[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 105 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6790-H6818]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN INTEGRITY ACT OF 1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McInnis). 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}  1744


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2183) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
to reform the financing of campaigns for elections for Federal office, 
and for other purposes, with Mr. Shimkus (Chairman pro tempore) in the 
chair.

                              {time}  1745

  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). When the Committee of the 
Whole House rose on Monday, July 20, 1998, the request for a recorded 
vote on the amendment by the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Linda 
Smith) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) had been postponed.


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

  Mr. SALMON. 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 is as follows:

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

    TITLE ___--POSTING NAMES OF CERTAIN AIR FORCE ONE PASSENGERS ON 
                                INTERNET

     SEC.  01. REQUIREMENT THAT NAMES OF PASSENGERS ON AIR FORCE 
                   ONE AND AIR FORCE TWO BE MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH 
                   THE INTERNET.

       (a) In General.--The President shall make available through 
     the Internet the name of any non-Government person who is a 
     passenger on an aircraft designated as Air Force One or Air 
     Force Two not later than 30 days after the date that the 
     person is a passenger on such aircraft.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply in a case in 
     which the President determines that compliance with such 
     subsection would be contrary to the national security 
     interests of the United States. In any such case, not later 
     than 30 days after the date that the person whose name will 
     not be made available through the Internet was a passenger on 
     the aircraft, the President shall submit to the chairman and 
     ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the House of Representatives and of the 
     Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate--
       (1) the name of the person; and
       (2) the justification for not making such name available 
     through the Internet.
       (c) Definition of Person.--As used in this Act, the term 
     ``non-Government person'' means a person who is not an 
     officer or employee of the United States, a member of the 
     Armed Forces, or a Member of Congress.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut may state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I just need to know what list we are 
following in terms of order. I am not suggesting that the gentleman is 
out of order. I just do not know.
  I thought we were going from the Smith amendment to the Rohrabacher 
amendment, which is the amendment which eliminates the individual 
contribution limits. I thought that was the next amendment in order. Is 
there an order that we are following?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair believes The Committee is 
following the order under the previous order of the House.
  Mr. SHAYS. Right. Do we have that order available so that we could 
see what that order is?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The order on July 17 was accompanied by a 
list of amendments in a prescribed order.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I believe it has the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), which is unanimous consent No. 16 to be 
followed by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), which is unanimous 
consent No. 17,

[[Page H6791]]

again with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), unanimous consent No. 
18. That is what I had down as the order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair understood that the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) was offering Amendment No. 14.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Salmon) is next. I am sorry. I thought that amendment had been 
withdrawn. Okay.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Salmon) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Air Force One and related aircraft have a noble 
history. These special aircraft were first put into service for 
President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944.
  In 1961, the designation Air Force One was first used on behalf of 
President John F. Kennedy. President Lyndon Johnson took the oath of 
office on Air Force One in 1963.
  Air Force One also provides all presidents with the security and the 
communications equipment they would need in case of an international 
crisis, a noble history now sullied.
  President Clinton and Vice President Gore created a new use for Air 
Force One and Air Force Two, taxpayer-funded boondoggles for fat-cat 
contributors and toys for special interests.
  According to the Boston Globe, President Clinton flew aboard Air 
Force One with 56 major contributors during 1996 and 1997, often with 
government picking up the tab. Donors who gave $5,000 or raised at 
least $25,000 for the Clinton-Gore campaign accompanied Clinton aboard 
the presidential aircraft.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. It requires the 
President to make available via the Internet the name of any 
nongovernment person who is a passenger on an aircraft designated as 
Air Force One or Air Force Two no later than 30 days after that person 
is a passenger.
  An exception is made if there are national security concerns. In such 
cases, the President shall submit to the chairman and ranking member of 
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House and Select 
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate the name of the person and the 
justification for not making the name available through the Internet.
  It is time the American people, our constituents, know which special 
interests are flying on taxpayer-funded aircraft. I urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) rising in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am rising in opposition. I would like to 
reserve the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, just by way of explanation, what is the intent of the 
amendment? Because perhaps we can work out an agreement on it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, the intent of the amendment is simply 
disclosure. It is not just for this administration, for any 
administration in the future. I have a concern that there are possibly 
people who are contributors to either of the parties or to candidates 
who may be rewarded by flying on Air Force One.
  I am simply wanting to make sure that any nongovernmental person that 
flies aboard Air Force One or Air Force Two, those are the two 
specified in the amendment, would be disclosed via the Internet so that 
we would have full disclosure of who those people might be.
  If there is a national security concern which would preclude them 
from disclosing that information, then that would be granted. That 
would waive them from that requirement.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Reclaiming my time, right now the names of the people who 
fly on Air Force One would be of public record; is that correct?
  Mr. SALMON. According to my understanding, not necessarily so, and 
not necessarily in a timely manner. I am asking that, through my 
amendment, that it be done within 30 days, just like we do in our 
campaigns. When we get contributions from special interests, we have to 
publish that information and fully disclose it to the public. I am 
simply asking that the White House live by the same standards when it 
comes to possible perks for contributors.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Reclaiming my time, what specifically would be the 
provisions with regard to something that was in the national security 
interest not to disclose a name?
  Mr. SALMON. That would be determined by members on the Committee on 
National Security. As I mentioned, they would be required to submit in 
writing to the chairman of the committee, the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence, and the ranking member. If they concur there 
is a national security reason for not disclosing that information, then 
it is not disclosed.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Reclaiming my time, the Pentagon would not be able to 
make those determinations, or the State Department would not be able to 
make those determinations?
  Mr. SALMON. I am sure that they would work in tandem with those 
members. If they feel that there is a valid concern, absolutely, their 
input would be, I am sure, paramount, as it always is. If they feel 
that there is a literal reason that national security might be 
compromised by disclosing those names, that would be a compelling 
reason enough to not have to disclose that information, and that is 
included in the amendment.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, we would accept the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Arizona yield to me?
  Mr. SALMON. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to agree that this is an 
amendment that we can accept, and I apologize to the gentleman. I 
thought he had withdrawn it, but I think this amendment does no harm to 
the bill.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I thank both gentlemen.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) to the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
agreed to.


