Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 97 (Monday, July 20, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 97 (Monday, July 20, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5916-H5934]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN INTEGRITY ACT OF 1997

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hulshof). 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} 1828

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. Miller of Florida (Chairman pro
tempore) in the chair.

[[Page H5917]]

The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole House rose
on Tuesday, July 14, 1998, pending was Amendment No. 11 by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) to Amendment No. 13 by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 17, 1998, no
further amendment to the Amendment No. 13 by the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) shall be in order, except those 55 amendments
placed at the desk pursuant to that order.
Those amendments shall be considered in the order listed, may be
offered only by the Member designated, or his designee, shall be
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified, equally
divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question.
Pursuant to that order, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Pickering), and a Member opposed, each will control 5 minutes on the
pending amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).

{time} 1830

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry, for the sake
of this debate.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). Will the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) yield for the purpose of a
parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. PICKERING. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify how we are allocating time,
are we under the requirement of 10 minutes? And does someone need to
claim time if not in opposition, at least claim the time?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Time is controlled 5 minutes on each side.
The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) controls 5 minutes and
an opponent.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I claim that 5 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays)
will be recognized for 5 minutes.

Modification to Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Pickering to the
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my
amendment be modified with the additional language at the desk. This
language was printed under the unanimous consent agreement in Friday's
Congressional Record.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).
The Clerk read as follows:

Modification to amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Pickering
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered
by Mr. Shays: The amendment is modified as follows:
In section 319(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971, as proposed to be inserted by the amendment--
(1) strike ``was aware of a high probability'' and insert
``should have known''; and
(2) strike the period at the end and insert the following:
``, except that the trier of fact may not find that the
defendant should have known that the contribution originated
from a foreign national solely because of the name of the
contributor.''.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Mississippi?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is modified.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering)
for 5 minutes.
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to complete the debate that we started the
other night on the amendment now before the House which will take away
and close the loophole that will allow those who take contributions
from foreign sources the legal defense of willful blindness.
We used this illustration to show probably the best picture
describing in a thousand words what can only be seen in this picture,
and that is the expression and the term ``willful blindness,'' the
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy of foreign campaign contribution.
What we want to do is stop the flow of illegal foreign contributions
into our election process, to stop the money changing in our temple and
to stop the money changing in our election and campaign process from
foreign sources.
I appreciate the support from both sides of the aisle on this
amendment because I do think we can close the loophole and stop many of
the practices that we saw in the last presidential and campaign cycle,
examples like the fund-raising in the Buddhist Temple, Charlie Trie
bringing envelopes of cash and suspicious money orders to the DNC,
Johnny Chung funneling cash provided by the Chinese military officer to
the DNC.
Because, Mr. Chairman, what is at stake is our national security. As
we have seen the proliferation and the nuclear proliferation issues in
Asia and China and Iran and Pakistan and India, we want to make sure
that these contributions or these types of contributions do not
influence decisions and policies in this administration or any others
to come. We want to clean the temple, we want to clean the process, and
we want to have integrity in our election process.
I accept, and I gladly accept, the cooperation from both sides of the
aisle on this amendment. I look forward to the acceptance in a few
minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I would point out that we are again debating campaign
finance reform and our effort to restore integrity to the political
system, and the bill that is before us would ban soft money, the
unlimited sums that individuals, corporations and labor unions and
other interest groups give to the political parties that then get
rerouted right back down to candidates.
We require that the sham issue ads be noted as campaign ads and
legitimate campaign ads and that it come under campaign law.
We codify Beck, which gives individuals, not a member of a union, the
right not to pay an agency fee for political activity, and we improve
the FEC disclosure and enforcement.
In addition, we ban districtwide frank mailing 6 months to an
election. Finally, we require that foreign money and fund-raising on
government property be illegal.
The amendment before us offered by the gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Pickering) is a good faith attempt to make sure that the intention
of this bill is carried out, and we concur with it. We concur with the
language that he has chosen to use, which is instead of ``a high
probability,'' that contribution originated from a foreign national, we
would strike out that and say the individual ``should have known.'' We
concur with that.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good amendment and should be adopted.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes time to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise again in support of the Pickering
amendment. Last week I rose to support this amendment and I understand
that some of my comments at the time caused some concern in some
quarters. Of course, I had the Clinton scandals in mind when I first
spoke in favor of this amendment.
Evidence shows that the Clinton-Gore reelection effort and the
Democrat National Committee purposely sought foreign money in an effort
to bypass our election laws. As far back as 1992, the Clinton-Gore
campaign was raising money from foreign sources. It was in this context
that I made my remarks last week.
In no way was it my intention to suggest impropriety on the part of
anyone other than those persons working for the Clinton-Gore campaign
and the Democrat National Committee, and involved in the solicitation
of illegal foreign donations.
Let me take this opportunity to once again offer my sincere apologies
to anyone whom I may have inadvertently offended. I would like to note,
however, that it was the height of hypocrisy for the DNC to attack me
for reading the names of those who funneled illegal money into the DNC
and

[[Page H5918]]

the Clinton-Gore campaign. After all, the DNC was the ones who broke
the law and they have never offered anything other than arrogant,
evasive justifications.
There have been seven people charged by the Justice Department for
laundering illegal campaign funds from foreign sources to the DNC, and
the DNC has returned millions in illegal contributions since the 1996
elections.
Mr. Chairman, at some point during the debate on campaign finance
reform I am going to offer a sense of the Congress amendment that an
independent counsel should be appointed to investigate the abuses by
the Democrat National Committee. I hope the Members will support my
amendment. In the meantime, I support the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) and urge its adoption.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), we enjoyed working with the language. I
think to take ``high probability'' and insert ``known or should have
known'' certainly makes a lot more sense in terms of coming up with a
section of the law that would be enforceable, whether it is civilly or
criminally.
I do wish, however, that as we work through these amendments, and
many of the amendments are being proposed to the Shays-Meehan
legislation by people who I suspect ultimately will actually oppose
campaign finance reform, I would like to encourage those Members who
are able to work out agreement on amendments to actively consider
supporting the Shays-Meehan legislation.
This is an amendment we have agreed to. I think it is a good
amendment. Most of us think it is a good amendment. But if we really
want this amendment to become part of law, what we really need Members
to do is to support the Shays-Meehan legislation, which is a bipartisan
piece of legislation. It has support on both sides of the aisle.
It would make soft money illegal. It would also crack down and
require disclosure on sham issue ads. It would give the FEC the teeth
that they need to enforce the laws that are already on the books. I
think many of us on both sides of the aisle have witnessed over the
last year or two all kinds of areas where we need to make improvements
in our campaign finance laws. The best way to make those improvements
is by supporting the Shays-Meehan legislation.
I believe that we are at a point in time that we are on the verge of
having a majority of the Members of this House who support that
legislation. So, I look forward to working with both sides of the aisle
on amendments, amendments that we can come to an agreement on. But I
would hope that the authors of these amendments, many of whom I suspect
have no intentions of supporting the Shays-Meehan legislation, will
consider changing their view ultimately on our bill and having a strong
bipartisan vote in favor of Shays-Meehan at the end of this
legislation.
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. How much time do
I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) has 1 minute and the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Pickering) for bringing this amendment to the floor and
wholeheartedly support it. What it says is that a political party
official, if he should have known that a contribution originated from a
foreign source, he or she cannot use the willful blindness as a
defense. That seems to have happened at least once and we think many
times in the various investigations in campaign irregularities that we
have been doing in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
According to one Associated Press report, a memo exists that proves
that President Clinton was personally aware that hundreds of thousands
of dollars were being funneled into his campaign from Indonesia as
early as 1992 and yet they claim innocence, ignoring the fact that that
knowledge was there.
This amendment would clarify the law that one cannot say, as that
knowledge comes to them, willfully ignore it and continue to accept
those donations. I think it is time that we put that into the law and
show and learn from these scandals that ignorance is not going to be a
defense for violating the law.
I applaud the gentleman from Mississippi for bringing forward this
amendment and urge my colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio)
is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I think the bipartisan
agreement on this amendment, which has been made between both sides, is
an important step toward improving an already excellent bill. I only
wish that many of the people on the majority side of this aisle had
taken upon themselves the responsibility to promote the enactment of
the Shays-Meehan bill, because it fundamentally improves campaign
finance reform and law, and we need to pass it.
Many of those who have been advocating this amendment, of course, see
it as a poison pill and do not intend to support the underlying law
that it amends. But I think it is also important to point out that
there has been no evidence at this point in any of the proceedings that
have been held in this city that this administration in any sense
knowingly and willfully participated in the receipt of funds from
foreign sources.
In fact, I think if you look closely at the record, you will find
that the DNC has gone a long way to exhaustively investigate those who
have donated to it and has implemented a series of new vetting
procedures for donors and guests so that none of these kinds of
mistakes could be made again in the future. Those are already in place.
If we really look at the Republican Party's conduct in this same
area, we will find just as much opportunity to improve procedures and
to improve their party's approach to the receipt of funds that were
ultimately determined to have come from foreign sources.
There are no elements of this debate that are free from the need to
support fundamental reform like Shays-Meehan.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Shays.
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 442, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi
will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider the amendment by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith).

