[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.

                          ____________________