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

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. 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. Rohrabacher to the amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:
       Add at the end of title V the following new section (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 510. PARTIAL REMOVAL OF LIMITATIONS ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO 
                   CANDIDATES WHOSE OPPONENTS USE LARGE AMOUNTS OF 
                   PERSONAL FUNDS.

       (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) If a candidate for Federal office makes 
     contributions or expenditures from the personal funds of the 
     candidate totaling more than $1,000 with respect to an 
     election, the candidate shall so notify the Commission and 
     each other candidate in the election. The notification shall 
     be made in writing within 48 hours after the contribution or 
     expenditure involved is made.
       ``(2) In any case described in paragraph (1), any person 
     who is otherwise permitted under this Act to make 
     contributions to such other candidate may make contributions 
     in excess of any otherwise applicable limitation on such 
     contributions, to the extent that the total of such excess 
     contributions accepted by such other candidate does not 
     exceed the total of contributions or expenditures from 
     personal funds referred to in paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to elections occurring after January 
     1999.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Friday,

[[Page H6792]]

July 17, 1998, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and a 
Member opposed, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise to introduce a nonpartisan amendment that 
will level the campaign playing field. Currently, the campaign playing 
field is heavily weighted to the advantage of wealthy Americans. By 
lifting the $1,000 limit a candidate may raise when a candidate is 
being faced with a wealthy opponent, this cap will be raised, which 
will make it possible to match the amount his or her wealthy opponent 
contributes to his or her own campaign.
  In other words, and I know this sounds a little complicated, if my 
amendment passes, if my wealthy competitor writes a $1 million check to 
his or her own campaign, I will no longer be faced with the impossible 
task of raising the same amount of money that my opponent has donated 
to his or her campaign in $1,000 increments. Instead, the cap will be 
lifted so that it is possible for me to match the amount that my own 
opponent has spent on his or her own campaign.
  As current campaign law stands, wealthy candidates can spend an 
unlimited amount of their own money, while their unfortunate opponents 
are stuck with raising small amounts of money in order to match that 
amount that their wealthy opponent has contributed to their own 
campaign. This has given the wealthy a tremendous advantage over their 
opponents.
  It is the most glaring inequity of our current campaign finance 
system, and it has resulted in a spectacle that no one would have 
predicted. It is the unintended consequence of limiting contributions 
to political campaigns.
  Instead of opening up our elections to the American people, today 
politics is becoming the arena of the rich, rich candidates who have 
nonwealthy opponents at a tremendous disadvantage. The rich pour 
resources into their own campaigns. This means most of us are in a 
position of getting steamrolled by a wealthy opponent.
  So I urge my colleagues to level the campaign playing field and to 
update our campaign finance laws and give nonwealthy Americans a chance 
to be elected to Congress. Rather than having to worry and have the 
parties out always recruiting wealthy people, let us level this field 
so that if someone is wealthy and pumps $1 million into their campaign, 
a nonwealthy opponent can raise an equal amount to have an equal race.
  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 strong opposition to this amendment which 
was, frankly, one of my amendments. I do think that Congress needs to 
deal with how we respond to those who have unlimited wealth, and one 
way is to do it the way the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) 
has suggested.
  Unfortunately, his amendment, an amendment that I offered on another 
bill, would kill the coalition that exists for passing bipartisan 
reform.
  Let me explain to my colleagues that the Meehan-Shays bill does three 
basic things. It bans soft money, the unlimited sums from individuals, 
corporations, labor unions, and other interest groups that go to the 
political parties and then get rerouted right back down to individual 
candidates.
  It secondly calls the sham issue ads what they truly are, campaign 
ads, which means we cannot use corporate money or dues money from labor 
60 days from an election. It means that we have to report our 
expenditures.
  The third thing we do is we have FEC enforcement, Federal Election 
Commission enforcement, and disclosure by way of electronic means in 
the Internet.
  This amendment seeks to do something beyond the scope of our basic 
bill. I will also say that our basic bill includes the commission bill, 
the commission bill brought forward on a bipartisan basis. We would 
suggest that the very issue that the gentleman is presenting to this 
Congress should be dealt with by the commission.
  We have 37 amendments, if no more are withdrawn before we deal with 
the Meehan-Shays substitute and deal with the various amendments. 
Sixteen are poison pills, seven are ``no'' votes in our view, four are 
leaning ``no'', seven are neutral, three are ``yes''.
  The bottom line to the amendment of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher), he is one of the 16 poison pill amendments that will 
kill our coalition. On that basis, I have to encourage defeat of it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 3 minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I hope everyone is listening very closely to this argument. 
Supposedly, this will kill the whole purpose of this bill. That is a 
lot of baloney. If we are talking about campaign finance reform and we 
are going to leave the whole campaign arena to rich people, what good 
is that reform?
  In fact, without my amendment, the good work of the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) is going to do nothing but further give very 
wealthy Americans the leverage to take control of the political process 
in America. So what is all this reform about if we are not going to 
handle that problem?
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, the problem with this amendment is we are 
trying to find a way to reduce the influence of money in American 
politics; we are not trying to find a way to allow hundreds of 
thousands of dollars of additional money into the process.
  This amendment would potentially create a huge loophole through which 
wealthy individuals could funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars in 
contributions to a single candidate through the hard money system. The 
reason why the Shays-Meehan bill bans soft money is to put an end to 
the notion of these enormous contributions from private individuals.
  This amendment would provide a new way for special interests to 
influence the legislative process. That is why I would urge my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment. Even when we have a wealthy 
candidate putting his or her own money into it, that is an excuse for a 
private individual to then begin to funnel hundreds of thousands of 
dollars into a campaign.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Obviously, if we just listen very closely to what is being said here, 
these gentlemen are trying to cut off other avenues for ordinary 
Americans to raise money for their campaigns, leaving the political 
arena in the control of such wealthy Americans that every Member of 
this body who is not rich shudders at the thought of having a wealthy 
candidate in their district step forward and pump so much money in that 
he or she will be eliminated just because they just cannot raise the 
money in small increments.
  The Shays-Meehan supposed reform is making this problem worse, and by 
not accepting this amendment, I am afraid that they are disclosing 
themselves at just how effective they think their own bill is going to 
be
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains for both individuals?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) 
has 2 minutes remaining; the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Rivers), our distinguished colleague.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, there is a very interesting debate going on 
here, because the arguments are being put forward as if there is 
currently a provision within the system that allows for an offset of 
one individual, if a wealthy individual runs against them.