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

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. 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.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr.
Shays: Add at the end the following new title:

TITLE --PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF FOREIGN CONTRIBUTION BAN

SEC. --01. PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF PROHIBITION AGAINST
FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.

[[Page H5919]]

which may not be less than 5 years or more than 20 years,
fined in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000, or both.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
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 order of the House of
Friday, July 17, 1998, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

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

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have a modification at the
desk. It is in writing and I ask unanimous consent that it be agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan to
the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by
Mr. Shays: Add at the end of title V the following new
section (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

SEC. 510. PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF PROHIBITION AGAINST
FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.

(a) In General.--Section 319 of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441e) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
subsection:
``(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2),
notwithstanding any other provision of this title any person
who violates subsection (a) shall be sentenced to a term of
imprisonment which may not be more than 10 years, fined in an
amount not to exceed $1,000,000, or both.
``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to any
violation of subsection (a) arising from a contribution or
donation made by an individual who is lawfully admitted for
permanent residence (as defined in section 101(a)(20) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to violations occurring on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the modification be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the initial request
of the gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is modified.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is recognized for 5 minutes.

{time} 1845

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the 1996 elections were marked by many questionable
financial tactics in fund-raising for political purposes, but I think
the one that must concern us is the vast amounts of illegal donations
by foreign contributors. The American people learned of the antics of
those such as John Huang, Charlie Trie, and Johnny Chung, all of whom
helped funnel illegal foreign funds into the American political process
in 1996. So far, Trie, Chung and five others have been indicted for
their roles.
Current law prohibits foreign nationals from donating to candidates
for Federal office, yet it is clear that the penalties are not adequate
to deter violations of this nature. This is, I think, made even more
difficult by the location of the wrongdoers: outside of American soil.
This means that penalties for this particular type of violation must be
strengthened, and that is what my amendment does. It increases the
maximum penalty from $25,000 to $1 million, and it increases the
maximum jail time up to 10 years, at the discretion of the judge.
Indeed, this is one of the recommendations of the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs report: that we increase the allowable penalties.
Under my amendment, those who violate the prohibitions against
contributions from foreign nationals will be subject, again, to a jail
sentence of up to 10 years and/or a fine not to exceed $1 million. I
think this common sense measure will serve to deter foreign nationals
from illegally donating to American elections, and those who would
knowingly assist them.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot honestly say we have begun to fix the
problems with our campaign finance system until we have made some
effort to stifle the problem of illegal foreign donations, and I urge
my colleagues to put the House on record as being as repulsed and
outraged by the scandal of foreigners seeking to influence the American
political system as I am, and I hope we would all vote for this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida.) Is there a Member
in opposition to the amendment?
The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) is in opposition to the
amendment and claims the time in opposition?
Mr. FARR of California. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last
word.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. There is 5 minutes in opposition to the
amendment. Is there someone who claims the 5 minutes?
Mr. FARR of California. I will accept the 5 minutes.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. SHAYS. We do not need to be in opposition to claim the time, if
no one is in opposition. So is the gentleman claiming time in
opposition or just claiming the 5 minutes?
Mr. FARR of California. I am claiming the 5 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. The 5 minutes is reserved for opposition.
Mr. FARR of California. Then I will claim the time in opposition.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise because I want to speak with some concern about the
implementation of this amendment, and I would like the author to just
answer a couple of questions here.
It says in the amendment, ``Any person who violates the subsection
shall be sentenced for a term of imprisonment,'' and with the
gentleman's amendment the term of imprisonment is not more than 10
years and a fine in an amount not to exceed $1 million.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. It is an option. And/or, or both, yes.
Mr. FARR of California. I understand that. The point that I would
like clarified is that it goes to a foreign national. What is the
gentleman's definition of a foreign national? There is a lot of
confusion as to what is a foreign national.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the
definition would be exactly the same as under current law. We have made
an exception for the amendment that was passed last week for resident
aliens or green card holders.
Mr. FARR of California. But those are not foreign nationals. So a
foreign national would be a person who is coming to this country but
does not have a green card? For example, a tourist could be a foreign
national?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. That is correct.
Mr. FARR of California. And I am just curious as to why this penalty
is a more severe penalty than if an individual was caught as an illegal
alien. If a person crosses the border with no papers, they are not
entitled to be in this country, they are not a tourist and they come to
this country and they are caught, even if they were doing this kind of
activity, being involved in a campaign, which I cannot imagine that,
but if they were, the penalty here is more severe. Why is that?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. The penalty is not more severe. The option is
more extensive. So in the eyes of the court, if they decide that the
violation is egregious enough, they have an option of a greater penalty
than under existing law.
Existing law has a maximum penalty of $25,000 and a maximum jail
sentence of not to exceed 1 year in jail. So we give the court greater
latitude of increasing that to not more than.
Mr. FARR of California. Could the gentleman, for clarification,
explain to me what type of person and contribution would trigger
violation of this law?

[[Page H5920]]

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Well, certainly if we look at the activities
of Charlie Trie or John Huang or Johnny Chung, these individuals that
now have been indicted for illegal contributions under existing law.
Again, we do not change any of the definition in existing law, who
falls under this act and who might be subject to these violations.
Mr. FARR of California. If a person came here, under the debate we
are having on the floor now, under H-1B waivers, which are essentially
the way we try to import high-tech people, professional engineers,
scientists who are not American citizens to work with high-technology
companies in America, if one of those while here in this country
contributed, would they be in violation of the gentleman's amendment?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. They would be in violation of existing law, is
my understanding. But if they have a green card, I have exempted these
types of individuals from the more extensive parameters of the law
under my amendment.
But if the gentleman would look to existing law, it is my
understanding that these individuals now, not green card holders, but
under the amendment we passed last week, we extended it to green card
holders, and under that provision I have exempted that type of
individual from the greater penalties.
Mr. FARR of California. Has anyone under existing law been convicted?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. They have been indicted under existing law. I
am not familiar whether they have been convicted or not. There was a
guilty plea this afternoon, I understand.
Mr. FARR of California. Never before in the history of this country
has there been a violation of this law until the election of 1996?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I am sorry, could the gentleman say that
again?
Mr. FARR of California. In the history of election reform law, going
back to the mid-1970s, there has been nobody convicted in violation of
this law?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I am not familiar. I do not know the answer to
that.
Mr. FARR of California. That is existing law. And then the gentleman
is making existing law much tougher; is that correct?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I would suggest I am not making existing law
more tougher, but if the court decides, for lack of a better word, that
the violation is egregious enough or the amount of the contribution or
the potential for influence is egregious enough, that court would now
have an option that is greater than under existing law.
So existing law limits the sentencing term to 1 year and/or not more
than $25,000, and as the gentleman understands, this amendment simply
increases that option but has no minimum obligation.
Mr. FARR of California. But as I understand it, this goes to the key
of the gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California
(Mr. Farr) has expired.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) has time remaining.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FARR of California. As I read it, under existing law the
penalties, in the gentleman's opinion, are very weak; nobody yet has
been convicted. The gentleman stiffens the penalties and broadens the
scope. And my comment on that, and I think that is correct, my comment
is I think the gentleman is opening up a real Pandora's box because I
do not know how people can go about being involved in an election
process.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Reclaiming my time, I would say so far Trie,
Chung and six others have been indicted for their roles of violating
this part of our law.
Just today, Howard Glicken, a fund-raiser and friend of the Vice
President, pleaded guilty to soliciting $20,000 in foreign
contributions.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Michigan for
yielding just to say one quick thing. The sentencing guidelines still
apply. And as I understand the gentleman's intention, he does not
repeal, alter or adjust in any way the sentencing guidelines.
So the Federal judge's discretion will be as full as it was before.
The upper level is permissibly higher, but the criteria applied by the
sentencing judge will be the same because those are set by the
sentencing guidelines.
I offer that as a way of assuaging some of the concerns of my
colleague from California.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. Just very quickly, I appreciate the gentleman from
Michigan bringing this amendment. Normally I would have a little
heartburn over this amendment, but I have to say that since we seem to
be moving towards Shays-Meehan, with more regulations, more laws, and
more ways to break the law rather than opening up the process, as we
suggested in the Doolittle substitute, if we are going to do this, then
we ought to do it with very strong, tough penalties.
The gentleman from Michigan has brought an amendment that imposes
some very, very tough penalties for egregious violations of the law. I
just appreciate the gentleman for bringing this amendment and I support
the gentleman's amendment and ask our colleagues to support him.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Texas.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. The point made by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Campbell), under the gentleman's law, I think it does not give the
discretion the gentleman talks about, because this bill says ``Any
person who violates it shall be sentenced to a term.''
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Reclaiming my time, my language is optional.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), as modified, to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Shays).
The amendment, as modified, to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider the
amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

