the 6th District of 
Arizona. It is not the personal property of one William Jefferson 
Clinton, nor one Albert Gore, Jr., nor any of their minions in the 
employ of the administration. It is an American home for the American 
people, not a residence where the whims of American politics and the 
imagined pressures of campaign life can lead to such dreadful abuses.
  Mr. Chairman, I say let us rise with one voice and say enough is 
enough. Support the Wicker amendment. End the dreadful abuse, and let 
us deal with genuine reform, because everybody does not do it.


               Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will take this opportunity to 
remind the colleagues in this chamber that they are not to make 
personal comments about the Vice President.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, obviously I have said that we agree to support this 
amendment. After hearing the eloquent gentleman from Arizona, he has a 
real opportunity to do something about the problems under campaign 
finance system, and that is by voting for Shays-Meehan at the end of 
this long, cumbersome process. I hope he will join us in supporting 
this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield five minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan 
(Ms. Rivers).
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I got involved with the particular efforts 
around campaign finance reform for one reason, because they were 
bipartisan. I did not believe that there was any chance to change the 
way this body operates unless there were people on both sides of the 
aisle working together.
  I came forward to be a part of this because I knew two things had to 
happen: I knew that both sides had to work together to make change, and 
both sides had to acknowledge and take the blame for the system that we 
have today. I did not want to be a part of an action that would try and 
torpedo the other side. I wanted to be part of a positive change.
  But I need to speak out today. I do support this particular 
amendment. I think it is a good idea. But I think the American people 
need to know that we need this amendment because there have been 
problems time after time after time. The system needs to be reformed 
because people on both sides of the aisle have caused problems.
  My colleague from Arizona talked about ``despicable'' and 
``dishonest.'' I would also say disingenuous.
  I have a couple of documents. One is from the Presidential 
Roundtable. It has a picture of President and Mrs. George Bush. You 
have to pay money to join the roundtable. What do you get? You get 
``one-on-one personal relationships.'' ``The Presidential Roundtable 
allows Members to participate in the development of policy, as well as 
help forge close friendships with Washington's top decisionmakers.''
  Further on you find out if you give money, you are part of a program 
``designed to take members of the Presidential Roundtable to various 
other countries to discuss economic and political issues, exclusive 
meetings that are structured primarily to bring top American 
businessmen and women together with their counterparts in Europe and 
Asia. You can have a voice in trade, the Organization of the European 
Community and the new mission of NATO.'' This is what happened in 1990.
  I have another document, the top of the letterhead is from Mr. Bob 
Dole. It is for an organization called the Republican Senatorial Inner 
Circle. If you pay money to join this group, you have an opportunity to 
take part in a variety of activities which culminate, according to this 
particular letter, ``in the fall you will be able to join Vice 
President and Mrs. Quayle for a special inner circle reception which is 
traditionally held at the Vice President's residence.'' If you pay 
money and join this group, you get to go have dinner with the Vice 
President and his wife in their taxpayer paid-for residence.
  I am going to vote for this amendment because I do not want to see 
either side doing this. But what I would like to see when we talk about 
reform is both sides stepping up and saying there have been problems 
and they need to be fixed. It is not one-sided, it is both-sided.
  Has there been dishonesty in the past? Yes. Have there been problems 
in the past? Yes. Have there been despicable practices? Yes, on both 
sides. But let us leave the disingenuous aside and start talking about 
changing for a system we can live with that people can trust.
  I have stacks and stacks and stacks of these things, and what they 
show is that there are certain ways to raise money in this town that 
are used over and over and over. And it does not matter if you are a 
Democrat or you are a Republican. What matters is if you are willing to 
change.
  There are a number of people who have stepped forward and said we are 
ready to change and we ask you to join us. Not to come forward and 
fight every progressive step, but to join us to make change, and maybe 
for everybody here to accept the system has not always worked the way 
we want it to, and to find a way to make it work better in the future.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield five minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished Majority Whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing how this town works, as the 
gentlewoman has just said. In this whole fiasco of abusing the White 
House and other illegal campaign finance issues, no one has ever stood 
up on that side of the aisle and said the President was wrong, the DNC 
is wrong, they were wrong in what they did. All they do is say well, 
they may have been wrong, but the Republicans were just as bad.

[[Page H5479]]