[[Page H6793]]

  The law is very clear right now that if someone chooses to fund their 
campaign on their own dollars, they are allowed to do that, and a 
candidate who is running against them can raise money through a variety 
of ways to do it. They are not limited in how much money they can 
raise.
  Nothing in Shays-Meehan limits the ability of people to raise money. 
So the argument that Shays-Meehan has to be amended to deal with a 
problem created by that proposal is ludicrous. It leaves the system 
exactly as it is now. Someone who is using their own money is free to 
use as much of that wealth as they would like to. Individuals who rely 
on contributions can raise as much as they wish, but this is not 
necessary.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Of course, anyone listening to this debate must wonder what bill we 
are really discussing after listening to that last statement.
  The purpose of this bill, as we have heard from the authors of this 
bill, is to reduce the avenues of money coming into political 
campaigns. Let us restrict it.
  What I am saying is that today, with an unintended consequence of 
similar legislation in the past, we have given a tremendous advantage 
to rich people. Both of our parties are going out enlisting very 
wealthy Americans, rich people, in order to run for office, and more 
and more millionaires are coming here, because we are restricting the 
avenues in which ordinary Americans can raise money for political 
campaigns. My amendment would correct that unintended consequence of 
this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  With the 1 minute I have remaining, I would just like to acknowledge 
the fact that the amendment that our colleague wants to offer is 
offering an amendment that would allow unlimited contributions from an 
individual; he can raise $1 million from one individual. This is 
contrary to the reform measure that we are bringing forward.
  We ban soft money that goes to the political parties, the unlimited 
sums from individuals, corporations, labor unions and other interest 
groups. We call the sham issue ads what they truly are, campaign ads, 
and we have FEC disclosure and enforcement. We are against allowing 
unlimited sums from individuals, and that is why we oppose this, and 
that is why it would break apart the coalition that exists between 
Republicans and Democrats to pass this bill.
  This amendment is offered in good faith by my colleague, but the 
bottom line is, it will kill Meehan-Shays.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First and foremost, this does not permit unlimited contributions, the 
gentleman is absolutely wrong, and I hope people are paying attention 
to the debate. The unlimited contributions that we are setting is the 
limit which a wealthy person puts into his or her own campaign. That is 
stated very clearly. There is a limit. Why should we permit wealthy 
Americans to buy these seats because we have not given a fair chance 
for nonwealthy Americans to have a shot at the election process?
  This is not fair, and that is what we are trying to do. I thought 
that is what this bill was all about. I guess it is not.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman has 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The bottom line is if a wealthy person spends $1 million under my 
colleague's proposal, he could raise $1 million from another wealthy 
individual.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) has 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Obviously we would like to be fair to all Americans, and that is not 
what this bill is all about, if we prevent nonwealthy Americans from 
raising the funds they need to deter these attacks on wealthy citizens 
trying to steal these elections for themselves.
  Let us make sure we open up the system, make sure there is more money 
available to all candidates, not just to the rich.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time having expired, the question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) 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. SHAYS. 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. Rohrabacher) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 
offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) will be 
postponed.
  It is now in order to consider the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Paul).


