[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 97 (Monday, July 20, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5935-H5949]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN INTEGRITY ACT OF 1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). 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} 2125
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. Barr of Georgia (Chairman pro tempore)
in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole House rose
earlier today, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Kentucky,
Mrs. Northup, has been disposed of.
It is now in order to consider the amendment by the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Amendment Offered By Mr. Goodlatte to the Amendment In The Nature Of A
Substitute No. 13 Offered By Mr. Shays
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment to
the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Goodlatte to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:
Add at the end the following new title:
TITLE ____--VOTER REGISTRATION REFORM
SEC. ____01. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR STATES TO PROVIDE FOR
VOTER REGISTRATION BY MAIL.
(a) In General.--Section 4(a) of the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-2) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by adding ``and'' at the end;
(2) by striking paragraph (2); and
(3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
(b) Conforming Amendments Relating to Uniform Mail Voter
Registration Form.--(1) The National Voter Registration Act
of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.) is amended by striking
section 9.
(2) Section 7(a)(6)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-
5(a)(6)(A)) is amended by striking ``assistance--'' and all
that follows and inserting the following: ``assistance a
voter registration application form which meets the
requirements described in section 5(c)(2) (other than
subparagraph (A)), unless the applicant, in writing, declines
to register to vote;''.
(c) Other Conforming Amendments.--(1) The National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.) is
amended by striking section 6.
(2) Section 8(a)(5) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(a)(5))
is amended by striking ``5, 6, and 7'' and inserting ``5 and
7''.
SEC. ____02. REQUIRING APPLICANTS REGISTERING TO VOTE TO
PROVIDE CERTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
(a) Social Security Number.--
(1) In general.--Section 5(c)(2) of the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-3(c)(2)) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (E)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(F) shall require the applicant to provide the
applicant's Social Security number.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 5(c)(2)(A) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1973gg-3(c)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting after
``subparagraph (C)'' the following: ``, or the information
described in subparagraph (F)''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect January 1, 1999, and shall apply with
respect to applicants registering to vote in elections for
Federal office on or after such date.
(b) Actual Proof of Citizenship.--
(1) Registration with application for driver's license.--
Section 5(c) of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993
(42 U.S.C. 1973gg-3(c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(3) The voter registration portion of an application for
a State motor vehicle driver's license shall not be
considered to be completed unless the applicant provides to
the appropriate State motor vehicle authority proof that the
applicant is a citizen of the United States.''.
(2) Registration with voter registration agencies.--Section
7(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-5(a)) is amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) A voter registration application received by a voter
registration agency shall not be considered to be completed
unless the applicant provides to the agency proof that the
applicant is a citizen of the United States.''.
(3) Conforming amendment.--Section 8(a)(5)(A) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(a)(5)(A)) is amended by striking the
semicolon and inserting the following: ``, including the
requirement that the applicant provide proof of
citizenship;''.
(4) No effect on absent uniformed services and overseas
voters.--Nothing in the National Voter Registration Act of
1993 (as amended by this subsection) may be construed to
require any absent uniformed services voter or overseas voter
under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act
to provide any evidence of citizenship in order to register
to vote (other than any evidence which may otherwise be
required under such Act).
SEC. ____03. REMOVAL OF CERTAIN REGISTRANTS FROM OFFICIAL
LIST OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS.
(a) In General.--Section 8(d) of the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(d)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph:
``(3)(A) At the option of the State, a State may remove the
name of a registrant from the official list of eligible
voters in elections for Federal office on the ground that the
registrant has changed residence if--
``(i) the registrant has not voted or appeared to vote
(and, if necessary, correct the registrar's record of the
registrant's address) in an election during the period
beginning on the day after the date of the second previous
general election for Federal office held prior to the date
the confirmation notice described in subparagraph (B) is sent
and ending on the date of such notice;
``(ii) the registrant has not voted or appeared to vote
(and, if necessary, correct the registrar's record of the
registrant's address) in any of the first two general
elections for Federal office held after the confirmation
notice described in subparagraph (B) is sent; and
``(iii) during the period beginning on the date the
confirmation notice described in subparagraph (B) is sent and
ending on the date of the second general election for Federal
office held after the date such notice is sent, the
registrant has failed to notify the State in response to the
notice that the registrant did not change his or her
residence, or changed residence but remained in the
registrar's jurisdiction.
``(B) A confirmation notice described in this subparagraph
is a postage prepaid and pre-addressed return card, sent by
forwardable mail, on which a registrant may state his or her
current address, together with information concerning how the
registrant can continue to be eligible to vote if the
registrant has changed residence to a place outside the
registrar's jurisdiction and a statement that the registrant
may be removed from the official list of eligible voters if
the registrant does not respond to the notice (during the
period described in subparagraph (A)(iii)) by stating that
the registrant did not change his or her residence, or
changed residence but remained in the registrar's
jurisdiction.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 8(i)(2) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1973gg-6(d)) is amended by inserting ``or subsection
(d)(3)'' after ``subsection (d)(2)''.
SEC. ____04. PERMITTING STATE TO REQUIRE VOTERS TO PRODUCE
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PRIOR TO VOTING.
(a) Photographic Identification.--Section 8 of the National
Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (k); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (i) the following new
subsection:
``(j) Permitting States To Require Voters To Produce Photo
Identification.--A State may require an individual to produce
a
[[Page H5936]]
valid photographic identification before receiving a ballot
(other than an absentee ballot) for voting in an election for
Federal office.''.
(b) Signature.--Section 8 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6),
as amended by subsection (a), is further amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (k) as subsection (l); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (j) the following new
subsection:
``(k) Permitting States To Require Voters To Provide
Signature.--A State may require an individual to provide the
individual's signature (in the presence of an election
official at the polling place) before receiving a ballot for
voting in an election for Federal office, other than an
individual who is unable to provide a signature because of
illiteracy or disability.''.
SEC. ____05. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT THAT STATES PERMIT
REGISTRANTS CHANGING RESIDENCE TO VOTE AT
POLLING PLACE FOR FORMER ADDRESS.
Section 8(e)(2) of the National Voter Registration Act of
1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(e)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(2)(A)'' and inserting ``(2)''; and
(2) by striking ``election, at the option of the
registrant--'' and all that follows and inserting the
following: ``election shall be permitted to correct the
voting records for purposes of voting in future elections at
the appropriate polling place for the current address and, if
permitted by State law, shall be permitted to vote in the
present election, upon confirmation by the registrant of the
new address by such means as are required by law.''.
SEC. ____06. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this title shall apply with respect
to elections for Federal office occurring after December
1999.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Friday, July 17, 1998, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and
a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in
opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Shays-Meehan
substitute. This amendment contains common sense reforms that will
restore integrity to our elections.
Mr. Chairman, voting is the most important responsibility of any
citizen in a democracy. Many brave men and women have given their lives
to protect our right to vote, to determine for ourselves the shape and
direction of our government.
When individuals are allowed to abuse our electoral process, it
destroys the integrity of our democracy. It erodes public confidence in
the system and sends a signal to the American people that their vote
does not count. It suggests that government is not really the people's
but rather a tool of those who would corrupt it for their own personal
gain. This breeds cynicism and destroys the motivation of our citizens
to participate.
This amendment addresses the real problems of voter fraud that demean
our democracy. In the past several years, Congress has tried to make it
easier for American citizens to participate in the democratic process
by enacting legislation which relaxes regulation and voting
requirements.
We can all agree that this is a noble and responsible goal. In this
effort, however, Congress has denied the States the ability to maintain
reasonable requirements that protect the security and integrity of our
elections. Therefore, we must act now to restore vital protections that
ensure our elections will truly represent the will of the people.
This amendment restores integrity in our electoral system by
targeting three major areas, the voter registration application
process, the maintenance of voter rolls, and voting on election day. It
is modeled after legislation I introduced last year and is also similar
to legislation considered by the House earlier this year.
To address shortcomings in the voter registration system, the
amendment requires anyone registering to vote to show proof of their
citizenship. To make this provision feasible and to further improve the
registration process, it repeals the Federal requirement that States
must permit individuals to register by mail.
Let me be clear on this point. This amendment does not prevent States
from allowing voter registration by mail. It simply gives States a
choice by removing the current Federal mandate of mail in registration.
{time} 2130
Currently there is no way to ensure that individuals registering by
mail are actually United States citizens or if they are even who they
say they are. The American people may be shocked to know there is
essentially nothing to prevent an individual from mailing in a
registration card with phony information and being allowed to vote.
Second, the amendment includes provisions to improve the ability of
State election officials to maintain accurate voter rolls. It allows,
not requires, but allows a State to purge the rolls or remove the names
of voters from the Federal election rolls if they have not voted in two
consecutive Federal elections and do not respond to a confirmation
notice.
In addition, my amendment addresses the problem of double voting by
repealing the provisions of current law that allow individuals who have
recently moved within a county or district to vote at the voting
location of either their old or their new address.
To combat voter fraud on election day, my amendment implements two
important provisions. First, it permits, but does not mandate, that
States require voters to sign their name before entering the voting
booth. Then, if it becomes necessary to investigate an election, States
will be able to compare the signatures on the voting lists with the
signatures on the voter registration forms to verify identity.
Second, my amendment permits, but does not mandate, that States
require individuals to produce photo ID's in order to vote in a Federal
election. The amendment also includes a provision clarifying that none
of these provisions interfere with the law governing overseas and
military voting.
Mr. Chairman, the American people expect their elections to be clean,
fair, and honest. This amendment restores the prestige that has long
been an integral part of our Nation's electoral process.
I urge my colleagues to support this common sense amendment
protecting our elections from fraud and abuse.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, this proposal has nothing to do with
campaign reform. What it would do would be to turn back a law that we
passed a few years ago.
Why is it being done? It was said in a different time that money is
the mother's milk of politics, but, unfortunately, increasingly there
has been a poisoning of politics by money. Now, in order to thwart the
effort to take the endless flow of money out of politics, to have
responsibility and accountability, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte) is essentially presenting a poison pill, a poison pill to
bring down Shays-Meehan. He knows very well, as should anybody who
votes for it, that Shays-Meehan cannot become law with this provision
in it.