                              {time}  2200

  Well, today we are going to talk about the Wicker amendment, and that 
applies to the White House and what has been going on for the last 6 
years. For over 6 years, or 6 years ago, I remember President Clinton, 
or then candidate Clinton, promised the American people that he would 
establish the most ethical administration in the history of the United 
States.
  Now, I would submit to the President that he has personally done more 
to ensure that his administration is one of the least ethical in the 
220 year history of the office of the presidency. In orchestrating the 
most massive fund-raising campaign in the history of the United States, 
the President and the Vice President personally oversaw the use of the 
White House as fund-raising headquarters. Not meetings, not talking to 
constituents, not even coming and discussing policy, but using the 
White House as a fund-raising headquarters.
  Every politician understands that it is illegal to raise campaign 
funds on Federal property, yet the President and the Vice President and 
the First Lady made it their personal mission to use the White House as 
a chit in a ``cash for perks'' scheme of unprecedented proportions.
  President Clinton himself oversaw and orchestrated overnight stays in 
the Lincoln bedroom and personally attended a series of so-called 
coffees, and we have seen all of those on videotapes in pursuit of 
campaign contributions. During Operation Lincoln Bedroom, 938, 938 
guests stayed overnight in the Lincoln and the Queen's bedrooms. The 
President, of course, claims that the Lincoln bedroom was never sold. 
However, more than one-third of these guests gave money to Clinton or 
the DNC. The bedroom visitors and their companies gave at least $6 
million to the DNC and a total of $10.2 million to the Democrats.
  Now, according to the presidential press secretary, Mike McCurry, the 
Lincoln bedroom was a special way of saying ``thank you'' for services 
rendered. Now, I think everyone in this Chamber knows exactly what 
services Mr. McCurry was referring to.
  Sadly, it does not stop there. Concurrent with the Lincoln bedroom 
scheme, the Clinton administration orchestrated a series of coffees.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I just wondered if the gentleman recalls 
that, in response to this proposal to have overnight stays, the 
President actually sent a memo back to his chief of staff saying, yes, 
pursue promptly and get the names at $100,000 or more, $50,000 or more 
ready to start overnights right away, a memo from the President of the 
United States.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, there is no denying what went on. There is a 
lot of spin going on around this town trying to spin it the other way 
and blame other people and blame the Republicans, even, for setting up 
the White House.
  But even with the coffees, there were 1,528 individuals, 1,528 
individuals who were invited to 103 coffees. My goodness, they drank a 
lot of coffee. Mr. Chairman, 358 of these individuals or the companies 
they represent gave $27 million to the DNC, and approximately $8.7 
million was collected during the month before or after a personal 
coffee with the President or Vice President.
  There cannot be any question in the mind of any reasonable person 
that the administration used the White House, Federal property, as a 
quid pro quo for campaign contributions; and it is already against the 
law now to raise campaign funds on Federal property. And because of the 
Clinton administration, we need to ensure that the White House is 
never, ever again used as a prop to leverage campaign contributions.
  I ask that my colleagues support the Wicker amendment, because the 
White House belongs to the American people and not the Democrat 
National Committee.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) who has been a leader and a person who has really 
made a difference in bringing this fight to the floor of the House of 
Representatives.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his kind words. 
And to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell) who are in the House, to all of the 
Republicans who have worked on this with us Democrats, I want to 
express my optimism now that we have a real shot at reform. That is 
really the issue, whether we are going to make political speeches, try 
to make political points, or are we going to have political reform.
  I had a poster here that illustrates the statement of the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Ms. Rivers) about the Bush White House. It has an 
invitation in big print for big Republican givers, but I am going to 
forget the poster and just talk to some of my colleagues about what I 
think is their inconsistency.
  I want to join the gentleman, my colleague on the Committee on Ways 
and Means, getting up on his hind legs across the board, though, not 
just about one set of abuses but all abuses. And as the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) said, the test will be whether one votes 
``yes'' on this amendment and then ``yes'' on Shays-Meehan, or whether 
one votes ``yes'' on this amendment and ``no'' on Shays-Meehan. That is 
the test.
  The cynical vote is going to be ``yes'' on this and ``no'' on the 
bill. That would be more than clever than by a half. That would be more 
than inconsistent. My colleagues raise their voices, but we will see if 
they choke in silence when it comes to the final vote.
  Mr. Chairman, let us talk about millions and millions. I say this as 
someone who has been in this system, who has been working to change it, 
and all of us who have been in this system know that it needs change. 
How many tens of millions come in in soft money? And Shays-Meehan tries 
to get at it. How much in millions, multimillions comes in in issue 
ads, uncontrolled, without any disclosure as to who it is?
  So I am anxious to vote for this amendment, because we need to wipe 
out abuse wherever, and we have to be honest with ourselves and realize 
what has been happening to the political system of this country in the 
last 15 or 20 years.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I ask my good friend from Michigan, 
because he returned to the argument that, quote, unquote, everybody 
does it.
  Mr. LEVIN. No, no, no, I will take back my time. I will tell my 
colleague why. I will not let him label that. That is not a defense. It 
is an explanation of the depth of the problem. And what happened in the 
Bush White House was wrong and whatever happened in the Clinton White 
House, if it involved the interaction of money and participation in the 
White House, it was also wrong, and I want to end it.
  Let me just finish. I also want to end this flood of money that comes 
in without knowing whom it comes from and without limits. So do not pin 
that label.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, a simple question. Does the gentleman 
have any evidence of any Chinese arms merchants giving money to the 
Bush-Quayle reelection campaign?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, we have five or six committees looking into 
this, and I support investigations into where money came from. Mr. 
Thompson spent a number of months and came out without evidence. Now we 
will see what other committees come up with. And if there was a wrong, 
it should be, it should be not only looked into, but I think it should 
be redressed.
  But I suggest to the gentleman, if I can take back my time, and I 
have heard the gentleman in the Committee on Ways and Means, I know the 
fervor with which you speak. My only suggestion is keep a bit of that 
fervor for the final vote on Shays-Meehan, just a bit of it, and do 
what this system needs.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

[[Page H5480]]