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

  Mr. PAUL. 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. Paul to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:
       Add at the end the following new title:
                     TITLE __--BALLOT ACCESS RIGHTS

     SEC. __01. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Voting participation in the United States is lower than 
     in any other advanced industrialized democracy.
       (2) The rights of eligible citizens to seek election to 
     office, vote for candidates of their choice and associate for 
     the purpose of taking part in elections, including the right 
     to create and develop new political parties, are fundamental 
     in a democracy. The rights of citizens to participate in the 
     election process, provided in and derived from the first and 
     fourteenth amendments to the Constitution, have consistently 
     been promoted and protected by the Federal Government. These 
     rights include the right to cast an effective vote and the 
     right to associate for the advancement of political beliefs, 
     which includes the ``constitutional right . . . to create and 
     develop new political parties.'' Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 
     279, 112 S.Ct. 699 (1992). It is the duty of the Federal 
     Government to see that these rights are not impaired in 
     elections for Federal office.
       (3) Certain restrictions on access to the ballot impair the 
     ability of citizens to exercise these rights and have a 
     direct and damaging effect on citizens' participation in the 
     electoral process.
       (4) Many States unduly restrict access to the ballot by 
     nonmajor party candidates and nonmajor political parties by 
     means of such devices as excessive petition signature 
     requirements, insufficient petitioning periods, 
     unconstitutionally early petition filing deadlines, petition 
     signature distribution criteria, and limitations on 
     eligibility to circulate and sign petitions.
       (5) Many States require political parties to poll an unduly 
     high number of votes or to register an unduly high number of 
     voters as a precondition for remaining on the ballot.
       (6) In 1983, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional an 
     Ohio law requiring a nonmajor party candidate for President 
     to qualify for the general election ballot earlier than major 
     party candidates. This Supreme Court decision, Anderson v. 
     Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) has been followed by many 
     lower courts in challenges by nonmajor parties and candidates 
     to early petition filing deadlines. See, e.g., Stoddard v. 
     Quinn, 593 F. Supp. 300 (D.Me. 1984); Cripps v. Seneca County 
     Board of Elections, 629 F. Supp. 1335 (N.D.Oh. 1985); 
     Libertarian Party of Nevada v. Swackhamer, 638 F. Supp. 565 
     (D. Nev. 1986); Cromer v. State of South Carolina, 917 F.2d 
     819 (4th Cir. 1990); New Alliance Party of Alabama v. Hand, 
     933 F. 2d 1568 (11th Cir. 1991).
       (7) In 1996, 34 States required nonmajor party candidates 
     for President to qualify for the ballot before the second 
     major party national convention (Arizona, California, 
     Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, 
     Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, 
     Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, 
     New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, 
     Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, 
     Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and 
     Wyoming). Twenty-six of these States required nonmajor party 
     candidates

[[Page H6794]]

     to qualify before the first major party national convention 
     (Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut Florida, Georgia, 
     Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
     Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New 
     Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South 
     Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and West 
     Virginia).
       (8) Under present law, in 1996, nonmajor party candidates 
     for President were required to obtain at least 701,089 
     petition signatures to be listed on the ballots of all 50 
     States and the District of Columbia--28 times more signatures 
     than the 25,500 required of Democratic Party candidates and 
     13 times more signatures than the 54,250 required of 
     Republican Party candidates. To be listed on the ballot in 
     all 50 States and the District of Columbia with a party 
     label, nonmajor party candidates for President were required 
     to obtain approximately 651,475 petition signatures and 
     89,186 registrants. Thirty-two of the 41 States that hold 
     Presidential primaries required no signatures of major party 
     candidates for President (Arkansas, California, Colorado, 
     Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, 
     Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, 
     Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, 
     North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, 
     South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, 
     Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin). Only three States 
     required no signatures of nonmajor party candidates for 
     President (Arkansas, Colorado, and Louisiana; Colorado and 
     Louisiana, however, required a $500 filing fee).
       (9) Under present law, the number of petition signatures 
     required by the States to list a major party candidate for 
     Senate on the ballot in 1996 ranged from zero to 15,000. The 
     number of petition signatures required to list a nonmajor 
     party candidate for Senate ranged from zero to 196,788. 
     Thirty-one States required no signatures of major party 
     candidates for Senate (Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, 
     Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, 
     Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, 
     Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New 
     Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, 
     South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, 
     Wyoming). Only one State required no signatures of nonmajor 
     party candidates for Senate, provided they were willing to be 
     listed on the ballot without a party label (Louisiana, 
     although a $600 filing fee was required, and to run with a 
     party label, a candidate was required to register 111,121 
     voters into his or her party).
       (10) Under present law, the number of petition signatures 
     required by the States to list a major party candidate for 
     Congress on the ballot in 1996 ranged from zero to 2,000. The 
     number of petition signatures required to list a nonmajor 
     party candidate for Congress ranged from zero to 13,653. 
     Thirty-one States required no signatures of major party 
     candidates for Congress (Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, 
     Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, 
     Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, 
     Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North 
     Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, 
     Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming). Only one 
     State required no signatures of nonmajor party candidates for 
     Congress, provided they are willing to be listed on the 
     ballot without a party label (Louisiana, although a $600 
     filing fee was required).
       (11) Under present law, in 1996, eight States required 
     additional signatures to list a nonmajor party candidate for 
     President on the ballot with a party label (Alabama, Arizona, 
     Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee). 
     Thirteen States required additional signatures to list a 
     nonmajor party candidate for Senate or Congress on the ballot 
     with a party label (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, 
     Idaho, Hawaii, Kansas, Louisiana, North Dakota, Nebraska, 
     Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee). Two of these States (Ohio and 
     Tennessee) required 5,000 signatures and 25 signatures, 
     respectively, to list a nonmajor party candidate for 
     President or Senate on the ballot in 1996, but required 
     33,463 signatures and 37,179 signatures, respectively, to 
     list the candidate on the ballot with her or his party label. 
     One State (California) required a nonmajor party to have 
     89,006 registrants in order to have its candidate for 
     President listed on the ballot with a party label.
       (12) Under present law, in 1996 one State (California) 
     required nonmajor party candidates for President or Senate to 
     obtain 147,238 signatures in 105 days, but required major 
     party candidates for Senate to obtain only 65 signatures in 
     105 days, and required no signatures of major party 
     candidates for President. Another State (Texas) required 
     nonmajor party candidates for President or Senate to obtain 
     43,963 signatures in 75 days, and required no signatures of 
     major party candidates for President or Senate.
       (13) Under present law, in 1996, seven States required 
     nonmajor party candidates for President or Senate to collect 
     a certain number or percentage of their petition signatures 
     in each congressional district or in a specified number of 
     congressional districts (Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New 
     Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Virginia). Only three of 
     these States impose a like requirement on major party 
     candidates for President or Senate (Michigan, New York, 
     Virginia).
       (14) Under present law, in 1996, 20 States restricted the 
     circulation of petitions for nonmajor party candidates to 
     residents of those States (California, Colorado, Connecticut, 
     District of Columbia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, 
     Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, 
     Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, 
     Wisconsin). Two States restricted the circulation of 
     petitions for nonmajor party candidates to the county or 
     congressional district where the circulator lives (Kansas and 
     Virginia).
       (15) Under present law, in 1996, three States prohibited 
     people who voted in a primary election from signing petitions 
     for nonmajor party candidates (Nebraska, New York, Texas, 
     West Virginia). Twelve States restricted the signing of 
     petitions to people who indicate intent to support or vote 
     for the candidate or party (California, Delaware, Hawaii, 
     Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North 
     Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Utah). Five of these 12 States 
     required no petitions of major party candidates (Delaware, 
     Maryland, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah), and only one of the 
     six remaining States restricted the signing of petitions for 
     major party candidates to people who indicate intent to 
     support or vote for the candidate or party (New Jersey).
       (16) In two States (Louisiana and Maryland), no nonmajor 
     party candidate for Senate has qualified for the ballot since 
     those States' ballot access laws have been in effect.
       (17) In two States (Georgia and Louisiana), no nonmajor 
     party candidate for the United States House of 
     Representatives has qualified for the ballot since those 
     States' ballot access laws have been in effect.
       (18) Restrictions on the ability of citizens to exercise 
     the rights identified in this subsection have 
     disproportionately impaired participation in the electoral 
     process by various groups, including racial minorities.
       (19) The establishment of fair and uniform national 
     standards for access to the ballot in elections for Federal 
     office would remove barriers to the participation of citizens 
     in the electoral process and thereby facilitate such 
     participation and maximize the rights identified in this 
     subsection.
       (20) The Congress has authority, under the provisions of 
     the Constitution of the United States in sections 4 and 8 of 
     article I, section 1 of article II, article VI, the 
     thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments, and other 
     provisions of the Constitution of the United States, to 
     protect and promote the exercise of the rights identified in 
     this subsection.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
       (1) to establish fair and uniform standards regulating 
     access to the ballot by eligible citizens who desire to seek 
     election to Federal office and political parties, bodies, and 
     groups which desire to take part in elections for Federal 
     office; and
       (2) to maximize the participation of eligible citizens in 
     elections for Federal office.