The President has made clear his position about the motor-voter bill.
It is very clear on this side of the aisle where we stand, and I am
hopeful that those on the majority side who really want Shays-Meehan
will say this: Look, we will argue motor-voter, but some other day.
The bill before us relates to the flow of money into politics. There
are endless electoral provisions, endless, that could be brought up at
this point that are not essentially related to money.
So what does this bill do? It essentially requires Social Security
numbers on voter registration applications. Though there is question
whether that is even constitutional, I think it is bad policy. You talk
about intrusion by the Federal Government, and you want that
requirement? You do not want to leave it to the States?
Also, there is a requirement regarding photo identification. Now,
look, under present law, States can provide or require that kind of
identification, as long as it is done in a uniform, nondiscriminatory
way and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. Essentially, the
gentleman from Virginia
[[Page H5937]]
(Mr. Goodlatte) wants to repeal this part of the Voting Rights Act.
Also the provisions regarding mail-in requirements, now, I understand
why some people do not like this. There are some who have made a
calculus that the more who vote, the worse it is for them.
But that is violative of the democratic process, in my judgment. We
should all be for encouraging more voters, not less. There are also
provisions here about dropping people from the rolls for not voting,
and I understand there is some controversy about this, about the law
that we passed several years ago. But let us take it up in a forum, in
a format, that does not threaten this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I would just close with this: We have an opportunity to
act. Everybody sitting in this body knows better than anybody else the
contamination caused by the endless anonymous flow of money. Everybody,
worthy people who know more than virtually anybody else about this. And
we should be the ones leading reform, not the ones waiting for an
uprising.
This amendment, if adopted, would kill Shays-Meehan. If attached to
the freshmen bill, if that were to come up, it would kill it. I think
that is perhaps why it is being introduced here.
Mr. Chairman, I urge its defeat. Let us take up campaign finance
reform as promised, and we will take up these other issues some other
day.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, our act only amends the so-called Motor-Voter Act,
which is superseded by the Voting Rights Act, which is not affected by
this legislation in any way, shape or form.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
McCollum).
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support this amendment
by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman and I
have worked for a long time about trying to take fraud out of the
motor-voter laws and out of the laws that exist today, the potential
for fraud, throughout this Nation. I know the gentleman has no
intention to offer this for any other purpose than to advance that
cause.
There are two provisions within the gentleman's amendment identical
to those which I put in in a separate bill for a separate session of
Congress, two provisions that are supported by all 67 supervisors of
elections in the State of Florida, both Democrat and Republican.
One of those that they all find critical to being able to fight voter
fraud is to be able to purge the rolls every couple of years. They are
not now permitted to do it. The cost that they have, they are enormous
in carrying these rolls. There are many duplications on those rolls.
It is ridiculous to require that you cannot purge, and that is what
the law today says, you cannot remove names. If proper notice is given,
like the Goodlatte amendment requires, and confirmation notice follows
it up, everybody is given an opportunity, if you have not voted in two
consecutive Federal elections, the supervisor's office should certainly
be allowed to purge the role and eliminate the name.
The other is the Social Security card question. Right now most
supervisors do not feel that they have the authority to require the
production of a Social Security number when somebody registers to vote.
Having that number on record is very essential to avoid the duplication
that occurs. Potentially when people have the same names, it is very,
very bad. Twenty-one Jane Smiths do exist out there. What about people
in other counties?
It is very important to have that provision in the law, and I
strongly urge the adoption of this amendment for both of those reasons,
but I fully support the entire provisions that are in this amendment,
and urge a yes vote on the Goodlatte amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps).
(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the bipartisan
Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill. Since my first day in
office, I have been working hard with these two colleagues and many
others to deliver meaningful, sensible reform of our beleaguered
campaign finance system for the American people.
I am dismayed that some Members of this House have played partisan
politics with common sense legislation. The amendment currently under
debate is another attempt to derail Shays-Meehan and kill finance
reform. The Goodlatte amendment would effectively repeal the mail-in
registration provision of the motor-voter law.
During my recent special election, a massive vote-by-mail drive
conducted both by my campaign and my opponent's campaign led to
overwhelming voter participation. In fact, our special election
witnessed the highest voter turnout in a special election in the
history of elections in California. Without mail-in registration, many
hard working men and women would not have been able to vote.
Registering to vote and getting to the polls is often difficult for
people who struggle to balance their jobs with the need to drive their
kids to and from school and other activities. Terminating mail-in
registration would also, for obvious reasons, disenfranchise elderly
and disabled voters. The current motor-voter law has been tremendously
successful. Currently we have the highest percentage of voter
registration, 73 percent, since reliable voting records were first made
available in 1960.
Mr. Chairman, do we only want people to register to vote who are
young, able-bodied and have flexible schedules? Clearly the answer is
no.
I am also very concerned with the provision in this amendment which
would allow States to require a photo ID in order to vote. A variant of
this idea was implemented during my special election in March, and it
had disastrous results.
The Secretary of State of California asked poll workers to request
that voters voluntarily submit their driver's licenses to clean up the
voter data base. This seemingly innocent request led to many troubling
incidents. One elderly Santa Barbara woman went to her polling location
only to be told she could not vote because she failed to produce a
driver's license.
This woman, who no longer drove a car, had voted in every election as
long as she could remember. She no longer had any need for a photo ID
and was distraught when told she could not vote. Finally a poll worker
allowed the woman's husband to vouch for her identity.
In addition, poll workers did not consistently enforce the Secretary
of State's request. Voters in areas that have larger Hispanic
populations were required to show driver's licenses more often than
voters in more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods.
This program, which was scheduled to be implemented throughout the
State, has since been cancelled. Actually voter registration, when
effectively implemented, provides the voter with all the ID necessary.
If you are adequately registered, you have the right to vote.
Requiring voters to show a photo ID is intimidating to new voters who
are still unsure of the process. This action inadvertently leads to
discrimination against voters of different races and nationalities. In
all likelihood, someone who looks like me would not be asked to produce
a photo ID at my polling location, but a Latino American or Asian
American would be.
We need to be implementing laws that encourage voter participation,
rather than chasing away eligible voters already engaged in the
process. I urge a no vote to this amendment, and I hope we will pass
the Shays-Meehan bill very soon.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Virginia for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Goodlatte amendment to restore
integrity to elections. There is no more revered right of citizenship
than the right to vote. The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act made it both a Federal crime and a
deportable offense when noncitizens vote.
[[Page H5938]]
Allowing noncitizens to vote cheapens the right for the rest of us.
There is currently no satisfactory way for local registrars to ensure
that there are no noncitizens on their voting rolls or for the Justice
Department to enforce the penalties. Attempts have been made to check
voting rolls against Immigration and Naturalization Service records in
order to identify noncitizens. However, INS data, at best, can only
tell us that a voter is a legal immigrant or a citizen. INS data cannot
tell us whether a voter is in fact an illegal alien.
I want to thank my friend from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for offering
this amendment. The enactment of the motor-voter law and the loosening
of voter registration requirements have released a flood of voter
irregularities and illegalities across the country. Not only has motor-
voter failed to increase voter turnout, it in fact has encouraged voter
fraud.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and let the American
people know that we will protect and honor their right to vote, and
restore integrity to the election process.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, it is ironic in a bill designed to
encourage the faith of the American people in the political process we
would see an amendment like this that is a veritable wish-list of
provisions to discourage voter participation. Our rate of voter
participation is low enough as it is. We should be encouraging people
to get involved, not throwing up roadblocks.
{time} 2145
This amendment actually allows the State to remove one from the voter
rolls if one fails to vote in two consecutive elections. Now, I wish
everyone would vote in every election, but since when does one have to
vote in every election to maintain one's right to vote, or in every two
elections? I think most Americans would find that outrageous. This is a
constitutional right we are talking about taking away, and why? Because
the person missed an election? Voter registration by mail is an
important option for people who are homebound or who have limited
access to transportation. Why would we take away that option? What
evidence is there that this is encouraging voter fraud?
Perhaps worst of all, this amendment gives the States free rein to
require additional information to vote, including a photo I.D. and so-
called proof of citizenship, yet we already know from the now totally
discredited Dornan investigation that our, meaning the Federal
Government's current records, produced all sorts of mistakes. Nuns and
our own military men and women were falsely accused of illegal voting.
We know that selective enforcement of such I.D. will be applied to
those who may not have blond hair or blue eyes or otherwise be
considered typically American. Is that the type of system we want to
make nationwide? I hope not.
The question is, are we going to encourage voter participation and
make it convenient for our citizens to vote, or are we going to turn
the voting process into a system of government background checks,
interrogations and false accusations?
The ballot box should be a place of sanctity and freedom, not of
distrust and suspicion.
This amendment should be defeated. It is anti-voter, it is anti-
participation, and it is anti-democratic.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Virginia for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in strong support of this amendment,
because far from being a poison pill, it carries to the logical
conclusion what we should all be about in this Chamber, and that is the
elimination of corruption in the campaign and election process. The
election is the logical culmination of the campaign. Mr. Chairman, we
should stand foursquare for the legitimate rights of United States
citizens to vote in open and honest elections. The Goodlatte amendment
helps ensure this.
Mr. Chairman, I have spent part of this weekend in the Pleasant
Valley of Arizona in the tiny hamlet of Young, and people there came
and asked me, they said, ``When we go to the city and go to buy
something at a grocery store with a check, we have to show two forms of
identification. But under current United States law, we require no
identification to claim citizenship to vote.''
Mr. Chairman, reasonable people would call for this rational reform
for open, fair and free elections.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr), a leader in this entire effort.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
I am sitting here tonight wondering what is happening to us. Have we
become so suspicious of our own country that we do not believe in
democracy anymore? This debate is supposed to be about campaign finance
reform, and now we are debating an amendment that says we do not trust
the people who are asking to participate in our democracy.