  Is it appropriate for Members to characterize the personal delivery 
styles of other Members?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Michigan yield for 
a parliamentary inquiry by the gentleman from Arizona?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I think he was inquiring of the Chair, not 
of me.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Michigan yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, all I was saying was the gentleman is 
fervent, and I think the gentleman should be equally fervent----
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a 
parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I will finish. The gentleman should be 
equally fervent when it comes to his chance to vote for reform. Do not 
pick and choose.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan's time has 
expired.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Is it appropriate for Members to come to this Chamber 
and personally characterize the speaking styles and the conduct of 
other Members of this House while debate is going on?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will remind the Members on both 
sides of the aisle that remarks personally critical of other Members 
are to be avoided.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire about the time remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) 
has 5 minutes remaining and the right to close; and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I was sort of torn on which side I should 
ask for time from, seeing that I am working with both sides on this 
issue, and I think that this is a classic example of bipartisan and 
bicoastal cooperation.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that, first of all, I want to praise the 
gentlewoman from Michigan, because I think a lot of people, because of 
partisan concerns, do not want to come up and say our side has really 
created an unacceptable situation, and I want to commend her for that. 
Because I think a lot of people on this side are saying, why has not 
anybody been willing to admit that wrongs have been done in the recent 
past?
  I think, on the flip side, there have been things happening 
historically in the far past that have not been addressed; and I think 
we all admit, no matter what our party affiliation, that this issue has 
become so chronic and so obvious and so outrageous that this amendment 
should be made in order and should be adopted by even those of us who 
cringe, as the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from 
Connecticut does, to any type of amendment to our Shays-Meehan bill.
  The Shays-Meehan bill does not want a lot of amendments, but I think 
this is a viable one, and I would congratulate the gentleman from 
Mississippi for bringing it forward. I think it is something that the 
Democrats and Republicans can draw on.
  But let me remind my colleagues again, even with this amendment, we 
are treating a symptom to a much deeper problem. Why would anybody pay 
$100,000 to sleep in a bedroom except they think with the bedroom comes 
the ability to influence a whole lot of money and a whole lot of power? 
And the reason why people are trying to influence the political process 
in Washington is because Washington is controlling too much money and 
too much capital and too much power.
  So as we talk about campaign finance reform, let us all, especially 
those of us that worked the hardest on this over the last few years, 
recognize that we are only taking one step with this amendment. We are 
taking a nice two or three steps with the Shays-Meehan bill, but we are 
never going to complete this journey unless we are willing to stop 
having Washington control so much power and so much money out of 
Washington, D.C., and we learn to allow the people and the communities 
in America to have that power, to have that influence.
  I only wish there was as much money and as much interest in elections 
of city councils and county supervisors and commissioners and State 
assemblymen and State Senators and governors as there is in Washington, 
and the only way we can allow that to happen is to allow the people 
locally to make those decisions so that this type of influence is not 
needed and is not tried in the United States Congress.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of process that wins few friends, 
because everyone has a real sensitivity to the right and wrong of this 
issue. I acknowledge the fact that for me, I see it in black and white.
  I weep that my own party does not want to lead reform. I think this 
is an example. This amendment here is a logical thing that should be 
part of the bill. I do not know why my own party did not come forward 
with campaign finance reform and take the lead, but it chose not to, I 
think because my own party decided that if it said you had to reform 
the system, in a way it meant that the things that happened in the 
Clinton White House were not wrong because it was just that we needed 
to amend the law.
  I happen to think it is both sides. I happen to think, with all due 
respect to some on the Democratic side of the aisle, that they are 
ready to reform but do not want to investigate, and I think too many on 
my side of the aisle want to investigate but do not want to reform.
  I say this with deep respect for some of my colleagues who are pretty 
angry that I am part of this process. But the best example is soft 
money. Soft money by law is not deemed a campaign contribution. Members 
may not want to accept it, but it is true. It does not come under the 
definition of ``campaign.'' Therefore, technically, the Vice President 
was right, no controlling authority.
  I think it is a pretty obscene response, and I happen to think that 
he knew it was wrong, and I happen to think that he did not want people 
to know about it. But I hear a colleague right now just laughing, as if 
this is so absurd. It is not absurd. It just happens not to be against 
the law. It needs to be made against the law.
  One of the things we are trying to do is we are trying to ban soft 
money. The bottom line is that in Meehan-Shays we want to ban soft 
money, the unlimited sums that come from individuals, corporations, 
labor unions, and other interest groups. We want to ban them because 
the money has gotten obscene, and both sides, in my judgment, and it is 
my judgment, I admit, are shaking down businesses and others for these 
contributions. It is the White House, and I believe it is my own party. 
I believe my own party wants big contributions, and it is very clear, I 
think, to some of these businessmen and women that they have to ante 
up. I know they think that because they have told me.
  The other thing is that we want to deal with the sham issue ads. The 
sham issue ads are those campaign ads that basically almost tanked the 
gentleman from Arizona. We would ban those sham issue ads. We would not 
see corporate money being used, we would not see union dues money 
because it would be illegal, because once it is a campaign ad, they 
cannot do those ads. They can do it through PAC contributions, but not 
through members' dues, and they cannot use corporate money.
  We want to codify Beck, which is the Supreme Court decision, and we 
want to make sure if you are not a member of a union you should not 
have to have your money go for political activity. We want to make sure 
that we improve FEC disclosure and enforcement, because it is weak and 
needs to be changed.
  One of the things I believe is I believe that the Clinton White 
House, and I believe some on my side of the aisle, have gotten away 
with things they should not have because the FEC is too weak, and we do 
not have proper disclosure. When we finally found out they did

[[Page H5481]]