     SEC. __02. BALLOT ACCESS RIGHTS.

       (a) In General.--An individual shall have the right to be 
     placed as a candidate on, and to have such individual's 
     political party, body, or group affiliation in connection 
     with such candidacy placed on, a ballot or similar voting 
     materials to be used in a Federal election, if--
       (1) such individual presents a petition stating in 
     substance that its signers desire such individual's name and 
     political party, body or group affiliation, if any, to be 
     placed on the ballot or other similar voting materials to be 
     used in the Federal election with respect to which such 
     rights are to be exercised;
       (2) with respect to a Federal election for the office of 
     President, Vice President, or Senator, such petition has a 
     number of signatures of persons qualified to vote for such 
     office equal to one-tenth of one percent of the number of 
     persons who voted in the most recent previous Federal 
     election for such office in the State, or 1,000 signatures, 
     whichever is greater;
       (3) with respect to a Federal election for the office of 
     Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, 
     the Congress, such petition has a number of signatures of 
     persons qualified to vote for such office equal to one-half 
     of one percent of the number of persons who voted in the most 
     recent previous Federal election for such office, or, if 
     there was no previous Federal election for such office, 1,000 
     signatures;
       (4) with respect to a Federal election the date of which 
     was fixed 345 or more days in advance, such petition was 
     circulated during a period beginning on the 345th day and 
     ending on the 75th day before the date of the election; and
       (5) with respect to a Federal election the date of which 
     was fixed less than 345 days in advance, such petition was 
     circulated during a period established by the State holding 
     the election, or, if no such period was established, during a 
     period beginning on the day after the date the election was 
     scheduled and ending on the tenth day before the date of the 
     election, provided, however, that the number of signatures 
     required under paragraph (2) or (3) shall be reduced by \1/
     270\ for each day less than 270 in such period.
       (b) Special Rule.--An individual shall have the right to be 
     placed as a candidate on, and to have such individual's 
     political party, body, or group affiliation in connection 
     with such candidacy placed on, a ballot or similar

[[Page H6795]]

     voting materials to be used in a Federal election, without 
     having to satisfy any requirement relating to a petition 
     under subsection (a), if that or another individual, as a 
     candidate of that political party, body, or group, received 
     one percent of the votes cast in the most recent general 
     Federal election for President or Senator in the State.
       (c) Savings Provision.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall not 
     apply with respect to any State that provides by law for 
     greater ballot access rights than the ballot access rights 
     provided for under such subsections.