The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and I were both in the
Peace Corps. We were so proud of talking about what is the governance
structure of this country. I have to tell my colleagues that this
amendment tonight is going too far. This says we do not trust the
people out there; we do not want to be a government by the people.
We are sitting here in this room with all of these law-givers around
us, and I realize that not one of them, except for Thomas Jefferson,
was a citizen. But how could we prove he was a citizen, because when he
was born, there was no country. So the people we respect we now deny
with these kinds of amendments in saying that if one is an American,
one has to prove it.
Which one of us walks around with any kind of proof that shows that
you are an American citizen? Show me. There is not one thing on your
body that has it. Not a driver's license, not a credit card. It does
not say you are a citizen of America, but this amendment is going to
require it, an I.D. with a photo. One has to have a Social Security
card and put down Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers?
The American public is going to say, what are you doing to us? Is
this what you require of us to participate in a democracy that is of
the people, by the people and for the people? My God, this is the
country that did away with literacy tests to allow people to vote, and
poll taxes, and now we are putting it back on in indirect ways.
We should look before we leap with these kinds of amendments. This is
a bill about congressional campaign reform, about finance reform, about
how we pay for elections; not how we distrust the voters of America. I
think we are doing a pretty good job and I think our forefathers would
be ashamed of us in thinking of this kind of an amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, we recently had an election in Louisiana under the
``motor voter'' law. That election left us with a huge and extended
voter inquiry by the Senate committee questioning the outcome of that
Senate race. The reason that happened in our State was, the allegations
of people registering improperly and then voting multiple times by
simply changing outer garments and coats and walking back in the polls
and voting again, the reason all of that happened was because the
election safeguards in our State completely broke down. The Senate
committee that investigated that election ended up saying, ``We cannot
tell you whether or not voter fraud occurred in Louisiana, because all
of the systems by which we ought to be able to tell whether it occurred
broke down.''
A newspaper in Lake Charles using the motor voter law attempted to
register 21 fictitious individuals and ended up registering 19
successfully. One of them was a dog, and anyone representing themselves
to be that person that was a dog could have shown up on Election Day in
Louisiana and voted because this was no requirement in the law then to
produce any photo I.D. Since that time, the Federal Government has
finally allowed Louisiana to require a photo I.D. It is now the law of
[[Page H5939]]
Louisiana, now approved by the Justice Department in our State
following that terrible, indeed questionable election in Louisiana.
What this amendment does is to do two things that I think are vitally
important to improve the motor voter law in our country. It says that
the States can indeed provide mail balloting if they want to, mail
registration, but that if they do, proof of citizenship should be
required.
We ought to know who is registering. We should be able to prove who
we are; and then, secondly, when one shows up to vote, there ought to
be some identifiable photo, just as one would present a photo when one
checks one's luggage at an airport or try to buy tobacco in a grocery
store, some identifiable indication of who you are, that you are the
person who is registering. Those two changes are critical for valid
elections in America.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Campbell), surely a leader in the campaign reform
effort.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my generous friend for his kind
comments.
If I might engage the author for just a second of clarification, I
would be so grateful, if he would care to respond. I would inquire of
the gentleman, does the gentleman's amendment require the use of the
Social Security number in order to vote?
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the
amendment does call for a Social Security number and proof of
citizenship to register to vote.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
gentleman answering me. The gentleman from Virginia has been honest and
fair in his representation of his amendment; nevertheless, it greatly
troubles me, and I am sorry that the gentleman added that to his bill.
We should not require the use of the Social Security number in that
way.
I will tell my colleagues why. First of all, it gets pretty close to
the national I.D. and I have always tried to prevent that from
happening. Secondly, the Social Security number is a matter of privacy
to a whole lot of us, and if we require it, we are going to have that
on the voter registration rolls and people are going to find out what
one's Social Security number is, and from that a lot of things can be
done to identify somebody that they may not otherwise have.
It probably is not the gentleman's intention, but he moves us one
step along the way that motor voter moved us, and I voted ``no'' on
motor voter because I thought it was too much Federal intrusion into
States' rights in establishing what are the qualifications for voting.
The Constitution says that it is the States that are responsible for
determining the qualifications for electors. The Constitution says it
is the same qualifications as electors for the most numerous branch of
the State legislature. So we in California, we get to decide that. You
in Virginia and in your legislature would get to decide that. But motor
voter said no, we are going to have Federal rolls.
Well now, again, no doubt with the best intentions, I think the
gentleman from Virginia is moving us farther along that way by saying
the Federal Government mandates that this shall also be a qualification
for election, namely the use of a Social Security number, even though
the Constitution says for Federal elections, for Federal elections, it
is the business of the States. I regret I must oppose this amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to quickly say that this in no way establishes a national I.D.
card. This is simply for the purpose of the security of the ballots.
I agree with gentleman's concern about the motor voter laws that
mandated so many requirements on the States, and this repeals a great
many of those mandates upon the States, and it does not use that number
for any purpose, nor does it permit it for any additional purpose other
than an establishment of the individual's citizenship in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment. What we are talking about is the elimination of what we
Californians who are aware of what is going on call the illegal alien
voter registration act, which was called by this body the motor voter
act.
This amendment makes real the alleged purpose of the bill that we are
talking about. We are talking about reforming the political process to
ensure that election results will reflect the will of the American
people. Well, there is nothing better that we can do to accomplish this
end than to protect the rights of our own people by making sure that
the election process and the sanctity of the ballot is protected, to
ensure that American votes are not made meaningless by the votes of
millions of noncitizens, many of whom have come here illegally.
Back in 1993 when the Democratic Party controlled both Houses of
Congress, they established rules that went far too far to open up the
system, and thus they left the system opened up to incredible abuse. We
are trying to bring balance back to that, ensure the sanctity of the
ballot for the will of the American people. Support this amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Could I ask the Chairman once again to give us the time
remaining on each side?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 6\1/2\
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Virginia has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
kindness.
I wonder what President Johnson would have thought as he signed the
Voter Rights Act of 1965, where so many people had been left out of the
circle of empowerment, were denied the right to vote, but on the sweat
and tears and the advocacy of those who watched and walked, those of us
who looked like me were able to vote.
This is legislation is the killer weed legislation. It is to destroy
campaign finance reforms. It stings and it hurts. It denies truck
drivers and welfare mothers and laborers and domestics who have
inflexible time the ability to go and vote. It purges people from the
right to vote, from the voter polls, and it is unconstitutional.
A 4th Circuit case in 1993 said that if you require someone to use
their Social Security number in order to vote, you deny them the right
of the 1st and 14th Amendments. It is unconstitutional. We know what
you are saying here. People with different names, people that come from
different walks of life, whose skin color is different, this is to get
these kinds of folk off of the polls.
What are we talking about here in America? The right to vote. My view
is that all Americans want everyone to have the right to vote, yes, and
to vote legally.
{time} 2200
The States can determine whether one is legally able to vote. They
can require ID when voters go to the polls. Mr. Chairman, this is not
campaign finance reform. It is killer bee legislation. It is
destructive legislation. It destroys the right to vote. It infringes on
privacy.
It says to those who could be intimidated, ``We will intimidate
you,'' and it says to those who died for those to vote that their life
was in vain.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote against this bill that
destroys democracy in America.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn).
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte) for yielding me this time, and I congratulate him on his
proposal.
Mr. Chairman, I grew up in California where we had honest elections.
We did not at the turn of the century, but a great progressive
Republican governor, Hiram Johnson, turned that State around.
We no longer have honest elections in parts of California. The fact
is in my own district, a section of San Pedro, the person who was the
assassin of the Mexican presidential nominee happened to live in my
district. He registered twice. He was not an American citizen.
[[Page H5940]]
I think anyone who says, hey, that it does not matter whether a voter
is a citizen, I cannot believe it. People come here to become citizens.
My father was an immigrant and his proudest day was when he became a
citizen and could vote.
There is no reason we should not require proof. Photo ID? We do not
get on an airplane flight in this country without showing a photo ID.
Do my colleagues who oppose this amendment mean to say that an airplane
flight has greater weight than proof of citizenship in an election at
the polls? Of course the proof of citizenship should be there.
The fact is we just voted for a proposal to stop the walking around
money. Now we know in Texas and other areas there is great use of some
of the walking around money. People coming across the border. The Duke
of Duval County decided Texas elections by hundreds and thousands of
votes that he illegally put on the rolls.
On the purging of the rolls, I recall our friends on the other side
of the aisle who in 1993 dominated that Congress. When it was put to
them: Should we not purge the rolls at least in 5 years or 10 years?
``No, you cannot do it,'' they said. How about 25 years? ``No, you
cannot do it.'' How about 50 years? Can we not say that those people
who have never voted for 50 years and are still on the rolls must not
still be around? ``No,'' we were told by the then majority ``sorry,
cannot do it.'' And then we got to a hundred years in an amendment
offered by the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]
who knows where fraud is.
Mr. Chairman, I would say let us back citizenship when it comes to
American elections. Let us have honest elections.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, this is a poison pill proposal designed to
kill campaign finance reform. Pure and simple. But what is amazing
about what the Republicans are doing here tonight is that it is anti-
American, that it disregards States rights, that it is an intrusion
into the privacy of American citizens.
Just a little while ago we voted with the Republicans to deny the
right to spend one dollar to help a senior citizen to the polling place
on Election Day. Now we have a proposal that would say voters have to
present a Social Security number and card and proof of citizenship.
Well, all of this is undermining the voting rights of all of our
citizens and, of course, the Voting Rights Act that so many fought and
even died for.
What are my colleagues on the other side doing? Are they taking us
back to the time that many of us know too much about? Literacy tests?
Poll tax?
Well, some of us and our forefathers have been in this struggle. They
have been in this fight to get rid of that kind of discrimination and
marginalization and denial. Some of us even joined to help our friends
in South Africa against national ID, known as pass laws. We are not
going back there.