something wrong it was 6 years later, so it is kind of meaningless.
  I think it is wrong for Members to spend franking so close to an 
election, so we ban it 6 months to an election. We make it clear that 
foreign money and fundraising on government property is illegal. What 
we do in our bill is make sure it is illegal not just for campaign 
money, but for soft money.
  Soft money is not campaign money. That is the whole reason it snuck 
into the system. It was supposed to be party-building, but it was not 
party-building. We all know that. We know what happened to that money. 
It came to the parties, and then they funneled it right back to help 
candidates win elections.
  It was not just for getting people registered. It was for helping 
candidates. It just rerouted the system and made a mockery of our 
campaign laws. I happen to believe our campaign laws worked pretty well 
for 12 years, but they have broken down because of the sham issue ads 
and because of soft money.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays) has expired.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut, 
for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to return for a second to his observation 
about ``no controlling legal authority.'' How does my colleague from 
Connecticut then account for the memo that preceded the behavior by 
Vice President Gore from White House legal counsel Judge Abner Mikva, a 
former member of this institution, who said, for all administration 
employees, it was a violation of the Pendleton Act to solicit funds 
from Federal installations, i.e., the White House?
  Mr. SHAYS. The bottom line is, the gentleman needs to know it was 
illegal to solicit campaign funds. Soft money is not defined as a 
campaign fund. It is the reason why we need to change the law. I say it 
time and time again, and the gentleman does not seem to understand it, 
it is not a campaign contribution. The Pendleton Act gets at campaign 
contributions.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, can I ask the gentleman another question, 
because I very much want to visit what he had to talk about in terms of 
different groups and their financing of different candidates.
  Would the gentleman repeat again his notion of what is done now, if 
someone is not a union member, their dues cannot be taken? What happens 
to a union member who does not want his or her dues taken?
  Mr. SHAYS. I talked about the Beck decision. The gentleman I think is 
clear on three things, but maybe some of my other colleagues are not.
  Soft money can be union dues money. We ban it, so all union dues 
money cannot be contributed as soft money because it is not allowed, 
nor can corporate money that is soft money be allowed. We do both 
corporate and union.
  The second thing we do is we call those sham issue ads campaign ads. 
Once it is titled a campaign ad, union money and corporate money cannot 
be used, because we by law now define an advertisement and forbid dues 
money in a campaign advertisement and corporate money in a campaign 
advertisement.
  Then which get to the third part. This is the part the gentleman is 
most interested in. The Beck decision was a contest by someone who was 
not a member of the union who said his money should not be used for 
political purposes. The court made a ruling in the Beck decision that 
if you were not a member of the union, your money could not be used. 
That was the decision of the court.
  Now, what my wife did was when she complained that her money, and my 
wife was a teacher and a member of the union in New Canaan, 
Connecticut, was going to a Democrat candidate who she opposed, she 
supported the Republican candidate, she said she did not want her money 
going, and the union said, you are a member of the union and we can 
spend it the way we want.
  She said, well, I no longer choose to be a member of the union, then. 
She was able to deduct her political contribution and pay less union 
dues than that amount that was political. That was her right under the 
Beck decision. We codify it into law.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Chairman, one 
further question to follow up.
  In view of the fact that in several markets around the country, 
probably including Phoenix, the AFL-CIO will start an ad campaign, does 
the gentleman not worry about the constitutionality of attempting to 
abridge people's ability to speak? Because even though I am often 
personally the target of these abusive and false ads, I just do not 
think, or I would ask, does not the gentleman have some concerns that 
this could be unconstitutional?
  Mr. SHAYS. The gentleman may have some concerns. I have little 
concerns about whether corporate or union money can be declared 
unconstitutional when it is a campaign ad. That has already been 
determined.
  So the issue, to be fair to the gentleman, the issue is, is a 
campaign ad a campaign ad that has the picture and the name of an 
individual, as we define it? And I think yes, and I think the court 
will uphold it.
  There is the other issue of whether the Supreme Court will agree with 
the Ninth Circuit or the First and Fourth, which talked about, 
essentially, that if it walked like a duck and quacked like a duck, it 
is a duck, it is a campaign ad, and two lower courts have gone in 
different directions. The court is going to have to decide which side 
they are going to come up with.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. One further question, since the gentleman advances the 
argument that everybody does it, and he had his suspicions. Does the 
gentleman have any evidence that the Bush administration took any 
donations from Chinese arms merchants?
  Mr. SHAYS. I do not think they did.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman made a statement earlier that 
I take great exception to, that his party does not lead reform. No, I 
totally disagree with the gentleman, and would say that the gentleman's 
party does not lead the kind of reform that the gentleman wants. His 
party wants other kinds of reform.
  Mr. SHAYS. I would take even other kinds of reform. I just want to 
see reform.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of closing the debate, I yield 
the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Gutknecht).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Gutknecht) is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very instructive debate. I think it 
gets to the core of what we are talking about. Just a few moments ago 
the gentleman from Connecticut said he wanted reform. I submit what we 
really want is compliance.
  Mark Twain once observed that human beings are the only creatures 
that God has created that can blush, or needs to. What has happened to 
our ability to blush? What has happened to our moral outrage? Twenty-
seven million dollars was raised at White House coffees. We do not 
really need reform, I say to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays), we simply need people who lead by example. Most of what we are 
talking about here tonight, most of the abuses we have read about, 
headline after headline, those are things that I think all of us know 
are wrong. They are simply wrong.
  I would call the gentleman's attention to this amendment. I rise in 
support of this amendment. But even this amendment is fatally flawed, 
especially if somebody can legalistically rationalize no compelling 
legal authority. Then all of the rest of this, for example, the 
language is, ``any official residence or retreat of the President, 
including private residential areas and the grounds of such a residence 
or retreat.''
  Does that mean Camp David? I think it does. But somebody else may say 
it does not. We can purse, we can come up with legalisms, we can come 
up with

[[Page H5482]]

excuses. That really, at the end of the day, is the fundamental 
argument about ``campaign finance reform.'' Our entire legal system, 
and particularly campaign finance, relies on voluntary compliance.
  When we have people who are bound and determined to use their power, 
to use their office, to abuse the influence of that office, I do not 
think we can write campaign finance laws that are strong enough. I wish 
we could.
  If anybody in this room, probably the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth) and myself would love to see the stopping of this nonsense we 
have seen, the abuses of issue advocacy advertising and soft money and 
all the rest. But I suspect in the end the Supreme Court is going to 
say that that is protected political free speech. In the end what we 
are going to come back to is that certain people are going to figure 
out a way to get around whatever language we put in.
  We had campaign finance reform before, and we will probably have it 
again. But in the end, only good people are bound by the law.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I move the question on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) 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.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 442, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Wicker) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


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

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns to Amendment No. 13 in the 
     nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Shays:
       Amend section 506 to read as follows (and conform the table 
     of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 506. BAN ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS BY NONCITIZENS.

       Section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441e) is amended to read as follows:


              ``contributions and donations by noncitizens

       ``Sec. 319. (a) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for--
       ``(1) a noncitizen, directly or indirectly, to make--
       ``(A) a donation of money or other thing of value, or to 
     promise expressly or impliedly to make a donation, in 
     connection with a Federal, State, or local election to a 
     political committee or a candidate for Federal office, or
       ``(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a 
     political party; or
       ``(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a 
     contribution or donation described in paragraph (1) from a 
     noncitizen.
       ``(b) Treatment of Nationals of the United States.--For 
     purposes of subsection (a), a `noncitizen' of the United 
     States does not include a national of the United States (as 
     defined in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act).''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the previous order of today, 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take very much time. We have already 
been through this debate. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) 
has already offered primarily most of this amendment, but I would like 
to just formally put it in place, because there are some additions to 
his amendment that I think are important to specify. That is why I am 
here tonight.
  I rise to offer this amendment to the Shays-Meehan substitute, the 
Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act.