     SEC. __03. RULEMAKING.

       The Attorney General shall make rules to carry out this 
     title.

     SEC. __04. GENERAL DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this title--
       (1) the term ``Federal election'' means a general or 
     special election for the office of--
       (A) President or Vice President;
       (B) Senator; or
       (C) Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner 
     to, the Congress;
       (2) the term ``State'' means a State of the United States, 
     the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
     and any other territory or possession of the United States;
       (3) the term ``individual'' means an individual who has the 
     qualifications required by law of a person who holds the 
     office for which such individual seeks to be a candidate;
       (4) the term ``petition'' includes a petition which 
     conforms to section __02(a)(1) and upon which signers' 
     addresses and/or printed names are required to be placed;
       (5) the term ``signer'' means a person whose signature 
     appears on a petition and who can be identified as a person 
     qualified to vote for an individual for whom the petition is 
     circulated, and includes a person who requests another to 
     sign a petition on his or her behalf at the time when, and at 
     the place where, the request is made;
       (6) the term ``signature'' includes the incomplete name of 
     a signer, the name of a signer containing abbreviations such 
     as first or middle initial, and the name of a signer preceded 
     or followed by titles such as ``Mr.'', ``Ms.'', ``Dr.'', 
     ``Jr.'', or ``III''; and
       (7) the term ``address'' means the address which a signer 
     uses for purposes of registration and voting.
                                  ____


 (Participation by presidential candidates in debates with candidates 
                       with broad-based support)

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Friday, July 17, 1998, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
  THE CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a perfecting amendment, it 
is not in the nature of a substitute, and that has been cleared in the 
Committee on Rules.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk designated it as an amendment to 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, both amendments that I have should be 
perfecting amendments, and if permissible, I ask unanimous consent that 
they both be accepted as such.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is an amendment to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. The gentleman is amending the Shays-Meehan 
amendment in the nature of a substitute as permitted by the rules.
  Mr. PAUL. I thank the Chair for the clarification.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It is an amendment that 
deals with equity and fairness, so I would expect essentially no 
opposition to this.
  It simply lowers and standardizes the signature requirements and the 
time required to get signatures to get a Federal candidate on the 
ballot. There are very many unfair rules and regulations by the States 
that make it virtually impossible for many candidates to get on the 
ballot.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make 4 points about the amendment. First, it 
is constitutional to do this. Article I, section 4, explicitly 
authorizes the U.S. Congress to, ``At any time by law make or alter 
such regulations regarding the manner of holding elections.'' This is 
the authority that was used for the Voters Rights Act of 1965.
  The second point I would like to make is an issue of fairness. 
Because of the excess petition requirements put on by so many States 
and the short period of time required, many individuals are excluded 
from the ballot, and for this reason, this should be corrected. There 
are some States, take, for instance, Georgia, wrote a law in 1943. 
There has not been one minor party candidate on the ballot since 1943, 
because it cannot meet the requirements. This is unfair. This amendment 
would correct this.
  Number 3, the third point. In contrast to some who would criticize an 
amendment like this by saying that there would be overcrowding on the 
ballot, there have been statistical studies made of States where the 
number of requirements, of signature requirements are very low, and the 
time very generous. Instead of overcrowding, they have an average of 
3.3 candidates per ballot.
  Now, this is very important also because it increases interest and 
increases turnout. Today, turnout has gone down every year in the last 
20 or 30 years, there has been a steady decline in interest. This 
amendment would increase the interest and increase the turnout.
  The fourth point that I would like to make is that the setup and the 
situation we have now is so unfair, many are concerned about how money 
is influencing the elections. But in this case, rules and regulations 
are affecting minor candidates by pushing up the cost of the election, 
where they cannot afford the money to even get on the ballot, so it is 
very unfair in a negative sense that the major parties penalize any 
challengers. And the correction would come here by equalizing this, 
making it more fair, and I would expect, I think, just everybody to 
agree that this is an amendment of fairness and equity and should be 
accepted.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I request the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert).
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, 
but the real purpose is to focus my remarks on the need for the Shays-
Meehan substitute rather than the specifics of this particular 
amendment, which are not the real issue.
  The reason we need Shays-Meehan is quite simple and quite stark. The 
legitimacy of the American political process is being undermined.
  I do not use these words lightly or as a mere rhetorical flourish. We 
can try to convince ourselves that all is well, salving ourselves with 
polls showing the approval for Congress is relatively high. Ironically, 
some argue that all is well because money is flowing into our campaign 
covers. This is like saying that a cancer patient is in better shape 
than someone without cancer, because that person might have more cells.
  But in any event, a closer look tells a less rosy story. Polls show 
that many Americans do not know the first thing about Congress, the 
names of their representatives, which party is in control, and so 
forth. Discussions with average Americans uncover a deep cynicism about 
the political process; and looking at what in other circumstances we 
call the only poll that truly counts, Americans are simply abandoning 
the election booth.