Mr. Chairman, if this is some attempt to kill the bill, let me just
tell my colleagues this. It does not matter whether or not they are
able to convince people on this floor to vote for this kind of anti-
American proposal. We will beat them in the courts on this, because
this is unconstitutional.
So I would hope that my colleagues would live up to who they are
supposed to be. I cannot imagine what the American people will think
about the kinds of things that they are doing that are so anti-
American. This is unconstitutional, and I ask for a ``no'' vote.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
(Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, a very fundamental question in the American
democracy is how do we ensure that voters are legal voters? What is the
purpose of voter registration? It is, pure and simple, to prevent
fraud.
We have to recognize that the laws of this land are written to
control the bad folks, not the good folks. And I do not think it is an
insult to Americans to have voter registration. But if we have
registration, there has to be some requirement that the people have met
the requirements of the registration laws. How do we do this? By
checking identification when someone registers to vote.
If we prohibit that, if we have simple mail-in voting registration
for anyone that wishes, then why have registration at all? Why not just
simply use the poll directory or the telephone directory and check
people off on that as they vote?
If we are going to have a voter registration and the purpose of it is
to prevent fraud, we have to ensure that fraudulent behavior does not
take place and this bill will do that.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), coauthor of this legislation in
the battle for reform.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I voted for the motor voter bill and I did so as a
Member who represents Stanford, Norwalk, and Bridgeport. I represent
the problems that we have in urban areas and the need to encourage
people to register and vote.
I am troubled that this amendment requires a Social Security number
to register to vote. I am troubled that the State would put more
requirements on voter ID. States are allowed now to have voter IDs, but
there are certain requirements that they be done uniformly.
I believe if citizens have not voted they should not be dropped from
the rolls. I just happen to believe that. And this would allow States
to drop voters who happen not to vote.
It would repeal the Maryland registration, which has done a wonderful
job of registering not just Democrats, as everyone feared, but
Republicans and Independents. In fact, more Independents have
registered than Democrats or Republicans. I think this has increased
involvement in the process, and I regret sincerely that in a vote on
campaign finance reform we have this issue which is dealing with
something very, very different.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to any measure that seeks
so-called citizenship verification. At a time when voter turnout is
lower than low, we must encourage rather than discourage citizens of
this great Nation from voting.
Clearly, the history of discrimination against voters in this country
should admonish this Congress that State and local governments may
interpret Federal laws differently. Yet this amendment would allow
States the privilege of requiring voters to provide proof of
citizenship and a Social Security number when registering to vote.
I ask is this flawed process of verifying citizenship just another
version of modern day Jim Crow? How many of our citizens are supposed
to provide proof citizenship when neither the INS nor the Social
Security agency kept naturalization records until 1978?
So I ask this Congress since when has a citizen's honor not been
enough? When a person swears that they are indeed a citizen of the
United States of America, they do so with the understanding that if
they are incorrect they are perjuring themselves.
I say let us go forward, Mr. Chairman, and not backwards. Let us vote
down this amendment and move America into the 21st century with
democracy, equality and justice for all.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of closing the debate,
it is my pleasure to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is
recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the gentleman from
Virginia bringing this because it is amazing to me only the supporters
of Shays-Meehan can define what reform is. Anybody else that brings
anything to this bill are not supporters of reform.
[[Page H5941]]
Well, I say that we just think reform is maybe a little bit different
than the supporters of Shays-Meehan, and this is a perfect campaign
reform bill.
Let us just get rid of all the red herrings that have been put out in
this debate. This is not national ID cards. This is not using Social
Security numbers to vote. This is not even a poison pill. What this is
talking about is that just like if you were getting a driver's license,
you have to prove that you are a certain age. You have to bring a birth
certificate. You have to prove that you know how to drive to get your
driver's license.
For the most important act that Americans can do, the right to vote,
you would think that it would be an honor to bring proof of citizenship
to the table when you are registering to vote; not every time you vote.
When you do go vote you pull out your driver's license or whatever to
show that you are indeed the person that you say you are standing in
front of the voting election judge and proving that you are that
person.
What is wrong with that? It is very simple. Since enactment of the
motor voter law, we have seen an increase in voting fraud across this
country, and much of the increase is due to the provisions of the bill
that prohibits States from removing registrants who fail to vote or who
are unresponsive to voter registration correspondence.
Because of the lack of fraud provisions in the motor voter law, we
have the modern world's sloppiest electoral system, according to
political scientist Walter Dean Burnham. The year-long investigation of
the Dornan-Sanchez House race established 624 documented cases of
noncitizens voting, noncitizens voting, in American elections; another
124 voters cast improper absentee ballots; an additional 196 votes may
well have been legal but only circumstantial evidence existed.
As of 1994, in Houston County, Alabama, a man who has been dead for 7
years has been recorded as voting regularly by absentee ballot. In
Washington, D.C., an astonishing 1 of every 6 registered voters cannot
be reached at their address of record. The city has lost 100,000 people
since 1980, but registration has shot up to 86 percent of eligible
voters from only 58 percent.
Felons, dead people, nonresidents and fictitious registrations clog
the rolls in Washington, D.C., where anyone can walk up and vote
without even showing an ID. The Miami Herald has found that 105 ballots
in last year's undisputed mayoral election was cast by felons. Last
month, a local grand jury concluded that absentee ballot fraud clearly
played an important part in the recent City of Miami elections. This
called into question the legitimacy of the results.
Nine dead San Franciscans in 1997 were recorded as casting votes from
beyond the grave in the June 49ers Stadium election, according to an
analysis of city voter files and death records.
Everyone supports the right to vote, but an equally important right
is the guarantee of elections that are fair and free of fraud. Without
the Goodlatte amendment, a growing number of States cannot guarantee
the integrity of their results and that inevitably will lead to an
increasing cynicism and disenchantment with the process. Let us help
end voter fraud in America and adopt the Goodlatte amendment.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by my friend from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte. This amendment includes
several anti-fraud provisions targeting both illegal registration and
illegal voting.
Since enactment of the Motor Voter law, we have seen an increase in
vote fraud across the country. Much of the increase is due to the
provisions of the bill that prohibits States from removing registrants
who fail to vote or who are unresponsive to voter registration
correspondence.
Because of the lack of fraud provisions in the Motor Voter law, ``We
have the modern world's sloppiest electoral systems,'' according to
political scientist Walter Dean Burnham.
The yearlong investigation of the Dornan-Sanchez House race
established 624 ``documented'' cases of non-citizens voting. Another
124 voters cast improper absentee ballots. An additional 196 votes may
well have been illegal, but only circumstantial evidence existed.
As of 1994, in Houston County, Alabama, a man who has been dead for
seven years has been recorded as voting regularly by absentee ballot.
In Washington, D.C., an astonishing one of every six registered
voters can't be reached at their address of record. The city has lost
100,000 people since 1980, but registration has shot up to 86% of
eligible voters from only 58%. Felons, dead people, non-residents and
fictitious registrations clog the rolls in Washington, where anyone can
walk up and vote without showing I.D.
The Miami Herald has found that 105 ballots in last year's disputed
mayoral election were cast by felons. Last month a local grand jury
concluded: ``absentee ballot fraud clearly played an important part in
the recent City of Miami elections.'' This ``called into question the
legitimacy of the results.''
Nine dead San Franciscans in 1997 were recorded as casting votes from
beyond the grave in the June 49ers stadium election, according to an
analysis of city voter files and death records.
Everyone supports the right to vote, but an equally important right
is the guarantee of elections that are fair and free of fraud. Without
the Goodlatte amendment, a growing number of states can't guarantee the
integrity of their results, and that inevitably will lead to an
increasing cynicism and disenchantment with the democratic process.
The Goodlatte amendment will help end voter fraud in America. I urge
its adoption.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute
No. 13 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. LEVIN. 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 Virginia
will be postponed.
{time} 2215
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barr of Georgia). It is now in order to
consider the amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
Amendment Offered by Mr. Wicker to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment 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 ______--PHOTO IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR VOTERS
SEC. ______01. PERMITTING STATE TO REQUIRE VOTERS TO PRODUCE
PHOTOGRAPHIC IDENTIFICATION.
Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993
(42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (j) as subjection (k); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (i) the following new
subsection:
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 17,
1998, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) and a Member opposed
each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, after consultation with the other side, I
ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment be limited to
10 minutes, 5 minutes per side.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Mississippi?
There was no objection.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opponents of this amendment agreeing
to a further limitation on time to speed the debate along. We have
already debated, actually, a good bit of this amendment in the previous
amendment.
What this amendment amounts to is simply a portion of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). It is that
portion permitting States to require voter I.D. This amendment does not
deal with citizenship requirements, it does not deal at all with
registration, it simply says that States have a right to determine when
someone comes to vote that they are who they say they are and that they
may do so by the means of photo I.D.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a mandate on States, which some of my
colleagues are very fearful of, but simply permission. It is the
essence of Federalism. One of my colleagues from the minority side of
the aisle mentioned the
[[Page H5942]]
issue of States rights. I was delighted to hear her say that just a few
moments ago. This is Federalism. This permits States, if they choose
to, to require photo I.D.
We have heard a lot of talk during the course of this debate over
time about corruption of our political process. I am one, Mr. Chairman,
who feels that there is corruption in our political process, but it is
not caused by too many commercials being run on TV, it is not caused by
too much money being available to buy too many advertisements. The
corruption is in voter fraud.
In far too many States and districts there are ineligible people
voting. There are people going to the polls saying they are someone
and, indeed, it turns out that they are not eligible to vote. Now, none
other than the distinguished Professor Larry Sabato, from the
University of Virginia, concurs in this feeling. Professor Sabato
believes that the enactment of the Federal Motor Voter Law of 1993 will
cause an increase in voter fraud. This amendment amends only a small
portion of the Motor Voter Law. And, as I said, it takes that portion
of the Goodlatte amendment and allows States the right.