                              {time}  2230

  This amendment, of course, clarifies the law by placing an explicit 
ban on campaign contributions by noncitizens, including illegal aliens, 
which was in part of the debate previously, for all elections, Federal, 
State and local and for contributions or donations to a committee of a 
political party.
  And on those two last points, Mr. Chairman, my amendment sort of 
compliments and expands upon the Fossella amendment previously debated. 
So that there is a ban on foreign contributions. It will not be limited 
to just Federal elections but this extends all the way over to state 
and local. It would encompass all political campaigns in the country 
and political party campaigns.
  I think the second addition is that my amendment is significantly 
different in that it prohibits individuals from soliciting or accepting 
foreign donations. Mr. Chairman, I think we have had the debate on the 
Fossella amendment.
  I just point out, in conclusion, that basically I just move at the 
State and local level and then also talk about prohibits individuals 
from soliciting or accepting foreign donations.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). Does any Member seek the time 
in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) to amendment No. 13 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.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) to 
Amendment No. 13 in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) are postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


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

  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Pickering to Amendment No. 13 in 
     the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Shays:
       In section 506, strike ``Section 319'' and insert ``(a) In 
     General.--Section 319'', and add at the end the following:
       (b) Prohibiting Use of Willful Blindness as Defense Against 
     Charge of Violating Foreign Contribution Ban.--
       (1) In general.--Section 319 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441e) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(b) It shall not be a defense to a violation of 
     subsection (a) that the defendant did not know that the 
     contribution originated from a foreign national if the 
     defendant was aware of a high probability that the 
     contribution originated from a foreign national.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply with respect to violations occurring on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the previous order of today, 
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) is recognized for 20 
minutes.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise today to offer this amendment on something that I believe, 
just as we saw on the previous amendment by the gentleman from 
Mississippi on the use of the White House as a means to raise 
contributions, that this is an area where we, too, can reach consensus.
  Let me say, as I start the debate, that I want first to commend all 
the participants in the debate. I think this is a very important issue. 
Those who are proposing, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) although I profoundly 
disagree with their approach of reform and believe it is an 
infringement of constitutional rights and freedom, I do appreciate 
their intent and their motives.
  But for those of us who disagree with their approach to reform, we 
are trying to find those areas where we have seen the gross abuses and 
violations and to

[[Page H5483]]

go back and find ways to close those loopholes, to bring greater 
credibility and to protect the intent and the purpose of the laws now 
existing on the books.
  It is illegal to accept foreign contributions but in this past 
presidential election, we have seen case after case after case of 
illegal foreign contributions. And the reason tonight that I have this 
picture as I present the case for this amendment is that I think that 
it is probably the best picture, the best illustration that shows the 
case or describes the term willful blindness, turning a blind eye.
  As many already know, there was a fund-raiser in a Buddhist monastery 
in California, and we have heard many different descriptions of that. 
But the purpose has become clear over the investigation that it was a 
fund-raiser, and it was an opportunity to launder illegal foreign 
contributions.
  There was money changing in the temple. And just as in the bible 
story, the biblical story where we had the corruption in the temple, we 
have seen the corruption in our campaign process and election process 
through foreign contributions. And what is the consequence? We now have 
the investigations going forward on technology transfers and nuclear 
proliferation and the buying of access, the foreign access, and the 
possibility of subverting the policy decisionmaking in this 
administration, the buying of access illegally through foreign sources, 
and the willful blindness of this administration and the DNC to accept 
those contributions and have the corruption and the money changing in 
our election and campaign process.
  This amendment is intended to stop those who in recent campaigns 
raised illegal campaign cash from foreign sources. It is obvious that 
the political committees operated without obtaining adequate 
information regarding the source of these suspicious donations. They 
had no system in place to check the validity of campaign cash.
  It has been documented in the press and congressional investigations 
that Democratic activists not only brought in envelopes of cash and 
suspicious money orders. They also created a network of illegal foreign 
donors that supplied millions of dollars for the Clinton-Gore 
reelection campaign.
  It has been documented that the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
and Firearms, the CIA, the National Security Council all raised 
concerns regarding the individuals that were associated with the 
Democratic Party and many of the contributions. There have been stories 
in the news regarding the improper use of the Lincoln bedroom, Air 
Force One, White House coffees and the White House staff arranging 
foreign trade missions for Democrat donors.
  We know that the public will not tolerate such abuses of power 
because of the public outrage that we have seen, the intensive media 
coverage of the stories and the allegations and the abuses that was 
caused after the discovery that the DNC, President Clinton and Vice 
President Al Gore had attended fund-raisers that raised illegal foreign 
money.
  Now, why is the original law on our books? Why do we ban illegal or 
foreign contributions? Because we believe that our national security is 
at stake. And that if foreign sources can influence U.S. campaigns, 
U.S. elections and U.S. policy, will it be our interests or China's 
interests that are being bought and sold? We must have this protection 
in place. And what we have seen time and time again is the willful 
blindness defense in relation to these foreign contributions. They did 
not know. Somehow they did not know that this was a fund-raiser. A 
blind eye.
  Well, the American people will not accept us in this place in this 
House turning a blind eye to the corruption and the abuses that took 
place dealing with foreign contributions. My amendment will close that 
loophole, take away that defense.
  One example of a conspiracy is to launder illegal funds with the 
DNC's fund-raiser at the Buddhist monastery in California. It is being 
investigated here in Congress. As a matter of fact, it was discovered 
during the Senate's recent investigation that this fund-raiser was 
organized by John Huang and Maria Hsai. They both have asserted their 
Fifth Amendment rights in the ongoing congressional investigation and 
Ms. Hsai was recently indicted by a Federal grand jury.
  Again, Vice President Gore participated in this fund-raiser. But 
there were different stories and different accounts, different defenses 
used by the Vice President as this became public.
  On Meet the Press, October 13, 1996, he said, We have strictly abided 
by all the campaign laws, strictly. There have been no violations.
  Then on October 21, 1996, Mr. Gore stated that the DNC set up the 
event and asked me to attend it. It was not a fund-raiser. It was 
billed as a community outreach event. And indeed, no money was offered 
or collected at the event. But after the fact contributions were sent 
in. I did not handle any of this.
  Then his story changes again. Finally, on January 20, 1997, Mr. Gore 
acknowledged that he knew the event was a fund-raiser. It was a mistake 
for the DNC to hold a fund-raiser event at a temple, and I take 
responsibility for my attendance at the event.
  On February 14, 1997, the White House released documents that proved 
that the Vice President's office knew beforehand that the Huang event 
was a fund-raiser and the documents warned Mr. Gore to use great, great 
caution.
  According to the February 10, 1998 edition of the Washington Post, 
Mr. Gore was informed through internal e-mail and memorandums by then 
Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes that the event was a fund-raiser. 
Here are some interesting facts about the DNC fund-raiser at the 
Buddhist monastery. The cost per head was $2,500. The monks that 
donated to the DNC lived on a monthly stipend of $40.
  The Senate investigation proved that the individuals were reimbursed 
for their donations. In other words, it was an illegal laundering of 
campaign contributions from questionable sources, many traced back to 
foreign donations or foreign money.
  This event was videotaped by a private photographer. All copies of 
the videotape footage were taken from the production company by the 
Buddhist monastery and quickly shipped to Taiwan. The monk that took 
the tapes left the monastery after he learned the Senate Committee on 
Governmental Affairs served the monastery with a subpoena in search of 
those tapes. He has since disappeared and the videotapes remain hidden 
to this day.