                              {time}  1815

  Turnout is at an alltime low. Alienation from the political system is 
at an historical high. There could be no greater danger in a democracy. 
We are in the midst of a silent crisis.
  Campaign finance reform does not rank high as a concern in polls 
simply because no one believes we can truly do it. They believe we are 
hapless and that the situation is hopeless, so they just continue to 
turn away. This is as corrosive a disease for the body politic as can 
be imagined. It is no less serious because the symptoms do not appear 
fully until it is too late to fashion a cure. So I congratulate the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for designing a cure while there is still 
time.
  Some people have said that the side effects of this cure are so 
severe that we should just let the disease take its course, but that is 
simply wrong. The cure is as mild as sunshine, ensuring that everyone 
can see who is spending money to influence the political system. Shays-
Meehan is, quite literally, the very least we can do.
  Let us look at some of the concerns opponents of this bill raise. 
They say that, like previous efforts at reform, it

[[Page H6796]]

has many loopholes and unintended consequences. Yet, their solution is 
to have no system at all; in short, to get rid of individual loopholes 
by having a regime that is one giant void. That hardly seems like a 
positive alternative.
  Opponents also raise the specter of a system overrun by Federal 
bureaucrats, their favored bugaboo, but this is really another way of 
saying that they do not want any limits on the flow of money into the 
political system.
  Mr. Chairman, George Bernard Shaw once said, ``A society's morals are 
like its teeth; the more decayed they are, the more it hurts to touch 
them.'' It is no accident that it hurts so much to discuss our 
political morality. It is time to correct it at its roots. I urge my 
colleagues to vote down this amendment and to support the Shays-Meehan 
substitute.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment, once again, lowers and standardizes the required 
signatures to get Federal candidates on the ballot. There is a great 
deal of inequity among the States, and it works against the minor 
candidates and prevents many from even participating in the process.
  For this reason, many individuals have lost interest in politics. 
They are disinterested, and every year it seems that the turnout goes 
down. This year is no exception. Forty-two percent of the American 
people do not align themselves with a political party. Twenty-nine 
percent, approximately, align themselves with Republicans and 
Democrats. Yet, the rules and the laws are written by the major party 
for the sole purpose of making it very expensive and very difficult, 
and sometimes impossible, to get on the ballot.
  If we had more competition and more openness, we would get more 
people out to vote. It would not clutter the ballot, it would not have 
overcrowding, but it would allow discourse, and it would be beneficial 
to the process.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my problem with this amendment is that it would 
prohibit States from erecting excessive ballot access barriers to 
candidates for Federal office. It would set ballot petition signature 
limits for the President, the Vice President, United States Senate, and 
House candidates. In addition, it would set ballot petition time 
limitations.
  Protections are important, but individual States should be allowed to 
control their campaign laws. Assuring there are no undue barriers to 
prevent individuals from running for Federal office is imperative to 
keeping our political process fair, but I am concerned with the Federal 
Government imposing limitations on the States for how they govern 
ballot access.
  This deals with an important set of issues, and should be dealt with 
not solely with this amendment, but rather, should be fully debated in 
the House after the Shays-Meehan substitute has passed.
  One of the things that the Shays-Meehan bill does is to provide for 
an opportunity for debate and discussion through the Commission. This 
is an issue that I think there should be hearings on, I think we should 
have a dialogue about. But I just do not think that an amendment to the 
Shays-Meehan bill is the appropriate place to deal with this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman suggests we should leave this to the States. I quoted 
and cited the constitutional authority for this. It is explicit. We 
have the authority to do this. There are many, many unfair laws.
  Dealing with the President, for instance, the minor candidates, on 
average, to get on the ballot, are required to get 701,000 signatures. 
A major candidate gets less than 50,000. To get on an average Senate 
seat ballot, 196,000 signatures are required for the Senate, 15,000 for 
the major candidates. In the House, on the average for the minor 
candidate, it is more than 13,000, where it is 2,000 for a major 
candidate.
  There is something distinctly unfair about this. This is un-American. 
We have the authority to do it. This is the precise time to do it. We 
are dealing with campaign reform, and they are forcing these minor 
candidates to spend unbelievable amounts of money. They are being 
excluded. They are 42 percent of the people in this country. They are 
the majority, when we divide the electorate up. They deserve 
representation, too.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Paul) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 
offered by Mr. Shays: 
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant House Resolution 442, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) will be 
postponed.
  It is now in order to consider the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Paul).


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

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. 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. Paul to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:
       Add at the end the following new title:

       TITLE   --DEBATE REQUIREMENTS FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

     SEC. --01. REQUIREMENT THAT CANDIDATES WHO RECEIVE CAMPAIGN 
                   FINANCING FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 
                   CAMPAIGN FUND AGREE NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN 
                   MULTICANDIDATE FORUMS THAT EXCLUDE CANDIDATES 
                   WITH BROAD-BASED PUBLIC SUPPORT.

       (a) In General.--In addition to the requirements under 
     subtitle H of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. In order to 
     be eligible to receive payments from the Presidential 
     Election Campaign Fund, a candidate shall agree in writing 
     not to appear in any multicandidate forum with respect to the 
     election involved unless the following individuals are 
     invited to participate in the multicandidate forum:
       (1) Each other eligible candidate under such subtitle.
       (2) Each individual who is qualified in at least 40 States 
     for the ballot for the office involved.
       (b) Enforcement.--If the Federal Election Commission 
     determines that a candidate--
       (1) has received payments from the Presidential Election 
     Campaign Fund; and
       (2) has violated the agreement referred to in subsection 
     (a); the candidate shall pay to the Treasury an amount equal 
     to the amount of the payments so made.
       (c) Definition.--As used in this title, the term 
     ``multicandidate forum,'' means a meeting--
       (1) consisting of a moderated reciprocal discussionnn of 
     issues among candidates for the same office; and
       (2) to which any other person has access in person or 
     through an electronic medium.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 17, 
1998, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. The major candidates 
receive a lot, a million dollars, to run their campaigns. Then they 
have national debates, and then they can purposely exclude other 
candidates. I am not talking about 10 or 20 or 30 very minor 
candidates, I am talking about candidates who spend weeks, months, 
years, hundreds of thousands of dollars, just to get on the ballot. 
Some will not even take the money, but some qualify to be on 40 and 50 
ballots, and they are purposely excluded.
  This amendment does not dictate to those who hold debates, but it 
would require that those major party candidates who take the taxpayers' 
money, they take it with the agreement that anybody else who qualifies 
for taxpayers' funding, campaign funds, or gets on 40 ballots, would be 
allowed in the debate.
  I cannot think of anything that could boost the interest in the 
debates more. Fewer and fewer people are watching debates. There was 
the lowest turnout, the lowest listening audience to the debates in the 
last-go around. It was the