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

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 3 to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. DeLay to the Amendment in the
Nature of a Substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays: Add at
the end the following new title:

TITLE ______--SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING FUNDRAISING ON FEDERAL
PROPERTY

SEC. ______01. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF
CONTROLLING LEGAL AUTHORITY TO FUNDRAISING ON
FEDERAL PROPERTY.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) On March 2, 1997, the Washington Post reported that
Vice President Gore ``played the central role in soliciting
millions of dollars in campaign money for the Democratic
Party during the 1996 election'' and that he was known as the
administration's ``solicitor-in-chief''.
(2) The next day, Vice President Gore held a nationally
televised press conference in which he admitted making
numerous calls from the White House in which he solicited
campaign contributions.
(3) The Vice President said that there was ``no controlling
legal authority'' regarding the use of government telephones
and properties for the use of campaign fundraising.
(4) Documents that the White House released reveal that
Vice President Gore made 86 fundraising calls from his White
House office, and these new records reveal that Vice
President Gore made 20 of these calls at taxpayer expense.
(5) Section 641 of title 18, United States Code,
(prohibiting the conversion of government property to
personal use) clearly prohibits the use of government
property to raise campaign funds.
(6) On its face, the conduct to which Vice President Gore
admitted appears to be a clear violation of section 607 of
title 18,

[[Page H5921]]

United States Code, which makes it unlawful for ``any person
to solicit . . . any (campaign) contribution . . . in any
room or building occupied in the discharge of official
(government) duties''.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
Federal law clearly demonstrates that ``controlling legal
authority'' prohibits the use of Federal property to raise
campaign funds.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 17,
1998, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) will control 5 minutes, and
the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) will control 5 minutes in
opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I offer this amendment in order to clarify some comments made by the
Vice President last year.
For Richard Nixon it was, ``I am not a crook.'' For Bill Clinton it
was, ``I didn't inhale.'' For Al Gore it was, ``No controlling legal
authority.'' Sometimes our leaders say things they wish they would not
have said. I am guilty of such at times. The Vice President's comments,
though, regarding the various campaign abuses of the Clinton-Gore
campaign, will be forever etched in the memory of the American people.
This amendment is very simple. It says that when it comes to our
campaign laws, there is a controlling legal authority. It is called
``the law''.

{time} 1900

At least 3 criminal statutes address the use of the White House for
political purposes. Section 600 of Title 18 prohibits the promising of
any government benefit in return for any kind of political support or
activity.
Section 607 of Title 18 prohibits solicitation or receipt of
contributions for Federal campaigns in Federal buildings.
Section 641 of Title 18 prohibits the conversion of government
property to personal use.
According to the White House and the author of this so-called reform
bill, these laws do not apply to Mr. Gore because he was raising
campaign funds for the Democratic National Party and not the Clinton-
Gore Re-election Campaign.
Well, that argument has no controlling logic. None other than Abner
Mikva, the President's own legal counsel, issued a legal admonition
that said, ``campaign activities of any kind are prohibited in or from
government buildings,'' he wrote. ``This means fund-raising events may
not be held in the White House; also no fund-raising phone calls or
mail may emanate from the White House,'' he continued.
He did not contend that the White House or Members of Congress can
raise soft money on government properties.
But even if that is true, the facts are that Gore also raised hard
money from the White House. The Associated Press reported that around
the time that the Vice President was making fund-raising calls from the
White House last year, Gore was advised that the Democrat media fund
for which he was soliciting was spending hard money.
Mr. Chairman, the law, the controlling legal authority on this
matter, prohibits the use of Federal property to raise campaign funds,
period. But that did not stop the White House from holding the infamous
White House coffees.
During January of 1995, President Clinton also authorized a plan
under which the Democratic National Committee would hold fund-raising
coffees and sleepovers in the White House. During 1995 and 1996, the
White House held 103 of these coffees. 103.
To quote the New York Times, ``the documents released by the White
House themselves make explicit that the coffees were fund-raising
vehicles.'' They also make clear that the Democratic National Committee
was virtually being run out of the Clinton White House despite the
President's initial efforts after the election to draw a distinction
between his own campaign organization and the committee.
These reports make it obvious that the coffees, which President
Clinton directly authorized, were nothing but fund-raising events.
According to the New York Times, the Democratic National Committee
raised $27 million from 350 people who attended White House coffees.
What about the Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers? Is that not Federal
property? President Clinton also entertained 938 overnight guests in
the White House during his first term.
This, too, became a means of fund-raising. When the original plan to
hold coffees was suggested to the President, he not only approved it
but also originated the idea of the overnight visits.
On the memo suggesting the plan, he wrote, ``Ready to start
overnights right away. Get other names at 100,000 or more, 50,000 or
more.''
The New York Times reports that these guests donated over $10 million
to a Democratic Party from 1992 to 1996.
The controlling legal authority, known as the law, prohibits the use
of Federal Government property from raising campaign funds. The
American people do not buy the argument that there is no controlling
legal authority.
So, Mr. Chairman, there is a controlling legal authority, no matter
what Mr. Gore believes. It is called the law. And the Vice President
has the responsibility to follow that law no matter how old or
inconvenient it may be.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this body makes laws. We do not generally try to
interpret them. And when we do interpret them, we do not do very well
in a number of cases. And this proposed amendment is one case where we
are not doing very well, in my opinion.
Now, I recognize that this is a sense of Congress, that is, this
amendment if attached to the Shays-Meehan substitute would not be
binding law. This is a sense of Congress. We are not really here making
campaign finance reform law. We are trying to embarrass the Vice
President. That is what we are trying to do here today, at least those
on the other side are.
Now, I know that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) are willing to accept this
amendment. It is kind of hard to explain the other side of it. And I
understand that. There are many people on this side of the aisle who
will vote for it, and they will vote for it because it ought to be the
law and it ought to be clearly the law that they do not do fund-raising
on Federal property.
But the fact is that the law is not that clear. We are talking about
the Pendleton Act. That is what controls fund-raising from Federal
property. And not once in the history of this Republic has someone been
prosecuted for fund-raising from Federal property.
There is case law out there which suggests that the point of
solicitation is not on the Federal property if you are making a
telephone call but it is where the call is received. The fact is the
law is not clear. But it ought to be clear, and that is why it is
important that we pass campaign reform in this session.
That is why it is important, despite the objections on the other
side, that we go further than the Pendleton Act, that we have a soft-
money ban, that we deal with issue advocacy, and that we tighten up
these campaign abuses that have occurred not just on one side, not just
with Democrats, but with both sides and with Republicans as well as
Democrats.
That is what we need to do here. We need real campaign finance
reform. And those who have been pushing this particular amendment have
not been supporters of real campaign finance reform.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to put the gentleman from Maine
(Mr. Allen) on notice that I am opposed to his view.
On the distinction of the gentleman as to the origin of the phone
call, if the phone call is for private purpose or political purpose, it
would then violate the laws against embezzlement, which is to use
Federal property for personal purpose.
So as to the phone call not being on government property, they would
run smack into the embezzlement law even if they got outside the
Pendleton Act.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the fact is that we are
governed by the Pendleton Act and the Pendleton Act is not clear.