  But efforts to raise illegal campaign cash by the Democrats were not 
limited to this monastery. According to Bob Woodward, in the May 16, 
1998 edition of the Washington Post, Johnny Chung, a Democratic fund-
raiser, informed the U.S. Justice Department that a Chinese military 
officer who was an executive at the state-owned aerospace company gave 
him $300,000 to donate to the Democrats' 1996 campaign. As we know, the 
Chinese government's conspiracy to buy influence with Democratic 
leaders during the 1996 election has been well documented and will be 
fully investigated in this Congress.
  As we look through the headlines today, it is overwhelming. The 
Washington Post, Saturday, May 16, Chung Ties China Money to DNC. New 
York Times, Democrat Fund-raiser said to Detail China Tie. New York 
Times, February 15, 1997, Clinton and Gore Received Warnings on Asian 
Donors. Chicago Tribune, Memos to Clinton Warned of Donors, Alarm 
Sounded Over Chinese Fund-raisers.
  What is the defense? Willful blindness. Somehow they did not know.
  Newsweek, White House Shell Game, Clinton Campaign's Frantic Fund-
raising May Have Crossed the Line. The Washington Times, Huang's 
prodding for Lippo, an Indonesian company, verified. Washington Post, 
Scandal Alarms Went Unanswered. The Washington Post, DNC Acknowledges 
Inadequate Checks on Donors. The Washington Times, Foreign money 
scandal grows as $15 million offer is.
  The Washington Post, Gore Community outreach Touched Wallets at 
Temple. The Washington Times, 31 Donors list DNC as Home Address.
  It is the ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy of campaign fund-raising. 
I could go article after article after article until we are numb with 
the corruption. We simply want to protect our national security. We 
want to close this loophole. We want to take away this legal defense of 
willful blindness. The American people will not take a blind eye, 
neither should we.

[[Page H5484]]

  I hope that we can have a consensus on this amendment that this 
defense will not be tolerated, will not be accepted and that we will 
close this loophole to make enforcement of illegal foreign 
contributions workable, doable and the law and practice of the land.

                              {time}  2245

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, if I could know the proper request. I am not 
sure I oppose this, but I would like to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The gentleman may, under a 
unanimous consent request, claim the time in opposition.
  Mr. SHAYS. I thank the Chairman, and I do request that.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) 
is recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I understand the intent of the gentleman from Mississippi and agree 
with a good number of his remarks, but I would like him, if he would, 
to describe to me the term of art in section sub (b).