We have heard the information provided by the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) tonight about the Louisiana election, and the
Louisiana legislature in response to the allegations there. They may
have thought, we do not know exactly what the facts are, we do not know
who was right and who was wrong, but we do want to prevent this in the
future. And what was the solution of the Louisiana legislature? It was
to permit voter photo I.D. In Florida, the State legislature was so
horrified at the 1997 mayoral election that the legislature there
enacted photo I.D. The State of Hawaii already has such a requirement
on the books.
We are simply saying that other States should feel clear and
unrestricted in also pursuing that course and should not feel that the
1993 Motor Voter Law prevents them from doing so. In the United States
of America we require a photo I.D. for millions of people to do any
number of acts: To cash a check, to board an airplane, or to buy a
beer. Why can States not require a photo identification for
participating in Federal elections, one of the most solemn acts of
citizenship?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment, like the previous amendment, has nothing to do with
campaign finance reform. States already are able to require
identification at the polls. They simply cannot discriminate in the way
that they apply the information that is required. Under Federal law
presently States can require identification at the polls, but with a
very important caveat: So long as such a requirement is applied in a
way that is uniform and does not discriminate in compliance with the
Voting Rights Act.
I would remind the gentleman from Mississippi that this country has a
history and a record of discriminating against the rights of people to
vote. That is why the Voting Rights Act was adopted in this country.
This amendment would overturn and eliminate the protections that are in
the Voting Rights Act against discrimination. It has nothing to do with
campaign finance reform and would overturn very important protections
against discrimination in this country. That is why this amendment is
unnecessary.
Once again we have a sponsor of an amendment that does not support
campaign finance reform putting up another obstacle towards passing
this bill. And as we approach the hour of 10:30, there are still more
efforts to water down and try to find a way to put up an impediment to
passing campaign finance reform.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Watt), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Watt) is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, they say those are fighting
words down there where I come from, when you say somebody is from South
Carolina.
(Mr. WATT of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
We were rocking along here, I thought, talking about campaign finance
reform, and all of a sudden we took off in a whole different direction.
We are talking about reform, yes, maybe, but what voter I.D.s have to
do with campaign finance, what registration requirements have to do
with campaign finance, I am having a little trouble connecting up.
If we are going to talk about these kinds of issues, let us remind
ourselves what democracy is all about. It is about allowing people and
encouraging people to vote, not putting impediments in the way, not
discriminating against citizens, not singling some people out and
saying we do not like the way they look so we are going to deprive them
of the right to vote by making them produce some kind of arbitrary
identification or Social Security number or something.
A couple of years ago the South African folks finally had a
democratic election. Do my colleagues think South Africa ever required
anybody to register to vote? No. I always wonder, why is it necessary
to even have a registration? If we allowed this identification process,
and we did it in tandem with abolishing registration, then maybe it
would be a good thing. Because people could show up, if they were
citizens of the United States, and say I am a citizen, I have not
registered, that is arbitrary, let me vote. That would further
democracy.
But when we start putting impediments in the way of registration and
then putting more impediments in the way of voting after one has
registered, then we have to wonder, is this about reform, does it have
anything to do with finance, is it even about democracy? And that is
what we have got to keep our eye on; to encourage people to participate
in our democracy, not put our country behind any other country in the
world. When people talk about democracy, they ought to instinctively
think about the United States of America. We should not allow them to
instinctively think about a new democracy which has had only one
election.
Mr. Chairman, we should defeat this amendment and pass the Shays-
Meehan bill.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and
in that 1 minute I have to close let me point out a couple of things.
My friends on the other side of the aisle say we are talking about
campaign finance reform, not voter fraud. I have the title of this bill
right here, Mr. Chairman. It is H.R. 2183, the Bipartisan Campaign
Integrity Act. The Campaign Integrity Act. I submit to my colleagues
that if anything threatens the integrity of our elections in the United
States of America, it is campaign fraud.
All this amendment does is, I will quote, ``Permitting States to
require voters to produce photo identification.'' And I quote, ``A
State may require an individual to produce a valid photographic
identification before receiving a ballot for voting in an election for
Federal office.''
Mr. Chairman, this goes to the precious commodity of democracy in the
franchise in this Nation. It is a very simple amendment and I move its
adoption.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) to the amendment in the nature
of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CAMPBELL. 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
(Mr. Wicker) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Snowbarger).
Amendment Offered by Mr. Snowbarger to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays
Mr. SNOWBARGER. 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.
[[Page H5943]]
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Snowbarger to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:
TITLE---ENHANCING ENFORCEMENT OF CAMPAIGN LAW
SEC. .01. ENHANCING ENFORCEMENT OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW.
(a) Mandatory Imprisonment for Criminal Conduct.--Section
309(d)(1)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 437g(d)(1)(A)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``shall be fined, or
imprisoned for not more than one year, or both'' and
inserting ``shall be imprisoned for not fewer than 1 year and
not more than 10 years''; and
(2) by striking the second sentence.
(b) Concurrent Authority of Attorney General to Bring
Criminal Actions.--Section 309(d) of such Act (2 U.S.C.
437g(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(4) In addition to the authority to bring cases referred
pursuant to subsection (a)(5), the Attorney General may at
any time bring a criminal action for a violation of this Act
or of chapter 95 or chapter 96 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986.''
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to actions brought with respect to
elections occurring after January 1999.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 17,
1998, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Snowbarger) and the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Snowbarger).
Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise tonight to offer an amendment to the Shays-Meehan substitute
to address a serious problem with our Nation's campaign finance system.
This problem really hit home to me as we were investigating various
things in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight this year.
Among the thousands and thousands of documents that were presented to
us from the White House was a memo from the Clinton-Gore campaign which
indicated in the memo that about $1 million was set aside in the
campaign budget to pay fines.
{time} 2230
In the margin of that document was the word ``ugh'' written in the
President's handwriting.
It seemed to me at that point in time that one of the problems that
we have with our current campaign finance system is the enforcement of
that system. If it is merely a matter of making sure that they have
enough money in their budget to cover the fines, then obviously the
fines are not much of a deterrent to behavior that is possibly illegal.
Far too often Federal regulations have unintended consequences, and
our campaign finance system is just one acute example of that. It is
complicated. It is difficult to navigate. And in fact, the average
first-time candidates have to consult both a lawyer and an accountant
before mounting a serious campaign, and this is a serious problem I
would like to see changed.
However, I think the biggest problem is that the system is not
accountable and we need to make it more transparent and violations of
existing law severely punished. My amendment tonight accomplishes one
of these important goals by increasing the punishment options available
to judges.
The current penalty regime for willful and knowing violations of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 provides for up to 1 year of
imprisonment for these types of willful violations. My amendment would
simply increase the penalty discretion available to judges to no more
than 10 years and no fewer than 1 year. Hopefully, this will allow the
judge to take all factors into account. And more importantly, Mr.
Chairman, my amendment will force candidates that want to play fast and
loose with the rules to think long and hard before they decide to
engage in what I would term playing fast and loose.
One other provision of my amendment would allow the Justice
Department the option of taking direct jurisdiction and not waiting for
a referral from the Federal Election Commission before starting an
investigation and a prosecution.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I would like to explain
why. First, under the present law the fine is $10,000 or 200 percent of
the fraudulent contribution; and we increase that to $20,000 or 300
percent in our legislation.
But if I am reading this legislation properly, I think the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Snowbarger) has a mandatory sentence of not less than
a year, not fewer than 1 year, and not more than 10. And if the
gentleman were willing to eliminate the mandatory sentence and reduce
it to 5 years, I think we could find an accommodation. But it is a
concern that there would be a mandatory minimum.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Just in brief response, Mr. Chairman, the requirement of a minimum
amount of time is, in essence, what the bill is all about. What we are
suggesting is that if somebody willfully violates the campaign finance
laws, that there ought to be a criminal penalty for this and not just
fines.
As I indicated earlier, one of the reasons that fines do not seem to
work is that all they need to do is create a larger budget and raise
enough money to pay those fines and that is not much of a deterrent to
complying with whatever campaign finance law we have in place.
I can appreciate the offer of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays) and thank him for it, but I think it is the essence. Perhaps the
upper limit could be reduced to a lesser amount. But I think the key to
this bill is the minimum of one year and to stick with that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Barr of Georgia). The Chair will inform that the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Snowbarger) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining and
has the right to close, and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays)
has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Campbell) to flesh out a little bit more what the
amendment does.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I might be able to support it. I just
wanted to ask a couple questions.
As the gentleman knows, we passed the amendment of the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith) earlier tonight. It is my understanding that his
amendment brought the penalty for knowing violations of the foreign
contributor provision up to 10 years. And what the Snowbarger amendment
does is to amend the more generic part of the campaign finance bill so
that all provisions will have an enhanced penalty.
The distinction, though, between the Smith and the Snowbarger
amendments, Mr. Chairman, as I see it is that, whereas the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Smith) might have allowed a judge to say, well, this
is something that perhaps should get less than 1 year, the gentleman
mandates that it must be at least 1 year. And if I am correct about
that, I would just like to know that.
And secondly, whereas the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) did not
speak about the question about giving the Attorney General the
prosecutorial discretion, the Snowbarger amendment does, and that the
Attorney General may proceed if the FEC is deadlocked, whereas
otherwise under the Smith amendment it would require a referral by FEC
to the Department of Justice.
If I am correct or incorrect in those two major distinctions between
the Smith amendment and the Snowbarger amendment, I would appreciate
hearing so.
Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is accurate that there is
within the discretion of the Department of Justice the ability to take
on one of these campaign finance cases without a referral, as the
gentleman indicated with the deadlock.
The gentleman is also correct that there is a minimum amount of time
that is required. As I indicated to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays) earlier, if there is a problem with the maximum time period that
is
[[Page H5944]]
allowed in there, I do not mind working with that.
But I think it is important that we have a minimum time period. I
think that candidates that are faced with the possibility of jail time
are going to be much more cautious.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the gentleman had already
answered the question, but I will just put it in this final form.