[[Page H5922]]

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I just would say that I am very comfortable
accepting this amendment. It is a sense of Congress. And I think it is
very clear, and I agree with the comments of the gentleman, we need to
clarify the law.
The bottom line is that if we ban soft money, it is rare that we are
going to have a President and Vice President, a Speaker, whomever, seek
to raise money on government property for a $5,000 PAC contribution. So
I think we get at the problem by substantive change in the law. So I
just make that point to my colleagues.
But I do think the sense of Congress is correct that even if the Vice
President did not think it was illegal, I think it was clear that he
knew it was wrong and it should not have taken place.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) who is a strong advocate of
campaign finance reform.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, as we have already adopted the
Cox amendment that clarifies the law, this amendment is entirely
superfluous and offered only for political purposes. And it strikes me
as highly hypocritical for any Member of this body who has been engaged
in raising soft or hard money in the system we currently have in place
to stand before his colleagues and a national audience and criticize
the Vice President because he did something that has clearly under the
law never been prosecuted.
The Pendleton Act, over 100 years old now, has never ever been used
to prosecute anyone for the solicitation of funds from an office. I
think we now have a clear understanding of what is appropriate. But we
could find the names of at least 3 sitting Republican senators who have
admitted raising funds in their offices on the telephone.
This is not a partisan issue. We are moving in the direction of
reform. And for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to bring this
amendment now is simply to try to imply that there is only one party or
perhaps one individual that must alter behavior. We have all must do
that.
This administration, including the Vice President, has been out front
in advocating campaign finance reform, the Shays-Meehan bill the
centerpiece of that effort.
I would urge all those Members who wish, in retrospect, to imply that
they are above any kind of campaign misdeed to get behind reform and
put their name down on the list of those who are willing to embrace
change and not use this simply as an opportunity for political bashing.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.
What is wrong is clear. What is wrong is to use Federal Government
property for personal advantage. And to say that it does not violate
the Pendleton Act or that no one has been prosecuted under the
Pendleton Act ignores the fundamental truth that there are clear
statutes barring the use of Federal Government property for personal
purposes and there have been many prosecutions under that statute. What
happened violated that law.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 442, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. McInnis).

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

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox), I offer amendment No. 56 to the amendment in the
nature of a substiute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. McInnis to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:
Add at the end the following new title:

TITLE ______--PROHIBITING SOLICITATION TO OBTAIN ACCESS TO CERTAIN
GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

SEC. ______01. PROHIBITION AGAINST ACCEPTANCE OR SOLICITATION
TO OBTAIN ACCESS TO CERTAIN GOVERNMENT
PROPERTY.

(a) In General.--Chapter 11 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``Sec. 226. Acceptance or solicitation to obtain access to
certain government property

``Whoever solicits or receives anything of value in
consideration of providing a person with access to Air Force
One, Marine One, Air Force Two, Marine Two, the White House,
or the Vice President's residence; shall be fined under this
title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
11 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following new item:

``236. Acceptance or soliciting to obtain access to certain government
property.''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House on Friday July 17,
1998, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may claim the
time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Connecticut?
There was no objection.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, what has spurred my interest in this was an article in
the Washington Post on tax day, on Tuesday, April 15, the day all of
the citizens in this country have to pay their taxes. Let me read this
article, or at least summarize a couple of paragraphs:

In the two years before President Clinton's 1996 re-
election, 56 campaign fund-raisers and big-money donors
hopped rides with him aboard Air Force One. Between January
1, 1995, and November 6 of last year, 477 people traveled as
guests aboard the presidential jet, Air Force One, according
to a review of Air Force's One manifest compiled by the White
House. But Clinton aides decline to release the complete list
and instead provided names only of those who contributed more
than $5,000 to the Democratic National Committee or who
raised $25,000 for the Democratic National Committee or the
Clinton-Gore Re-election Committee. Many of these people have
no history with the President, and their presence on Air
Force one could add to suspicions that the plane was used as
a vehicle to court and pay thanks to big donors.

Air Force One is not Clinton charter airlines. It is not to be used
by the President to court the big donors across this country. That jet
does not belong to the President of the United States. That jet belongs
to the people of the United States. And it should be used in its
official capacity.
My amendment, Mr. Chairman, really is quite simple. My amendment
simply says, and let me read the amendment, ``whoever solicits.''
``Whoever.'' So it could be the Democratic National Committee. It does
not need to be the President or the Vice President who is doing this.
It can be the Democratic National Committee.

Whoever solicits or receives anything in value in
consideration for inviting a person with access to Air Force
One, Marine One, Air Force Two, Marine Two, the White House,
or the Vice President's residence shall be fined under this
title and imprisoned for not more than a year or both.

We could talk for the next hour about the Lincoln Bedroom. We could
talk for the next hour in much more detail about the abuse, in my
opinion, of Air Force One, Air Force 2, Marine One. And of course, Mr.
Chairman we do not know the extent of the abuse because the Clinton
administration will not release the manifest in total so that we can
assess that.
At any rate, I cannot imagine anybody on this floor voting against
this amendment. I am going to ask for a rollcall because I want to see
somebody stand up and justify that we should go

[[Page H5923]]

ahead and sell Air Force One to the big donors in this country. I am
going to test them.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1915

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr), my Peace Corps friend.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I have a question of the
author. Why did he exempt the legislative branch from this? The only
branch that uses the aircraft he is intending is the executive branch.
Why is the legislature exempt? When people are on CODELs or on missions
with corporate members or interested American citizens who may be
suggesting that if you come with me we perhaps can play a golf game
somewhere. That is something of value. Your amendment says receives
anything of value. It does not define it. It could be a baseball cap.
It could be anything. And then it exempts Congress. It exempts the
legislative branch. Why does he not include the legislative branch in
here if it is as strong as he thinks it should be?
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. McINNIS. Obviously we do not exempt Congress. Congress may not be
included here, but the gentleman has every right.
Mr. FARR of California. Why not include Congress?
Mr. McINNIS. If the gentleman wants to handle the two-way
conversation strictly on his side that is one point, but let me respond
to the question that he has asked.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is not prevented in any way whatsoever
from offering his own amendment to put the congressional or the
legislative body in there, number one. Number two, I have never ridden
on Air Force One as he knows. I do not know many Republicans that have.
Mr. FARR of California. Reclaiming my time, I think this amendment,
it says receives anything of value, and it only applies to the
executive department. We are here talking about congressional campaign
finance reform, applying to this House of Congress. These amendments,
and I might support this amendment, but I think it is diverting the
attention, it is trying to say that the problem is all in the executive
branch and that there are no problems here in Congress and that we do
not need to spend time debating it.
I think this amendment is exactly what is going on here. People want
to not pay any attention as to what the problems are in this Congress.
If the gentleman was sincere about trying to stop solicitations using
Federal property including aircraft, it would apply to the legislative
branch as well.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman makes a nice speech, and I dare him to vote ``no'' on
this thing. I do not think he will because I know he thinks it is
right. It is the right thing to do. Number two, I would recommend that
the gentleman read the rules. Under congressional rule we are not
allowed, I cannot call one of my big donors and say some, ``Come on,
we're going to go on a congressional CODEL.'' That is against the
rules. That is already in place.
Number three to his point, this does not only apply to the executive
branch as he has just stated in his comments. Let me read it for you.
Whoever, whether it is the Democratic National Committee, whether it
is Al Gore, whether it is the chairman of the Democratic National
Committee, whether it is a State chairman of the Democratic Party,
whoever solicits or receives anything of value in consideration of
providing a person with access to Air Force One, et cetera, et cetera,
et cetera. The legislative branch is covered. It is in our rules.
If he will take a look at any of the CODELs he has been on, my bet is
he has never been on a CODEL where he has had a big donor to his race
or anybody's race on that airplane, with the exception maybe one Member
contributing to another Member, he has never been on a plane under
those kind of circumstances.
He is going to vote for this. Who would not? It makes sense. The
article appeared on Tax Day. That is what is ironic about this. I read
the article on Tuesday, April 15.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Of course people are going to vote for this amendment. But the sad
thing is the gentleman who is offering this amendment is not going to
vote for the bill. We are faced with 55 amendments, most of them
intended to embarrass or imply that a problem just exists on one side
when the bottom line is we know we have problems on both sides of the
aisle and we have got to deal with them.
I would just rise again to say what I have said before, I really
believe that some on the other side of the aisle need to be willing to
do a little more investigating but a lot on my side of the aisle need
to do more about reforming the system.
We do ban soft money. Once we ban the unlimited sums from
individuals, corporations, labor unions and other interest groups, once
we ban that, we take away a gigantic incentive to call someone from any
government property or to reward someone with any government activity,
plane, boat, house, you name it. A $5,000 PAC contribution is not
something that most people would probably seek a reward for or take the
time of important people. But when one is seeking to raise soft money,
$100,000, $200,000, $300,000, a half a million, a million or more, it
does become somewhat of a distraction.
The Meehan-Shays substitute bans soft money. It recognizes those sham
issue ads as what they are, campaign ads, and then they come under the
campaign laws. People have a voice but under the campaign law. We
codify back. We have FEC disclosure enforcement. We ban the franking 6
months to an election. And we make it clear in our legislation that you
cannot raise foreign money and you cannot raise money on government
property. We already make that clear.
This legislation reinforces it and seeks to suggest it happens on one
side of the aisle, and I am sure my colleague believes that most does.
But the bottom line is that we have got to keep together a unity
between Republicans and Democrats who want campaign finance reform and
not get baited into getting in arguments over which side does it and
which side does not.
I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), campaign
finance reform is important. The focus that I have and I hope others
have is on a bipartisan basis to eliminate many of the abuses we see.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman
from Connecticut for putting this all in context, and, that is, that we
are all here trying to come up with improvements in the existing
system. We know that abuses, if that is what we want to call them,
occur on both sides of the aisle and have done so historically.
As we are talking about the alleged misuse of Air Force One, I noted
that in the newspaper today, the story was congressional use of
corporate aircraft, in this case the tobacco industry. If we want to
focus on the problems of Congress, and I think that is what we are here
to do, we ought to really begin to look internally and look at our own
approach to political activity. I think there are probably a number of
other amendments that could be concocted and offered on this bill if we
simply wanted to change the subject. I do not want to change the
subject. I want to pass Shays-Meehan. I want people on both sides of
the aisle to focus on what can be done to improve this system without
offering extraneous, politically-inspired amendments that change the
subject.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Of course the gentleman from California, I find it a little ironic.
He is criticizing the Republicans on tobacco money. Between 1987 and
1997 he took $75,800 from tobacco companies.
The second thing I want to point out, the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Shays) is very clear in saying that I am not going to vote for his
bill. The gentleman from Connecticut is not going to vote for my bill.
The bill I am on is the Doolittle bill. I think that is the bill that
is going to bring us campaign reform. But he is not going to vote for
it. He is going to oppose it.