       It shall not be a defense to a violation of subsection (a) 
     that defendant did not know that the contribution originated 
     from a foreign national if the defendant was aware of a high 
     probability that the contribution originated from a foreign 
     national.
  Is this a term of art that is used that the courts have defined? 
Because I am not aware of it and, if so, I would like to know where it 
is used.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that it is a 
clarification of the ban on foreign contributions. The defense of the 
administration and many of those in the various investigations 
surrounding foreign contributions again go back time and time again to 
it was a lack of knowledge or it was a lack of a system of checks. But 
I believe it was a willful blindness, and this would simply take away 
that defense from those who are responsible in campaigns for raising 
money to know the source of the donors.
  If we look at the RNC, in their past practices, they have set in 
place an elaborate system of checks on all donors, all sources, and 
especially if they have any potential relationship to a foreign 
contribution.
  Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, my question, though, 
still stands. I am aware of the terms knowing and willful. An 
individual has to know and has to be willful, and that is a term that 
has been defined by law in both the States and the Federal Government 
for a long time. I have never seen the concept of a high probability, 
and I am just interested if the gentleman, and this may be, in fact, 
what he decided to do, but is this a term of art that has been used in 
the past? I am not aware of it being used in the past. Or is this a 
term that the gentleman had to use to reach the conclusion he wanted to 
reach?
  I would be happy to ask someone else if they wanted to respond. For 
the legislative record as well it would be helpful for us to have some 
definition of this term of high probability.
  Mr. PICKERING. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the high 
probability would become the standard in these types of cases and it 
would, I believe, set a clearer standard than the one we have today. 
The high probability that the contribution originated from the foreign 
national would set the definition and the standard by what is 
responsible for those who are accepting and raising and soliciting 
foreign campaign contributions.
  Mr. SHAYS. Would this be a term of art that the court would help us 
define or the FEC?
  Mr. PICKERING. It could be done either way, as the litigation and the 
different challenges progress through the campaign FEC process and 
through the court process. But I do believe that we would find an 
answer to the gentleman's question as far as case law and precedent on 
the term high probability. I would be glad to work with the gentleman 
to answer that question.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I, too, could potentially support the 
amendment, but high probability, there is no legal texture to that. I 
do not believe that there is any case law that has been determined 
anywhere that I know of where high probability was the legal basis of 
anything.
  Before I got here I was a prosecutor in Massachusetts. We had 13,000 
cases a year. I think willfulness may be the legal term that we want, 
but I just do not know that there is any court that has ever defined 
from the legal perspective the term high probability. I do not know 
what high probability is.
  High probability. If we get a contribution from someone whose last 
name is, I do not know, Chin, and there are a lot of Chinese people 
named Chin; is that high probability? If the court cannot define what a 
high probability is, then I think we ought to use a term that has a 
legal texture, a term that is in Black's Law Dictionary, a term that 
courts somewhere somehow have used to determine legislative intent.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentleman from Mississippi a 
friendly question so we understand this, and I guess the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) will have to yield to him.
  As I read this amendment, it says in the caption ``prohibiting use of 
willful blindness.'' The word willful is there, and then later on the 
term high probability. In order to violate this statute, would there 
have to be willfulness?
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. PICKERING. Yes, that would be the legal standard of a willful 
act.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) will 
continue to yield, is the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) 
using high probability to mean willfulness?
  Mr. PICKERING. The high probability, there would be a willfulness, 
and the willfulness would be determined in clause (b) by the 
probability that he should be aware.
  For example, when Vice President Gore went to the Buddhist monastery, 
should he have had a high probability that that was a fund-raising 
event and, given the nature of that fundraiser, was there a probability 
that they could have received, since the nuns and the monks at that 
monastery live on about a $40 stipend, would a reasonable person, would 
a reasonable court decide that there was a probability that there was 
illegal laundering and that there was a probability of foreign sources 
in that contribution?
  Mr. LEVIN. The gentleman's answer is that he should have a different 
standard than willfulness. Now, I am not sure how this was drafted, but 
maybe the thing to do is, if the gentleman wants to pass this 
amendment, understand its contradictions or take it back and try to 
rewrite it so that it does not have the inconsistencies. The caption 
reads the same way.
  Mr. PICKERING. I do not see an inconsistency between willful 
blindness and a fleshing out of that. Was he aware of a high 
probability that a contribution originated from a foreign national? I 
do not see any inconsistency in that standard. It supports and, 
further, I think enhances the language of willful blindness.
  There may be a case to what court precedent does it refer to, what 
standard and what definition, but I do think that the high probability 
supports the intent.
  Mr. LEVIN. I think it would help if the gentleman could cite any 
noncriminal statute in this country that uses the term high 
probability; any civil statute that has the term high probability in 
it.
  Mr. PICKERING. I will be glad to get back to the gentleman. I will 
ask the staff to research the matter.
  Mr. LEVIN. Good. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I do not know who is watching this, I hope

[[Page H5485]]