I think the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) did us a service. I
supported his amendment. But it was an important part of my support and
perhaps that of others that the trial judge did have discretion to take
into account the sentencing guidelines.
I am a bit troubled that the judge's discretion is taken away at
least insofar as it must be 1 year. Nobody has any sympathy for an
intentional violator of the law. I know that is true of all of us. But
I am concerned about taking away the trial judge's discretion where in
her or his discretion the appropriate sentence ought to be time in jail
but not a full year.
And I would yield the remainder of the time that was yielded to me to
the author of the amendment to explain, if he could, why he does not
urge upon us in the House tonight to give the trial judge discretion
under the sentencing guidelines for that occasional case when it might
be just to do so, to have the full panoply of discretion, as we agreed
was the case with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Snowbarger) wants to close and he has 1 minute remaining as well; is
that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Snowbarger) has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining and has the right to close.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Chairman, we currently have discretion of the
judge to grant between zero jail time and 1 year.
I think that the fact that there is a possibility of no jail time
still would weaken any campaign finance law that we have to pass. I
think it is important that there be a mandatory jail time provided.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, because the gentleman
was going to conclude to say that it probably would be better if we
left the discretion of the judge to go from zero to 10, I am not sure
it is enough to defeat his amendment but he might want to consider
that. I appreciate his answers.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 30 seconds remaining.
I know what the gentleman is trying to achieve. I think he does
achieve it with the sentence potential of zero to 5 years and increased
fines. I am just troubled that it would be a mandatory sentence, and
would at this time oppose his amendment and vote against it. Obviously,
we would love to find an accommodation, but I guess that is not
possible.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays)
has expired.
The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Snowbarger) is recognized for 1\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Chairman, again I just want to reiterate, what we
are trying to do here is to make sure that there are sufficient
penalties in the law to deter people from committing campaign finance
law violations.
Thus far, we have put a system of fines in place. Sometimes those are
large fines, other times lesser fines that are meted out. But the fact
of the matter is the fine system has not stopped the violations of
current campaign finance law. There is no reason to believe that fines
alone would deter future adherence to the law, whatever that law might
change to.
It is exactly for that reason that I think it is important that
people understand there are serious consequences, there is jail time
that is going to be required, there is serious jail time that is going
to be required. And I would ask that my colleagues seriously consider
this amendment, which I feel would put tough penalties into whatever
version of campaign finance we end up with and, very frankly, would
encourage us to pursue this under current law as well.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. Snowbarger) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13
offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was
agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
Amendment Offered by Mr. Whitfield to Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment 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. Whitfield to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:
Add at the end the following new title:
TITLE --BAN ON COORDINATED SOFT MONEY ACTIVITIES BY PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATES
SEC. 01. BAN ON COORDINATION OF SOFT MONEY FOR ISSUE
ADVOCACY BY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES RECEIVING
PUBLIC FINANCING.
(a) In General.--Section 9003 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9003) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(f) Ban on Coordination of Soft Money for Issue
Advocacy.--
``(1) In general.--No candidate for election to the office
of President or Vice President who is certified to receive
amounts from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund under
this chapter or chapter 96 may coordinate the expenditure of
any funds for issue advocacy with any political party unless
the funds are subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and
reporting requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971.
``(2) Issue advocacy defined.--In this section, the term
`issue advocacy' means any activity carried out for the
purpose of influencing the consideration or outcome of any
Federal legislation or the issuance or outcome of any Federal
regulations, or educating individuals about candidates for
election for Federal office or any Federal legislation, law,
or regulations (without regard to whether the activity is
carried out for the purpose of influencing any election for
Federal office).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply with respect to elections occurring on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of July 17, 1998,
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
Which Member will oppose the amendment and be recognized for 5
minutes?
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any objection to this
amendment. I just wish the sponsor of the amendment will vote for our
bill once we accept the amendment so we can get it passed and really
have it become law. I do not know if he would change his mind on that.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan)
claim the time in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I cannot because I support the amendment.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) be allowed to claim the time.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Meehan) claims time.
There was no objection.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for agreeing to accept the
amendment. And if that is the case, I would be happy to have it
accepted and sit down and listen to someone else talk about their
amendment.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to say that I am delighted to accept this amendment and I
hope
[[Page H5945]]
that the acceptance of this amendment results in us growing in even
broader and more bipartisan basis support amongst my colleagues so that
we can pass the Shays-Meehan bill.
I think all of us have seen over a period of the last several months
support for our bill growing enormously, and I hope that accepting this
amendment results in the gentleman supporting our bill and getting many
of his colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just make one brief comment. I appreciate the
acceptance of this amendment.
My real purpose in introducing this amendment, offering this
amendment, was to be sure that in the presidential elections the
candidates for President are the only Federal candidates that receive
public funds; and initially, when they agree to accept these public
funds, they also agree that they will not go out and raise additional
money.
In recent presidential elections, that rule has really been violated
by both sides. And during the hearings on the campaign finance abuses
on the Senate side, Senator Thompson of Tennessee, who chaired that
committee, pointed out very clearly that in the 1996 campaigns that it
was not unusual that the President sat down and coordinated these ads,
in fact, added the ads, in fact, decided where the ads of issue
advocacy would be placed.
And while the Shays-Meehan bill talks a lot about abolishment of
coordination, abolishment of soft money, the fact that the presidential
campaigns are included under the Internal Revenue Code, I just want to
be very certain that the presidential campaigns were included in this
legislation. And that was my purpose in introducing the amendment. I
appreciate very much his acceptance of it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 2245
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barr of Georgia). The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) to
the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr.
Shays.
The amendment 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 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
amendment offered by mr. calvert to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute no. 13 offered by mr. shays
Mr. CALVERT. 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. Calvert to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:
Add at the end the following new title:
TITLE ____--RESTRICTIONS ON NONRESIDENT FUNDRAISING
SEC. ____01. LIMITING AMOUNT OF CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS NOT RESIDING IN
DISTRICT OR STATE INVOLVED.
(a) In General.--Section 315 of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(i)(1) A candidate for the office of Senator or the
office of Representative in, or Delegate or Resident
Commissioner to, the Congress may not accept contributions
with respect to an election from persons other than local
individual residents totaling in excess of the aggregate
amount of contributions accepted from local individual
residents (as determined on the basis of the information
reported under section 304(d)).
``(2) In determining the amount of contributions accepted
by a candidate for purposes of this subsection, the amounts
of any contributions made by a political committee of a
political party shall be allocated as follows:
``(A) 50 percent of such amounts shall be deemed to be a
contributions from local individual residents.
``(B) 50 percent of such amounts shall be deemed to be
contributions from persons other than local individual
residents.
``(3) As used in this subsection, the term `local
individual resident' means--
``(A) with respect to an election for the office of
Senator, an individual who resides in the State involved; and
``(B) with respect to an election for the office of
Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to,
the Congress, an individual who resides in the congressional
district involved.''.
(b) Reporting Requirements.--Section 304 of such Act (2
U.S.C. 434) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(d) Each principal campaign committee of a candidate for
the Senate or the House of Representatives shall include the
following information in the first report filed under
subsection (a)(2) which covers the period which begins 19
days before an election and ends 20 days after the election:
``(1) The total contributions received by the committee
with respect to the election involved from local individual
residents (as defined in section 315(i)(3)), as of the last
day of the period covered by the report.
``(2) The total contributions received by the committee
with respect to the election involved from all persons, as of
the last day of the period covered by the report.''.
(c) Penalty for Violation of Limits.--Section 309(d) of
such Act (2 U.S.C. 437g(d)) is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(4)(A) Any candidate who knowingly and willfully accepts
contributions in excess of any limitation provided under
section 315(i) shall be fined an amount equal to the greater
of 200 percent of the amount accepted in excess of the
applicable limitation or (if applicable) the amount provided
in paragraph (1)(A).
``(B) Interest shall be assessed against any portion of a
fine imposed under subparagraph (A) which remains unpaid
after the expiration of the 30-day period which begins on the
date the fine is imposed.''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Friday, July 17, 1998, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) each will control 20
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in the 103d Congress I served on the House Republican
Campaign Finance Task Force. As a member of that task force, I pressed
for language to require that candidates receive half of the campaign
funds from people they are seeking to represent. My amendment today
would require candidates to adhere to this 50 percent rule.
The public's perception is that elected officials are beholden to the
special interests that they believe finance the campaigns. As long as
the public has this perception, it is important that every person
running for public office restores confidence in our system. By
requiring all candidates for office in the House of Representatives and
the Senate to raise at least half of their campaign funds from
individuals in the districts they represent, my amendment goes a long
way toward restoring the people's trust.
The amendment is simple and straightforward. On the first report to
the Federal Election Commission after an election, candidates would
have to show that they raised a majority of funds for that election
from individuals within their own district for House candidates or
within the State for senatorial candidates. Money from political
parties will be considered 50 percent in-district money and 50 percent
out-of-district money. If it is determined that they have not met this
requirement, they will be subject to a fine by the FEC of two times the
amount of the margin between in-district contributions and the
contributions from outside the district. Candidates will have 30 days
from that determination to pay the penalty interest-free. If the
deadline passes without payment, interest will begin to be assessed.
As Members of Congress, we owe it to our constituents to provide them
with the security of knowing they are electing people to Congress to
represent them, not special or remote interests.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, not because I
do not think it is offered in good faith but because I disagree with
the general thrust of limiting campaign contributions to a district. I
believe the gentleman will face some constitutional hurdles given that
it is within district, not within State. The gentleman, in other words,
seeks to have 50 percent of all the contributions come within the
district. I believe the courts would determine that within district
would be a constitutional problem but within a State it would probably
not be.
[[Page H5946]]
But, further, I seek to share and acknowledge the fact that we
ourselves had attempted to do something similar to this in a larger
Meehan-Shays proposal and realized that we simply could not build a
coalition of support to pass this legislation. It may seem frustrating
for some to argue against an amendment based on the fact that we then
cannot pass the overall bill, but that is the reality. The fact is that
if this amendment were to pass, it would be a very dangerous amendment
for the purposes of putting a real dagger in a compromise that is in
fact Meehan-Shays.