[[Page H5924]]

I do not think he should stand up here and say that I am not voting
for his bill and make it look like I am against reform. His bill is
like wildflower mixed with a bunch of thistle in it. It is not a good
bill. Mine is.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) 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. McINNIS. 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 House Resolution 442, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. McInnis) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
It is now in order to consider the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Paxon).

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

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Paxon to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:
Add at the end the following new title:

TITLE ______--UNION DISCLOSURE

SEC. ______--01. UNION DISCLOSURE.

(a) In General.--Section 201(b) of the Labor Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (29 U.S.C. 431(b)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5); and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) an itemization of amounts spend by the labor
organization for--
``(A) contract negotiation and administration:
``(B) organizing activities;
``(C) strike activities;
``(D) political activities;
``(E) lobbying and promotional activities; and
``(F) market recovery and job targeting programs; and
``(8) all transactions involving a single source or payee
for each of the activities described in subparagraphs (A)
through (F) of paragraph (7) in which the aggregate cost
exceeds $10,000.''.
(b) Computer Network Access.--Section 201(c) of the Labor
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (29 U.S.C.
431(c)) is amended by inserting ``including availability of
such reports via a public Internet site or another publicly
accessible computer network'' after ``its members.''.
(c) Reporting by Secretary.--Section 205(a) of the Labor
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (29 U.S.C.
435(a)) is amended by inserting after ``and the Secretary''
the following: ``shall make the reports and documents filed
pursuant to section 201(b) available via a public Internet
site or another public accessible computer network. The
Secretary''.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Friday, July 17, 1998, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Paxon) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the 5
minutes as an opponent.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Paxon).
Mr. PAXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, disclosure is the key to real reform. We have put forth
many amendments to do precisely that. Mine this evening focuses on the
largest player in American politics, the organized labor bosses.
Together in the last cycle they controlled over $300 million spent on
American politics according to Rutgers University. According to a
former top official of the Teamsters Union, in fact, that number was
over $400 million. Yet much of the information regarding their
expenditure, where it comes from and how it is expended, goes
undisclosed.
Currently the Department of Labor requires some limited reporting but
it is spotty, it is disorganized, no two unions in fact report the same
information in the same way. It is done purposefully, it is done so
that the American voter and taxpayer and citizen cannot know how much
they are spending.
My amendment does three things simply. First, it amends the LM-2 form
submitted by the unions currently with the Department of Labor. Two, it
requires functional accounting for uniform categories of spending for
the previous year which is not now required. And, number three, of
course, it requires the posting on the Internet of all this
information.
Mr. Chairman, this is logical. We have a player spending hundreds of
millions of dollars. Put it on the Internet. Let the American people
see what is being spent, how it is being raised. That is all we are
asking. It is called disclosure. How can anybody oppose full
disclosure?
As a matter of fact, this Congress has already helped. We
appropriated last year half a million dollars to the Department of
Labor to set up such a database. This Congress wants to have that
information to the American people, and I am certain whether it is
union members or the American people, they would love to have it. This
amendment just simply allows us to get that information out there.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let us let the light of day shine on the
American political system. Let us put this information out there once
and for all. It is an amendment we should all be able to agree on and
move forward with.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Miller).
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, by the time we are done debating
campaign finance, it will probably be the longest debate the House has
seen in a long time. Throughout this debate, one particular theme has
resounded again and again, disclosure. We take it as self-evident that
the American people should be able to know who is spending money to
impact elections and to whom they are giving it. For if we have full
disclosure, then the voters can take that knowledge with them into the
voting box.
However, up to this point the issue of disclosure has focused
primarily on campaign spending by special interest groups or
corporations. No one has yet tried to stand up and help those workers
that provide a substantial amount of their monthly income to the unions
that represent them.
That is why I support this amendment. Union members have very limited
means to find out how their dues are spent. They just have to hope it
is being spent wisely. This amendment would remedy that requirement of
unions and require them in an annual disclosure form that they already
complete to specify how they spend money on different activities. As
dues-paying members, union workers have a right to know how much money
their union spent on such functions as contract negotiations or strike
activities. This disclosure would empower both those workers currently
in unions and those that are considering joining unions.
Let me clear up one misconception. This amendment would not impact
those smaller unions. It would only affect those unions with annual
receipts over $200,000.
In the 1996 election cycle, unions used over $35 million to run issue
ads in congressional districts against Republicans; $35 million. This
despite the fact that over 25 percent of union members are Republicans.
How can we give these members and the American people a voice? One
answer is disclosure. The American people and even more importantly
union members themselves have a right to know how much money the unions
are spending on different activities. That is what this amendment will
do, allow people as well as union members who are directly impacted by
the spending to see how unions are allocating their money and how much
they are spending on these political activities. This is good policy
and should be a fundamental part of any campaign finance reform. I ask
my colleagues to support this amendment.

{time} 1930

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the gentleman from
Florida, there is not a better way to get

[[Page H5925]]