some of the Members are, but we just got a legal lesson and I do not 
know what these lawyers were talking about. I do know what willful 
blindness as a defense means from a personal common sense point of 
view. I also know what high probability means relative to a 
contribution originating from a foreign national. It is English 
language. It is a pretty high probability that if one goes to a 
Buddhist temple and gets all kinds of gifts and are told either 
verbally or in memos that it is a fundraiser, it is a pretty high 
probability the money is being raised there and it is a fundraiser.
  Maybe 80 percent, 90 percent. I mean, if you have a friend by the 
name of Charlie Yah Lin Trie that you have known for 14 years, as a 
person that does nothing but business with Asian clients, and he comes 
and gives you $640,000, then there has got to be a high probability 
that it came from foreign nationals, and you cannot walk around and 
say, I was blind to that, even though it came on a check from a Chinese 
bank, wrapped in red Pagoda cigarettes or something.
  If you have got a friend by the name of Paulene Kanchanalak, who is a 
lobbyist for Thailand and helped form a U.S. Thai business council and 
donated contributions to the DNC and had frequent contacts and coffees 
with John Huang, then it is a high probability that the money that you 
are getting comes from foreign nationals.
  If you have a friend by the name of Johnny Chien Chuen Chung, a 
Taiwanese American from Torrance, California, and his company does 
business with foreign nationals and comes up with $366,000 for the 
Democratic Party, then it is a high probability that when you receive 
that along with all the other stuff you have received, that you 
probably, in high probabilities, know that it came from foreign 
nationals. You cannot walk around and say, oh, gee, I did not know 
that, and then get off, and then have your spin meisters run up and 
down Pennsylvania Avenue and get all kinds of interviews and try to 
cover-up the fact that you are taking money from foreign nationals.
  If you have a friend by the name of Arief and Soraya, and I cannot 
even pronounce the last name, Wiriadinata, something like that, who 
donated $450,000 to the DNC and was friends with a guy named Johnny 
Huang, and later returned it because Wiriadinata could not explain 
where it came from, then probably there is a high probability that it 
is money from foreign nationals.
  I could go on with John Lee and Cheong Am, Yogesh Gandhi, Ng Lap 
Seng, Supreme Master Suma Ching Hai and George Psaltis.
  These are American names, I know, and a lot of them are Americans and 
American citizens, but many of them did business with foreign nationals 
and brought money to the DNC and others.
  All this amendment does is give the opportunity or take away the 
defense, with all the legalese pushed aside, takes away the defense 
that says, oh, well, I did not know it. It did not seem proper to me 
but I did not know it. Therefore, I am not guilty for breaking the law.
  We are just making it once and for all breaking the law.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman did not mean it to 
sound this way but when I listened to it it sounded this way. It 
sounded like if you have a foreign name, there was a high probability 
they were foreigners.
  Mr. DeLAY. Reclaiming my time, I knew the gentleman from Connecticut 
would try to do that.
  Mr. SHAYS. That is what it sounded like.
  Mr. DeLAY. That is not my point. My point is that the administration 
and the DNC knew exactly who these people were, had known them for 
many, many long years, knew their contacts and I guarantee the 
gentleman, knew where this money came from, and walking into a Buddhist 
temple knowing that it was a fund-raiser and then walking out and 
saying, oh, well, I just really did not know it was a fund-raiser and I 
did not know I was getting foreign nationals is not a defense against 
the guilt of breaking the law, and the gentleman from Mississippi is 
making sure of the fact that you cannot claim blindness when there is a 
high probability you know that you are breaking the law.
  Mr. SHAYS. Would the gentleman yield? I will yield on my time.
  Mr. DeLAY. Okay.
  Mr. SHAYS. If I may, I just would be happy to take some time here. 
The gentleman is not saying if you have a foreign name, there is a high 
probability?
  Mr. DeLAY. No, I am not saying that.
  Mr. SHAYS. Okay. I just think the record needs to show that.
  Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate that. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) has 2 minutes remaining, and the right to 
close. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 12 minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield such time as he might 
consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  The problem with the amendment, and we could come to some kind of an 
agreement, it seems to me, but the problem with the amendment is the 
term high probability is a statistical term. It has to do with the 
likelihood that something is going to happen. It is not a legal term. 
There is not any case, any civil case, there is not any criminal case. 
We cannot just be passing legislation. We have to take this seriously.
  We should assume that this might become law. If we are doing that, we 
ought to sit down and come up with legislation and come up with wording 
in this instance that is something like this: That an individual knew 
or should have known. That is the legal terminology we should be able 
to sit down and come up with so we can have an agreement on this 
amendment. There is plenty of time in this debate to show photographs 
of the Vice President or anyone else for the political part of the 
argument, but it seems to me that it would be more constructive if we 
could work out language that we could come to an agreement on like knew 
or had reason to know.
  There have been civil actions all over the country that people have 
been very successful on. There have been criminal actions people have 
been in.

                              {time}  2300

  It is knew or should have known, that is what the legal term is, but 
not high probability. I think we can work this out.
  Mr. PICKERING. If the gentleman would yield, I would be glad to work 
with him. I think our intent is the same, to close this loophole, to 
take away this defense; and the language that my colleague suggested is 
something that I would be glad to sit down and work with him on.
  I would add, though, that I believe we both understand the intent of 
this law. We have both seen the abuses. I think there is consent that 
we want to close that loophole and take away that defense, that we do 
not want to stand up here as American people, listen to this debate and 
say there is no controlling legal authority.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that is another 
amendment that we can get to. But I get the point. Hopefully, we will 
be able to work out the language on this.
  I just do not want to see us accept all kinds of amendments and then 
have a high probability that it will all have to be thrown out once we 
finish with all this, because there clearly is a high probability that 
that would happen. But if we are looking at a legal term, I have a 
number that I can suggest and I think come to an accommodation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and I thank him for his patience.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, if a modern day Rip Van Winkle tuned in 
today after napping for 25 years, who could fault him for immediately 
tuning out this debate on campaign finance reform? In 1971 and 1974 
Congress passed campaign finance reforms that limited the amount of 
money in politics and, for the first time, required candidates to 
disclose the source of their money. The wisdom

[[Page H5486]]

and application of those reform efforts have been debated by Congress 
ever since--annually, emotionally, and with futility.
  So, for the last 25 years, Congressional campaigns have been 
conducted under a set of rules that have become unenforceable (through 
systematic defunding of the Federal Elections Commission), weakened (by 
court decisions), and yet located at the heart of the American distrust 
with elected officials. The Harris Poll showed us earlier this year 
that 85 percent of Americans believe special interests have more 
influence than voters on this institution. Who can fault them when 
total campaign spending has risen from $115 million in 1975, to $450 
million in 1985, and almost certainly to over $1 billion in this 
election? Is it any wonder that voter turnout is at an all-time low, 
and that respect for Members of this institution seems to rise only 
when we are not in session?
  In my relatively short time in Congress, I have seen how campaigns 
are financed, and how that distorts the decision making process. We 
would not have nearly the number of people who die each year from 
tobacco related deaths if it weren't for the influence of tobacco money 
in politics. I see negative ads from anonymous sources tearing at the 
fabric of our society. I see honest men and women trying to buck a 
system that distorts and creates negative consequences. And I see my 
colleagues, including Mr. Allen, Mr. Shays, Mr. Meehan and others, 
devoting enormous time and creativity to meaningful reforms that don't 
tilt in favor of Republicans or Democrats, don't unduly help 
incumbents, but does cut down the pursuit of campaign money.
  We now know how cynically the deck has been stacked yet again against 
reform. Those who look at the current system and see nothing wrong have 
a rule that permits them to call up 258 non-germane amendments, 
essentially talking reform to death. Those who argue that we need more 
money in politics are using their control over the calendar to prevent 
a House bill--should one miraculously pass--from reaching the Senate 
before adjournment.
  Despite these shenanigans, Mr. Chairman, we are not going to give up. 
The opponent of reform may succeed in pushing campaign finance reform 
into the 106th Congress, but reform is not going to die. The American 
people know the system is broken, and at the very least, we are going 
to give them a series of votes so after all the debate, after all the 
stalling tactics and parliamentary maneuvering, it will be perfectly 
clear who squandered this opportunity, and why.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pickering) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gibbons, 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.

                          ____________________