I also would say to Members that I speak as one on this issue who
raises literally 99 percent of my money within district. I am amazed
that that is the case, but in fact it is the case. If I were to
acknowledge why, it would be that I come from a very wealthy district,
if not the wealthiest district in the country, within the top five. If
it is not considered the wealthiest, it is that I have the very wealthy
but I also have a number of poor who live in Stamford, Norwalk and
Bridgeport, my three urban areas. So it is without reluctance that I do
oppose this amendment.
I would just acknowledge that for some in Congress, they can raise
all the amount of money they need to within their district. I could
probably raise all the money I need to if everyone on Round Hill Road
in Greenwich contributed to my campaign. That four-mile stretch of road
contains a tremendous number of wealthy people. I do not even have to
go outside a community. I can focus within a particular town. But there
are some Members who live in very, very poor districts. They would be
highly vulnerable to a wealthy candidate who has wealth in that
district and knows that that opponent not only does not have wealth but
has nowhere within that district to raise the kind of sums necessary to
compete with that wealthy individual.
I do not criticize the intention of my colleague. I know that they
are done in good faith. In fact, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Meehan) and I and others attempted to do the same thing. But then the
more we analyzed it, we realized that it was clearly unfair to some
Members and to some challengers, not just Members, and furthermore that
we would not be able to build the kind of coalition we need to pass
meaningful campaign finance reform.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would say to the gentleman from Connecticut, as he knows, I have been
in favor of this concept since I first came to Congress almost 6 years
ago. I am happy to hear that he raises 99 percent of his campaign
contributions within his congressional district. I would daresay that
there are some folks here that raise 99 percent of their campaign
contributions outside of their congressional district. And so at what
level is a fair and reasonable amount to raise within your own
congressional district?
I would think that most Americans, and I have seen polling documents
as all of us have, that most Americans believe that you should raise at
least half of your campaign contributions within your congressional
district. The argument that folks in poorer districts would not be able
to raise funds, all I would say is that all people who would run in
that seat are playing under the same limitations, so that the playing
field is leveled.
I think it is important that people back home realize that the people
who are elected to Congress at least represent them, if money is
important and the reason we are here tonight on campaign finance reform
is that we are going back and building the base within our own
congressional districts and raising money back home. I think in years
past, that was the case. We have gotten away from that. I think that
this amendment will go a long ways to bringing back confidence within
the system. I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for yielding me this time and I thank him for
cosponsoring this legislation, the underlying legislation on campaign
finance reform.
Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman from California
(Mr. Calvert). He and I are cochair of the State society for
California. Like him in the bill that I authored, H.R. 600, a
comprehensive campaign reform, I really looked at this, because this is
one of those issues where it really sounds good. But let me tell the
gentleman from California why it is rejected. It is rejected because as
he knows under Federal law, you do not have to live in the district to
file for candidacy. What happens is that you can take a district that
is a poor district under his law, say that 50 percent of the money has
to be raised there, and you can shop around. So in a district in the
inner city of Los Angeles or in the inner city of any large area where
you do not have a large economic base, you look at the candidate who
files and you say, well, that candidate is going to have to raise money
to get elected. I am going to be a candidate who is going to use my own
money. I am rich. I am going to go down there and file for the
candidacy in that election. I want it. I can buy that election, because
I do not have to raise a dime of money inside the district because I am
not going to ask anybody for contributions.
There is the inequity, is that you set up a system which is designed
to hurt minorities, because those are the people that often get elected
from these inner city districts, and for people that are trying to get
started in politics. I cannot think of any of us in this room that did
not begin when we decided to get into public life, whether it was at
the mayor's level or at city council or school board or county
commissioner or even running for county sheriff by which this rule
would not apply. You could raise money outside your district for any of
those local offices.
But when you began this venture of getting into politics and noted
that the average congressional campaign in America cost $600,000, that
is a lot of money, and you began to say, ``Where am I going to get that
money?'' You say, ``Well, let's go to my family, let's go to my friends
that I went to school with, to high school and college with, maybe that
I was in the service with.'' The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays)
and I have mentioned before, we were both in the Peace Corps.
So people like that went out, and that is where you began your nest
egg of how you are going to run for office. And you are soliciting
money from people who know you best, who have actually worked with you,
they know you better than anyone because you are just saying, ``Based
on what you know of me, please help me.'' Those moneys may not be
coming from your district.
I think that this amendment where it sounds good is really kind of a
poison pill. I think it is frankly, and I hate to say it this way, but
I think it is really un-American. Because it does not apply to people
in local office, it does not apply to people in State office, and
essentially are we not trying in America to say that we want you to
participate in government, we would love to have people running for
office, and that we ought to be removing barriers, not creating more?
I think that is why I am so concerned about some of these amendments.
I am concerned about the message that we are giving in this great land
of America about what we think democracy is. We are selling it short.
We are cheapening it. We are distrusting it. We are saying we do not
believe the voters. If you make one false move, you do not have an ID,
you do not have a picture, you are elderly, you are locked up in a
nursing home, you do not have a driver's license, you do not have any
proof of citizenship because maybe you are in States, many States did
not file birth certificates earlier than about 1910. So if you were
born before that, you would not have any proof of citizenship.
So what we are doing is we are making it more and more difficult, and
I think requiring, as I said, it sounds good, 50 percent, but if you
are in a district where you do not have a lot of wealth and you as a
candidate do not have any wealth or you are new to the business, you
are not going to be able to raise funds, and you cannot run for office
under this amendment.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I
[[Page H5947]]
would say to the gentleman that how much should the threshold be? If it
is not 50 percent, should it be 40 percent? Should it be 30 percent?
Should it be 20 percent? There are people who are elected to Congress
who raise 95 percent of their money outside of their congressional
districts. Is that what American people out there expect from their
candidates? I do not think so.
I would point out to the gentleman that there are people who run for
public office who are not from an area. The gentleman is correct. You
do not have to have residency requirements as a requirement to run for
congressional office, many of whom move into a congressional district
and raise 95 percent of their money from outside of the district and a
local candidate is not given the opportunity to get elected within the
congressional district in which they reside, because they do not have
the resources.
But I would say if there is a problem with a self-funded rich
candidate running for such a seat, and I would say that that is a
problem for any of our seats if someone of such wealth decides to run,
in that case the party can add funds to the race. I would also accept a
perfecting amendment that would waive this rule at a certain threshold
of funds, say $100,000 is thrown in by a wealthy candidate.
But I would say that whatever district that a Member of Congress
represents, he or she represents, if a wealthy candidate decides to
run, you are in trouble under existing campaign law and will continue
to be in trouble in the future.
{time} 2300
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALVERT. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, in the H.R. 600 that I drafted,
what it said is we put limits on what you could spend, because that was
the real problem. In that, we said, if you were a wealthy candidate,
you can only spend $50,000 of your own money.
Mr. CALVERT. Reclaiming my time, I understand, under the Constitution
that the other gentleman pointed out, that we cannot restrict an
individual from spending his or her own money. However, that is one of
the reasons why I would accept a perfecting amendment that would waive
the rule at a certain threshold and allow for dollars to be raised
outside of a district if, in fact, that occurs.
But getting back to the point that I am trying to get at, that people
within congressional districts expect their Members to represent their
interests within their district. I would say that Members of Congress
who raise 95 percent, 90 percent, 80 percent of their dollars outside
of the congressional districts that they represent do not represent the
districts as well as someone who raises at least 50 percent of their
monies from their district.
I would hope that we would pass this amendment. I think the American
public would be for it.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALVERT. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, if we pass this amendment, is the gentleman
going to support the Shays-Meehan bill?
Mr. CALVERT. I may. I may support the amendment. I do not know what
the final bill is going to be after all the amendments are over with.
Mr. MEEHAN. Who does at this point? I am happy to hear that the
gentleman has an open mind. Part of the problem is, if we pass the
gentleman's amendment, the bill is going to die.
What we are trying to do is send a bill over to the other body that
has a bipartisan consensus for both sides of the aisle. That is what we
are attempting to do. Going through that process, we were unable to do
that with this particular amendment.
I happen to take more than 50 percent of money from people from my
district, and over 90 percent of my money is from my home State. But
what we are trying to do here is pass a comprehensive, fair campaign
finance reform bill. The only way to get that done is to work with
Members on both sides of the aisle. This particular amendment will
defeat our bill.
Mr. CALVERT. Reclaiming my time, I think that it is important to
raise a significant amount of money within our congressional district.
I would hope that most Members feel the same way about that. I would
hope that that they would vote for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Allen), the freshman leader on campaign finance reform and,
frankly, just a leader, be he freshman or seasoned veteran.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
his continuing leadership on campaign reform.
I have been the democratic chair of a bipartisan freshman effort on
campaign reform for the last year and a half. I point that out because
the only way to do campaign reform is on a bipartisan basis.
This amendment, however well-intentioned, is a poison pill. This
amendment, if added to the Shays-Meehan bill, will kill campaign
reform, will kill the Shays-Meehan bill. That is one reason why it
needs to be defeated.
I will talk in a moment about some of my problems with the merits;
but just for a moment, let us begin with just how different different
districts are around this country.
I think it is fair to say that, if you look at the Senate races
around the country, some cost more, and some cost less. For example, it
may cost tens of millions of dollars to run a Senate campaign in
California. But in my home State of Maine, it may be a $1 million or $2
million proposition. But the basic campaigns are more or less the same:
A certain amount of television, a certain amount of get out the vote
drive. They look more or less alike, even though they are on the same
scale.
The same is not true in the House of Representatives. In the House of
Representatives, there are some districts where television is a factor.
There are some districts in the House where television is not a factor
because you cannot raise the money to run ads in New York or Chicago or
Los Angeles in most cases.