disclosure than to vote for the Shays-Meehan bill, which provides
disclosure on issue advocacy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition the Paxon amendment.
The Paxon amendment is an assault. It is an assault on the rights of
working men and women in this country. It says that working men and
women will be disenfranchised.
Let me just say this, that union members, in fact, know where and how
their money is being spent. They make the decisions as to what is being
done. This would require only labor unions to report on political
activities, not the big money interests, the special interests, not the
multimillion dollar corporations, only labor unions. The fact of the
matter is, is that corporations outspent labor unions 11 to 1 in the
1996 election.
If we take a look at today's Washington Post, we will also find out
that there was the tobacco industry that provided more subsidized
travel than any other industry to the Republican Party. They made their
corporate jets available to Republican lawmakers and GOP committees for
dozens of flights in the past year.
We want to be equitable in this effort. As my colleague from
Massachusetts pointed out, Shays-Meehan, in fact, does deal with
disclosure. This is an amendment that discourages American workers from
participating in the national political process. It is an effort to cut
them off. It silences their voices, leaving decent pay, a safe
workplace, secure retirements vulnerable to their opponents. It is the
American families who will suffer with the result of this amendment.
Shays-Meehan does not pose such a threat. It protects the voices of
America's working men and women. Vote against the Paxon amendment and
support Shays-Meehan.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Fazio).
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to this
amendment because it does not treat all those who use Treasury funds of
any kind equally and equitably under the law. This particular amendment
is targeted at the Republican Party's bugaboo, always said to be big
labor.
But, in fact, what it really does is try to impose a burdensome and
inefficient and difficult system of accounting on one of the many
players in the political system in this country, one that, by the way,
was outspent by business and corporations 11 to 1 in the last election
cycle in 1996.
Shays-Meehan goes after all of the various parts of the political
equation in campaign finance reform equitably and evenhandedly. It bans
soft money. It goes after those who misuse issue advocacy for political
purposes, intrusive purposes in a political campaign. But it does so in
ways that make corporations and unions live under the same law.
There are other improvements in this bill that frankly will be
somewhat opposed by people in the labor movement because, for example,
internal communications are going to be required to be disclosed in a
more timely way. But it also imposes the same requirements on corporate
internal communications.
So what we have in the bill that we have been debating is an
evenhanded and fair-minded approach. This amendment is an effort to
take a shot at a political opponent, and it is offered by one who does
not oppose reform in the first place.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is
remaining on each side?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) has 1\3/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman
from New York (Mr. Paxon) has 45 seconds remaining.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding to me.
I would support the content of my friend from New York's amendment if
it was applied to the National Labor Relations Act. But, it is way
beyond campaign finance reform. For example, it requires disclosure
that I happen to support--how much of a union's money goes to a strike
versus how much goes to organizing. I would like to see that part of
the law. I would like to see the laborers of this country know where
their dues are spent. But it is not campaign finance reform. And, by
putting it into this bill, it breaks the coalition that is essential
for Shays-Meehan to become the law of this country. I strongly oppose
this amendment for that reason. We must be about our business today.
Our business is campaign finance reform.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, under Meehan-Shays, we require disclosure by
both unions and corporations. Current law requires only a very narrow
disclosure by unions and corporations of money spent on internal or in-
kind activities.
Under current law, unions do not have to disclose money spent on
voter registration drives or get-out-the-vote drives aimed at their
members, nor do corporations. Under our bill, they would.
Under current law, unions and corporations do not have to disclose
money spent on setting up or administering their PACs. Under our bill,
they would.
Under current law, unions and corporations do not have to disclose
money spent on a communication to their members urging the election or
defeat of a candidate. So, for instance, if a union has a two-page ad
urging a vote for a candidate in a 16-page newsletter, it would not
have to be disclosed. Under our bill, any communication to members for
the purpose of influencing an election would have to be disclosed.
Our bill significantly expands the disclosure requirements on unions
and corporations by their internal activities. Further, disclosure
under current law is on a quarterly basis; under our bill, it is on a
monthly basis, and within 24 hours in the last 20 days of the election
on the Internet.
Mr. PAXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I appreciate the gentleman from
California agreeing with the intent of this measure, to try to bring
about full disclosure in the American political system. We think this
is the right place. We are debating campaign finance reform. $300
million to $400 million spent by the union bosses taken involuntarily
from the members' pockets, should that not be part of the disclosure?
Of course it should be. Should it not be presented on the Internet so
the American people can determine how it is spent? Of course it should
be should.
This is the amendment that goes to the heart of campaign finance
reform. Anybody who believes in reform has to support this motion. I
urge my colleagues to support it. We are going to have a chance to do
that in a recorded vote.
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. Paxon) 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 noes appeared to have it.
Mr. PAXON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 442, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Paxon) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) will be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller). It is now in order to consider
the amendment by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I have two amendments at the
desk. Amendment No. 33, I am going to give the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and this body a present by withdrawing that
amendment, because I believe the amendment by the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. McInnis) covered that, so I will withdraw number 33.

Amendment Offered By Mr. Hefley to the Amendment In The Nature Of A
Substitute No. 13 Offered By Mr. Shays

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 34 to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute.

[[Page H5926]]

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 offered by Mr. Hefley to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:
Add at the end the following new title:

TITLE--PROHIBITING USE OF AIR FORCE ONE FOR POLITICAL FUNDRAISING

SEC. 01. PROHIBITING USE OF AIR FORCE ONE FOR POLITICAL
FUNDRAISING.

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

``prohibiting use of air force one for political fundraising

``Sec. 323. (a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any
persons to provide or offer to provide transportation on Air
Force One in exchange for any money or other thing of value
in support of any political party or the campaign for
electoral office of any candidate, without regard to whether
or not the money or thing of value involved is otherwise
treated as a contribution under this title.
``(b) Air Force One Defined.--In subsection (a), the term
`Air Force One' means the airplane operated by the Air Force
which has been specially configured to carry out the mission
of transporting the President.''

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Friday, July 17, 1998, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the 5
minutes in opposition.
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)
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment, again, I think, is about common sense.
It reads: If the President, Vice President, or the head of any
executive department uses Air Force One for transportation for any
travel which includes a fund-raising event for the benefit of any
political committee or party, such political committee shall reimburse
the Federal Government for the actual costs incurred as a result of the
use of Air Force One.
In plain English, this simply means that if you are going to use Air
Force One and part of that is for political purposes, then you pay the
cost of it. It is estimated that the cost is about $36,000 an hour to
operate Air Force One.
This amendment will apply to whoever holds the office. So we have had
a lot of partisan back and forth here this afternoon or this evening,
but this amendment applies to whomever holds the office regardless of
party affiliation. However, the current administration's blatant abuse
of this practice compared to past White House occupants gives the
Congress strong reason to accept this amendment.
Currently, the amount that is reimbursed to the taxpayers for use of
Air Force One is based on a secret formula created by the Clinton
Administration and the Democratic National Committee. The formula
supposedly calculates what percentage of the trip is for political
purposes and what percentage is for official purposes.
This amendment stipulates that any excursion that includes any fund-
raising activity must be reimbursed for the entire trip. No formula. No
ambiguity. If the President wants to fly to Ohio to pitch his child
care initiative, that is fine. He can use Air Force One to do that. But
if while he is there he wants to drop by, as he did recently, to raise
$850 thousand in one evening for the DNC, then under this amendment,
the DNC would have to reimburse the taxpayers.
This is not a partisan amendment. But I will conclude with some of
the figures that signify the amendment is particularly relevant under
this administration. Under Presidents Reagan and Bush, reimbursement
payments were made a total of 60 times in a 12-year period. Under the
Clinton administration, prior to the 1996 election, 145 such payments
were made in only 4 years.
I urge adoption of the amendment and reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio).
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the author of the amendment if he would
explain to me what is different from existing laws. As I understand it,
we have always required that every President, going back as far as I
can remember, reimburse part of the cost of any trip that involves any
kind of political activity while he is on an official trip.
What the gentleman seems to be saying is that any political activity
automatically makes the entire trip a political trip, even if there is
a great deal of official duty and activity taking place.
Would the gentleman give me some sort of an answer?
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is
correct. The gentleman understands it exactly.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Reclaiming my time, then, what the gentleman
is saying is that the approach that has been the time-honored
bipartisan approach which has given both Republican and Democratic,
Presidents the opportunity and flexibility to include various kinds of
activities in their schedule when they travel around the country, would
no longer be allowed.
I am sure that the Secret Service and others who worry about the
security of the President would have serious concerns. What this
amendment really would purport to do, I believe, is to eliminate the
President's ability to be involved in, at any affordable sense, any
kind of political activity around the country.
I would assert that maybe in the current environment where the White
House is held by a Democrat this would be a very attractive amendment
to people on the Republican side of this aisle. But I think people
ought to be thinking of the long-term implications of what we are doing
here.
I realize that those who do not support Shays-Meehan are simply
trying to roll hand grenades here on to the floor to complicate the
passage of real campaign finance reform. But in this instance, among
others, what we are really doing is something that I think your own
party leaders, if the Republicans were to retake the White House, would
find totally unworkable and impossible to live with. What I hope my
colleagues will do is think long-term and put aside the momentary
political advantage.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I have a question. The language in here says that it
includes any fund-raising event for the benefit of any political
committee of a national political party. If the President was to fly to
the gentleman's district to do a campaign event for him, this would not
apply because his campaign is not a national political committee?
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I cannot tell
him for sure about that.
Mr. FARR of California. Well, that is exactly what it says.
Mr. HEFLEY. I am not arguing with the gentleman. I said I cannot tell
him for sure whether that is or not. I assume it might be.
Mr. FARR of California. The other question is why does it only apply
to Air Force One? Why does it not apply to Members of Congress?
Mr. HEFLEY. I listened to the gentleman's comments about that on a
prior bill, and it seemed to me to be kind of foolish questions in that
Congress does not control any airplanes. The administration controls
airplanes. Congress does not control airlines.
If the gentleman wants to reclaim his time, I will respond later.
Mr. FARR of California. I would like to reclaim my time. Because the
gentleman flies home every weekend on the taxpayers' money, he may be
home on the taxpayers' money doing a political campaign event. That is
his transportation to his district.

{time} 1945

So if the President goes to your district and does a political event,
he is

[[Page H5927]]

penalized; the payment for all of that is paid for by your amendment.
But if you do it on the taxpayer's dime every weekend, you do not have
to pay for it. So you are exempting Congress from this. It is a double
standard again. It is again bashing the White House, because this bill
is about Congressional campaign finance reform, and I do not know
whether the gentleman is even intending to vote for the bill.
I think these are dilatory amendments, I think you are exempting
Congress, and I think it is wrong.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have a feeling that this amendment will pass because
Members do not want to vote against an amendment that sounds good, but
I am trying to think that some day we may have someone else in the
White House, and I would put myself in that position and say I think
this is bad law.
I think it is a politically good amendment. I think it is bad law. I
think the President should have to reimburse for the first class
passage, but I do not think we want to encourage a President to go
commercial. Obviously they cannot. I think it will inhibit the ability
of the President to get around and speak as a President chooses to
speak.
I am sure this is good politics, but I think this does harm to the
bill. I am not suggesting that it is a killer amendment, but I wish it
was not being introduced, because I think its intention is simply to
make the bill less palatable to Members on either side of the aisle.
The bottom line is, a President of the United States should have the
ability to travel around the country, and it is regrettable that they
have to have so much communication material, it is regrettable they
need to fly on a government plane, but the fact is they do. Like my
colleague from California points out, we get sent home and we get to do
a lot of things back home for political purposes, and our flight back
home is paid for.
So I have tremendous respect for the gentleman who is introducing
this amendment, but I do regret that he has introduced it.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, let me very quickly say in closing in response to the
concern of the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), it is my
understanding that we can rent government cars, we can lease government
cars as Members of Congress for official business. I did that at one
time. I have not done it in years. At one time I did that. It was also
my understanding when I did that that I could not go to Salida,
Colorado, and hold town meetings in the morning in that government car,
and then in the evening hold a fund-raiser for my campaign. I am still
in the government car, and I could not reimburse the government for the
percentage of time for that government car. I do not know whether that
rule has changed or not. But if you cannot do that with a government
car, but you can do it with Air Force One, I think the double standard
that you keep referring to here is in application today. I think this
would help in that double standard.
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 Colorado (Mr. Hefley) to the amendment in the nature
of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 442, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Hefley) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) will be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).

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

Mrs. NORTHUP. 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.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mrs. Northup to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:

TITLE--PROHIBITING USE OF WALKING AROUND MONEY

SEC. __01. PROHIBITING CAMPAIGNS FROM PROVIDING CURRENCY TO
INDIVIDUALS FOR PURPOSES OF ENCOURAGING TURNOUT
ON DATE OF ELECTION.

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

``prohibiting use of currency to promote election day turnout

``Sec. 323. It shall be unlawful for any political
committee to provide currency to any person for purposes of
carrying out activities on the date of an election to
encourage or assist individuals to appear at the polling
place for election.''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Friday, July 17, 1998, the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) and
a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
Is there a Member seeking to control the time in opposition?
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Meehan) will be recognized for 5 minutes in opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have opposed the Shays-Meehan bill for a couple of
reasons. First of all, I believe that it chills free speech, that it
has the effect of trying to keep people who want to influence public
policy from having their voice heard.
Furthermore, I feel that it has the effect of encouraging people to
have their voice heard in elections by contributing to organizations
that are, in a sense, ``blind organizations,'' organizations that the
public will not know who they are, what they stand for, who
contributes, or how much, and that that is a worse campaign finance
system than what we have.
I do not believe you can call this reform; I just believe you can
call it change. In my opinion, it is a worse change, a change for the
worse.
However, if we are going to do anything in changing campaign finance,
we ought to close the abuses that exist today, that are widespread and
blatantly wrong, and that is the ability to spend cash, what is
commonly referred to as ``walking-around money,'' that is used for vote
buying. This is done in many different parts of the country, and it is
done with the use of cash.
All my amendment would do would be to require that any money used for
getting out the vote, that it be done in the form of a check, so that
it would be visible and we would know to whom the money was paid.
Obviously we all believe that if somebody is going to drive a van for
the day and go down to the local nursing home in order to provide
transportation to the polls, that that is a good thing to do and that
would be a good expenditure of campaign funds. This is just to make
sure that people cannot get the money in unrecorded amounts and to
unrecorded people.
It is part of the premise of this bill that we would have visibility,
that the voters, that the public, that the people in this country would
have visibility about who is spending money on campaigns and how they
are spending it. So I would be surprised to find anybody that supports
Shays-Meehan opposed to disclosure of this kind.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I wish that the authors of amendments who get up to say
they are against Shays-Meehan would find another vehicle to drag down
debate. We have been debating this bill for quite some time now, and
the author of the amendment says that she is against it, but here is an
amendment anyways.
This could be an amendment that we could all agree upon. I would ask
the gentlewoman if somebody is working on a get-out-the-vote effort and
wants to buy coffee for people at a polling station, and, let us say,
the coffee stand will not accept a check, how does one get around those
types of expenditures, small disbursements like that?

[[Page H5928]]

The gentlewoman may know that under the FEC law now, there are
certain amounts of money, under $200, that are made available. It is
required under the FEC that receipts get kept, and clearly they should
be kept. But what does one do about that election day activity, with
voter apathy and voter turnout going down dramatically, about these
type of efforts to get people out to vote? Could the gentlewoman's
amendment in some way accommodate these types of efforts?
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MEEHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Kentucky.
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I am surprised to hear the gentleman
asking that and asking if one could buy donuts. Actually in Kentucky,
where we have a more similar bill to Shays-Meehan than anyplace else,
you cannot buy donuts.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am not asking the
gentlewoman whether or not one can buy donuts. I am asking whether or
not under the gentlewoman's amendment, would one be able in any way to
get cash, if cash was required to go buy a cup of coffee or donuts for
poll workers? I am not asking whether one can buy donuts. Let us keep
it professional.
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further,
whoever uses the money has to be given the money in the form of a
check, so that if you are going to haul voters, for example, a check
would be written to you. You could then not give voters or anybody else
cash. Obviously if you wanted to fill up your van with gas, you could
turn that in as an expense and the campaign can reimburse you.
This is just to make sure that you cannot have what goes on, like
$300 cash to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), and then
the gentleman gives out $50, $25, $10, $5, and it does not have to be
recorded. The end receiver of the money is not on record.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, so when a campaign
worker goes out and is trying to get people to go to the polls, the
campaign or the party would give a check and the person would go,
presumably, to a bank to cash the check. What if somebody did not have
a bank account? Just so I am clear. We could support the amendment, but
if somebody did not have a bank account or checking account, what would
they do?
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
they would cash it wherever they cashed any other check. If they have a
welfare check, they have to cash it somewhere. If they have a paycheck,
they have to cash it somewhere. They can get a money order. You can
give them a money order. That is legal. All you could not do is give a
check to somebody and have them then pay cash around to unrecorded
people.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, would the gentlewoman
have a de minimis amount of money that would be acceptable for donuts
or something like that? Is there some amount there where we could reach
an agreement? The amendment sounds like a good idea.
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, it says specifically here that anything
that encourages or assists individuals to appear at the polling place
is not forbidden. All you could not do is give somebody cash. In other
words, on the campaign form the final receiver of money is written
there, because it has to be given to them by money order, check,
whatever.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this sounds like an
amendment that we could support. But these amendments, sometimes we
need to go through the process to make sure. We have a situation where
voter turnout in this country is an embarrassment, and I would not want
to see us support any kind of an effort that would try to reduce
activity at polling places, getting people to the polls.
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the concern of the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and I appreciate the gentleman rethinking or
willing to reevaluate this. I want to assure the gentleman and the
other supporters of the bill that we were very careful to draft this in
every way possible so that there would not be any dampening effect on
encouraging people to vote; only in making sure that there is not cash
out on the street floating around that can be exchanged for votes. That
is what we are trying to get to.
We think that the easiest way to try to address that is to make sure
that anybody that receives money would have to be paid and recorded on
the campaign files.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. NORTHUP. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I like what the gentlewoman
just said, but I do not think that is what the language put in here
says. It says ``provide currency to any person for purposes of carrying
out activities on the date of an election to encourage or assist
individuals to appear at the polling place for an election.''
I think what the gentlewoman said is to give money directly to
anybody to go to a polling place, but this is any activities.
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is currency. You
cannot provide currency. I think the gentleman is missing that word. It
does not say you cannot provide donuts. You cannot provide currency.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield
further, it says ``for carrying out activities on the date of the
election.'' Is not ``activities'' broader than just going to the polls,
driving somebody? I am trying to think of the League of Women Voters
issues. We are trying to get people to the polls. Those are activities.
All of that is related to the election day.
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, but you can provide a
check to somebody that is driving somebody. You can provide a check to
somebody to buy donuts. You can give a check to somebody to buy gas.
What you cannot do is give somebody $200.