The districts across this House are very, very different. Some, like
the district of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), are
wealthy. Some others are very poor. It is not true, in my opinion, as
the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) said that everyone is
subject to the same limits, and everyone is subject to the same effects
if you have this kind of limit.
What this amendment would do is to magnify the effect of wealth,
because in a very poor district, the man with deep pockets or the woman
with deep pockets has a much greater advantage than he or she would in
another district where it is possible to raise money.
That is why I believe that this amendment is bad policy because it
magnifies the effect of personal wealth where what we are trying to do
is contain that, trying to get control of the amount of money in
politics. We are trying to strengthen the voices of the ordinary
citizen. That is what campaign reform is all about. This amendment
moves in a different direction.
The fact is, as I said before, we simply cannot pass campaign reform
with this kind of amendment tacked on. There are many Members of the
minority caucus. There are many Members who come from very poor
districts who cannot support the campaign reform bill with this
proposal.
One of the things our freshman task force did at the beginning of our
process, we said what are the poison pills? Let us identify them. This
kind of in-district limit was clearly identified right at the beginning
as a poison pill. It will not work. It will kill campaign reform for
this session. We cannot let that happen.
Therefore, I urge all Members to vote against the Calvert amendment
and make sure that we support the Shays-Meehan bill.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn).
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to this debate.
The gentleman is objecting to 50 percent of the money being raised by
all candidates in the district. I guess I would ask the question: ``How
about 10 percent?'' Would the gentleman settle for that? That all
candidates at least raise
[[Page H5948]]
10 percent of their campaign money in the district? I would just like
to ask the gentleman.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. HORN. For the answer to the question, I yield to the gentleman
from Maine.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I think the proper number, if we could
determine one, is different for different districts. I was talking
about how varied the districts may be. In some districts, it is now the
practice for very large amounts, maybe 70, maybe 80, maybe more percent
that money may come from out of district. In some districts, that may
be the only way to fund a congressional campaign.
So what is right for that district is not what is right for the
district of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) or my district
or the gentleman from California's district.
When we sit here with a great variety of districts around the country
and try to come up with one number, I think we are on a chase that is
not going to lead us in a healthy direction. It is not going to get us
to pass a campaign reform bill. I think it is a mistake.
Mr. HORN. I have had a situation where my opponent raised only 1
percent of his campaign funds in the district when I had raised 70 to
80 percent.
I have to say: ``Where is the connection with the electorate? Do the
candidates who raise 1% in the district just go to all the eastern
cities? They go into the gentleman's territory and get the funds
together $1,000 at a crack. I have seen candidates that go up and down
the east coast, just as the easterners come out to Hollywood in the
celebrity area, and they secure funds at $1,000 at a crack.
It just seems to me there is a relationship in a democracy between,
not only the voters in one's district and the sources who have provided
the candidate with his real money? So I am willing to settle for 10
percent being raise in the district. I would prefer 50% or 100%. Ten
percent would be a start.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield just briefly?
Mr. HORN. Absolutely. I yield to the gentleman from Maine.
Mr. ALLEN. I absolutely agree with the gentleman that there has got
to be a connection between the candidate and the district. That is
very, very important.
Mr. HORN. We have too many candidates who are under obligation to
PACs and to everybody else, none of which have anything to do with some
of the districts, certainly mine.
Mr. ALLEN. If the gentleman will yield just briefly, often, PAC money
comes from organizations that are based in the district.
Mr. HORN. Usually, they take the PAC money from everywhere, but they
cannot get it in terms of the District. I would just say, let us talk
about 10 percent. I am willing to start low.
I would just like to see some connection between the candidate and
who he or she represents. If they are only going to represent the
people in the east that give them $1,000 checks, I do not think they
are going to represent a district in the west that provides the votes.
I do not care if it is a quarter or a dollar, the checks I am moved
by the most are when I receive $10 from a person who is living on $500
a month from Social Security. I know that $10 hurts that donor. So it
just seems to me that candidates should receive money from their
district at least to some degree.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentleman from California for a question.
Mr. FARR of California. What do you do with the individual who is
very wealthy and you are in a very poor district?
Mr. HORN. Do you know what I would do with the individual who is very
wealthy? I would pass a law that could limit that amount of personal
wealth to be spent in a campaign. I think it is a scandal what is going
on in America. You are going to have plutocracy take over this chamber.
Mr. FARR of California. Maybe you can make that a perfecting
amendment?
Mr. HORN. I will support that kind of an amendment.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
professor from Stanford, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
{time} 2310
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding me
time and for referring to me by the best honorific I have ever had,
which is professor.
I am in a bit of a bind, Mr. Chairman, because I have ``can't vote-
can't contribute'' as one of the substitutes. I love this so much, I
would make it 100 percent. And this dilemma yields to a solution to my
good friend, my brother, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
This will kill Shays-Meehan. That is a fact. You know it, I think. So,
vote for mine, because I will not bring mine up if Shays-Meehan passes.
If Shays-Meehan passes, I do not bring up the Campbell substitute. But
if Shays-Meehan goes down in flames, then, boy, am I on the side of the
gentleman from California. Then we can vote ``can't vote-can't
contribute.''
What my proposal does is to say, ``Boy, is he right.'' You ought to
get all of your money from your district, from people whom you
represent, except you have to make an exception for the constitutional
requirement that people can express themselves under the First
Amendment, so I have $100 as an exception.
But by putting it on to Shays-Meehan the gentleman from California,
surely without this intent, but I nevertheless am convinced with this
effect, kills Shays-Meehan. If Shays-Meehan has a chance, let us pass
it. If it does not have a chance and it goes down to defeat, you will
have the opportunity to vote for exactly this concept. Then, boy, will
you hear me in my righteous fervor responding to the arguments that
have been presented against the gentleman from California (Mr.
Calvert).
For example, the wealthy person. Well, we Californians told the
wealthy person something this last election, did we not, he asks
rhetorically. We rejected those who spent their own money attempting to
become Governor of our state, attempting to become Senator representing
our state. And the argument that it is unfair misses the fact that it
is sauce for the goose and it is sauce for the gander.
Your district is where you ought to raise your money from, but,
please, do not hurt Shays-Meehan's chances of passage. You know it will
peel off votes, you know it will cause the bill to be unacceptable to
so many.
So I give you a reasonable alternative. I wish you would take it.
Vote for my bill if it comes up, but do not destroy Shays-Meehan.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would say my head is spinning. The professor from
California got very animated when he talked about this amendment, but
he called it like it is. He loves certain aspects of this amendment,
but he does know that it would cause tremendous harm to a coalition of
Members who all had to give up certain things that they wanted for a
common good, and that was to ban soft money, the unlimited sums that
individuals, corporations, labor unions and other interest groups give
to the political parties, that then get funneled right back to the
candidate and make a mockery of our campaign laws.
We came to a compromise so we could recognize sham issue ads for what
they truly are, campaign ads, and that means when it is a campaign ad,
you follow the campaign rules. It means you cannot use corporate money,
it means you cannot use labor dues. It meanings you have to disclose.
We codified the Supreme Court decision on Beck, which said that if a
member of a union seeks to leave the union, that they do not have to
have their agency fee which they are required by law to provide, that
it should not include, if they choose not to, to have their agency fee
include a political payment. Therefore, they pay a little less than the
union dues.
We improve FEC disclosure and enforcement significantly, because we
sought to come to a common ground between Republicans and Democrats,
those who want campaign finance reform.
We seek to ban the franked mail, the district-wide mailing six months
to an election. We did this through compromise. One of the things that
did not survive the compromise was the very amendment that the
gentleman is proposing.
[[Page H5949]]
We did this by compromise. We banned the raising of any foreign money
and any fund-raising on government property. Now, it is not illegal to
raise soft money from a foreigner, if they are not a citizen, because
soft money is not viewed as campaign money. Therefore, it does not come
under the statute.
Some could argue, and I am one, and we could have a disagreement,
that raising soft money on government property, since it is not
campaign money, does not come under the penalty. I realize others might
disagree. But the bottom line is we came to a compromise in order to do
these very significant things, and one of the things that did not make
the compromise was the amendment suggested by my colleague, the
gentleman from California.
So, we do need to defeat this amendment. I know that it has been
offered in tremendous sincerity. I get down on bended knee and hope and
pray that it is defeated, because it truly will blow apart a coalition
of people who have sought to do something meaningful with campaign
finance reform, and that is to restore integrity to the political
process and to end the obscene amounts of money that we see in soft
money, and to require those sham issues ads to be what they are,
campaign issue ads.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to my dear friend from California, I like
his idea raising 100 percent of the money within the district. I
recognize that that is probably not realistic, and so I believe that
half of the money should be raised within the Congressional districts
that Members represent.
We heard earlier that maybe not even 10 percent is an acceptable
number. Well, what is an acceptable number? We know that there are
people who run for Congress that 99 percent of their money is raised
outside of their district. I do not think the American public agrees to
that. As the gentleman from Connecticut knows, I came here six years
ago almost and have been talking about this 50 percent provision since
I came here to Congress.
I think most Americans believe that you should raise at least 50
percent of the money within your Congressional District. I do not think
it is outrageous. I do not think there is anything wrong with this.
As far as a wealthy candidate running in a Congressional district, I
would say that any of us would have a problem if we were running
against a very wealthy candidate, any of us. But, saying that, I would
accept a perfecting amendment that would waive the rule if a wealthy
candidate gets involved in a campaign and spends, say, $100,000, to
take care of that problem. I recognize that.
But what we are talking about here is 50 percent of the money within
the district. I think it is reasonable. I think most people would
expect folks to come back and raise money. It is difficult. None of us
like going to all the fund raisers we need to go to back home, getting
back home and putting together these events. It is a lot easier having
an event here in Washington, D.C., or somewhere elsewhere where you can
raise a significant amount of money. But this is, I think, an important
responsibility.
I would hope that all Members would accept this amendment. I think it
is the right thing to do.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barr of Georgia). The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CALVERT. 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 California
(Mr. Calvert) will be postponed.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Calvert) 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.
____________________