{time} 2000

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I agree with that. Why does not
the gentlewoman just say that?
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, it says that. ``One cannot provide
currency.''
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose this amendment, and I
am surprised that the gentlewoman from Kentucky who talks about rules
and regulations has come up with the biggest rule and regulation. We
are basically saying that everything would have to be in a check.
Not everybody in my district has a checking account. Some people
drive to the polls, they have money, they take it and they go to the
gas station and give money to the gas station attendant.
This has, I think, serious unintended consequences. It probably is
going to pass because it has a good name to it, but it really is
regulation beyond my comprehension, and I think a bit foolish.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) 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 noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 442, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Kentucky
will be postponed.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 442,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment offered
Mr. Wicker of Mississippi; amendment offered by Mr. Stearns of Florida;
amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Pickering of Mississippi;
amendment offered by Mr. DeLay of Texas; amendment offered by Mr.
McInnis of Colorado; amendment offered by Mr. Paxon of New York;
amendment offered by Mr. Hefley of Colorado; amendment offered by Mrs.
Northup of Kentucky.

[[Page H5929]]

The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in a series.

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

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the Amendment No. 59 offered by the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute
No. 13 offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

TITLE--PROHIBITING USE OF WHITE HOUSE MEANS 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 means of 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 or
political fundraising.''.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 391,
noes 4, not voting 39, as follows:

[Roll No. 301]

AYES--391

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--4

Hastings (FL)
Kanjorski
Murtha
Wexler

NOT VOTING--39

Ackerman
Baker
Berman
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Coble
Danner
Dixon
Ehrlich
Ford
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Hefner
Hilliard
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kleczka
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Maloney (NY)
Martinez
McDade
Millender-McDonald
Moakley
Norwood
Ortiz
Pickering
Poshard
Riggs
Roybal-Allard
Stokes
Thompson
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Yates

{time} 2022

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois and Mr. BASS changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was
agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, during roll call
vote number 301 on the Wicker Amendment I was unavoidably detained. Had
I been present, I would have voted yes.

amendment offered by mr. stearns to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute no. 13 offered by mr. shays

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barr of Georgia). The unfinished
business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) to the amendment in the nature
of a substitute No. 13 offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute No. 13 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--

[[Page H5930]]

``(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).''.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 267,
noes 131, not voting 36, as follows:

[Roll No. 302]

AYES--267

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

NOES--131

Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Campbell
Cardin
Carson
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Crapo
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Edwards
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Frank (MA)
Furse
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hinojosa
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
LaFalce
Lampson
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Manton
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pombo
Porter
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Smith (MI)
Stark
Stenholm
Talent
Thornberry
Tierney
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wynn

NOT VOTING--36

Ackerman
Baker
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Coble
Danner
Dixon
Ehrlich
Ford
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Hefner
Hilliard
Jefferson
John
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Maloney (NY)
Martinez
McDade
Millender-McDonald
Moakley
Norwood
Ortiz
Pickering
Poshard
Riggs
Roybal-Allard
Saxton
Stokes
Thompson
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Yates

{time} 2032

Mr. PORTER and Mr. HOUGHTON changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. SANFORD changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was
agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

personal explanation

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, on roll calls nos. 301 and 302, I was
unavoidably detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

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

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barr of Georgia). The pending business
is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment, as modified,
offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 344,
noes 56, not voting 34, as follows:

[Roll No. 303]

AYES--344

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fattah
Fawell
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
Kind (WI)

[[Page H5931]]

Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paxon
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Salmon
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Young (FL)

NOES--56

Becerra
Blunt
Brown (FL)
Buyer
Carson
Clyburn
Conyers
Davis (VA)
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Engel
Ensign
Farr
Fazio
Frank (MA)
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kucinich
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lee
Lofgren
McDermott
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Miller (CA)
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Paul
Payne
Pombo
Radanovich
Ros-Lehtinen
Sabo
Sanchez
Scott
Skaggs
Stark
Waters
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Wilson
Wynn
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--34

Ackerman
Baker
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Coble
Danner
Dixon
Ehrlich
Ford
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Hefner
Hilliard
Jefferson
John
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Maloney (NY)
Martinez
McDade
Millender-McDonald
Moakley
Norwood
Ortiz
Poshard
Riggs
Roybal-Allard
Stokes
Thompson
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Yates

{time} 2041

So the amendment, as modified, to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

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

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barr of Georgia). The pending business
is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 304]

AYES--360

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--36

Allen
Becerra
Borski
Brady (PA)
Clay
Conyers
Engel
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Furse
Hastings (FL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kanjorski
Kucinich
Lee
McDermott
Meek (FL)
Miller (CA)
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Obey
Payne
Rahall
Sabo
Scott
Smith, Adam
Stark
Tanner
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler

NOT VOTING--38

Ackerman
Baker
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Coble
Danner
Dixon
Ehrlich
Ford
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Hefner
Hilliard
Jefferson
John
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
McDade
Meehan
Millender-McDonald
Moakley
Norwood
Ortiz
Poshard
Riggs
Roybal-Allard
Scarborough
Skelton
Stokes
Thompson
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Yates

{time} 2048

Mr. MORAN of Virginia changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

[[Page H5932]]

So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was
agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered By Mr. McInnis to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute No. 13 Offered By Mr. Shays

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barr of Georgia). The pending business
is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute No. 13 offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 305]

AYES--391

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--7

Clyburn
Conyers
Farr
Kucinich
Pelosi
Waters
Wexler

NOT VOTING--36

Ackerman
Baker
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Coble
Danner
Dixon
Ehrlich
Ford
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Hefner
Hilliard
Jefferson
John
Kennelly
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
McDade
Millender-McDonald
Moakley
Norwood
Ortiz
Poshard
Riggs
Roybal-Allard
Stokes
Thompson
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Yates

{time} 2056

So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was
agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

amendment offered by mr. paxon to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute no. 13 offered by mr. shays

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Paxon) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13
offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice
vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

recorded vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 150,
noes 248, not voting 36, as follows:

[Roll No. 306]

AYES--150

Archer
Armey
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fossella
Fowler
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Northup
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Upton
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOES--248

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Bachus
Baesler

[[Page H5933]]

Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gillmor
Gilman
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manton
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thurman
Tierney
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--36

{time} 2104

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was
rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

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

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barr of Georgia). The pending business
is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 307]

AYES--222

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--177

Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Bachus
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Furse
Ganske
Gillmor
Gilman
Gordon
Granger
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lantos
Latham
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntosh
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Talent
Tauscher
Thornberry
Tierney
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn

NOT VOTING--35

Ackerman
Baker
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Coble
Danner
Dixon
Ehrlich
Ford
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Hefner
Hilliard
Jefferson
John
Kennelly
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Markey
Martinez
McDade
Millender-McDonald
Moakley
Norwood
Ortiz
Poshard
Riggs
Roybal-Allard

[[Page H5934]]

Stokes
Thompson
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Yates

{time} 2112

Messrs. ENSIGN, KLINK, and DOYLE changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was
agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

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

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Kentucky
(Mrs. Northup) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered
by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice
vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 308]

AYES--284

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Ensign
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
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
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kim
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Obey
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--114

Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lofgren
Lowey
Manton
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mink
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pastor
Payne
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rothman
Rush
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Snyder
Stark
Tanner
Tierney
Torres
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Woolsey
Wynn

NOT VOTING--36

Ackerman
Baker
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Coble
Coburn
Danner
Dixon
Ehrlich
Ford
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Hefner
Hilliard
Jefferson
John
Kennelly
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Markey
Martinez
McDade
Millender-McDonald
Moakley
Norwood
Ortiz
Pelosi
Poshard
Riggs
Roybal-Allard
Stokes
Thompson
Towns
Traficant
Yates

{time} 2120

Mr. BERRY and Mr. DICKS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was
agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Personal Explanation

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained on rollcall
vote 301, the Wicker amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye''.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, for the purposes of taking up a rule, I move
that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Barr of Georgia, 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.

____________________