[[Page H6797]]

lowest since we have had these debates on television.
  Forty-two percent of the people turned out and were interested in the 
debates prior to the election in 1992, and we had a major candidate, 
Ross Perot. Of course, the only reason he was able to achieve a 
significant amount of attention was because he happened to be a 
billionaire. That is not fair. In 1996, they did a poll right before 
the election to find out who was paying attention. We were getting 
ready to pick the President of the United States. It dropped to 24 
percent.
  If we want people to be civic-minded, interested in what we are 
doing, feeling like they have something to say about their government, 
we ought to allow them in. We should not exclude this 42 percent that 
have been excluded. I think opening up the debates in this way would 
only be fair and proper. It would be the American way to do it. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support this fair-minded amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take the 5 
minutes in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) is 
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), who has been a leader in our 
efforts to find a way to pass real campaign finance reform.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me. The gentleman is doing a wonderful job on his 
bill, along with his colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays).
  Mr. Chairman, I rise on this amendment in deep concern and in 
opposition to the amendment. I think the sincerity of the author is 
true, but I think this is the wrong place. This whole bill is about 
congressional campaign finance reform. It is how we regulate the money 
that controls our elections, to get elected to this House. It is not 
about presidential elections.
  There might be a great debate about how to do that, but as the 
gentleman knows, the presidential election process is controlled by 
each of the 50 States. We have no national primary in the United 
States. I think there is room for that kind of debate, whether we ought 
to move in that direction, whether the process for qualifying for a 
ballot ought to be more uniform, as the gentleman suggests.
  But to take the gentleman's ideas about presidential debates and move 
them into this bill is, I think, the wrong way to go; the wrong place, 
the wrong time, and frankly, the wrong issue. So I strongly oppose this 
amendment. I think the gentleman is going to try to confuse what the 
underlying bill is all about.
  We have to keep that in focus. We have to keep it limited to that 
issue. We cannot build the coalition that we need to build if we try to 
put everything in this bill, and make it a Christmas tree on all of the 
ills about lack of voting in America, lack of enough debate for those 
who wish to run for President of the United States from minor parties.
  With all due respect for the gentleman's sincerity, I strongly oppose 
this amendment, and recommend that all my colleagues oppose the 
amendment, because it is probably technically germane, but it is not 
politically germane to what we are trying to accomplish.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is always interesting that when we have an appropriate amendment 
that seems to catch the attention of the Members, that it is probably 
not the appropriate time to bring it up, and that we should hold 
hearings and do it some other day.
  We have been spending months, and I believe both sides of the aisle 
have been very sincere in their efforts to clarify and to improve our 
election process. I think this would be a tremendous benefit to the 
congressional candidates as well, because there would be more interest. 
People are not even listening to the debates. If they are not even 
willing to listen to the presidential debates, how can they get 
interested in Senate races and in House races?
  The rating of the debates in 1996 was the lowest in 36 years. The 
Vice-Presidential debate, we cannot even get people to listen to the 
Vice-Presidential debates. It had dropped off 50 percent from 1992. In 
1992, there was more interest. It is because we happened to have a 
billionaire interested, and he was able to stimulate some people in 
some debates.
  All I am asking for is for us to endorse the notion, and we have the 
authority, the money comes from congressional appropriations. We have 
written these laws. These are election laws. We have this authority. We 
have the authority under the Constitution and we have the authority 
under our laws to do this.
  So I would strongly suggest if Members are fair-minded and think they 
would like more interest, or if they want to continue the way we are 
going now, we are going to have less and less people interested. People 
are really tired of it. The American people do not understand this 
debate, but they do understand they would like to have somebody speak 
up for them.
  Forty-two percent of the people have been essentially 
disenfranchised, and they are important. Hopefully they are important 
enough to go to the polls and let us know about it. But they have been 
disenfranchised because they have lost interest. They have been pushed 
around, either with ballot access rules and regulations, or not being 
allowed to appear.
  This does not mean those candidates more on the right would happen to 
be in the debate, or more on the left. It would open it up. This is 
fair-minded, it is proper, it is a good place to do it. It is a chance 
to vote on it, and I ask for support on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not use all of my time, but in conclusion, 
essentially what this does is, a presidential candidate who receives 
taxpayer-funded matching funds from participating in debates, they will 
not be able to participate in any debates to which equally qualifying 
candidates for funds would have participated in.
  I agree that there should be more open and free debate, but I am also 
concerned that the bill might have the opposite effect. It might 
actually stifle debate, if a candidate who takes matching funds cannot 
participate in the debate.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the Commission on 
Presidential Debates was established in 1987 to ensure debates are a 
permanent part of every general election.

                              {time}  1830

  It handles the rules of who participates and how the presidential 
debates will take place. I am concerned with the fact that if this 
amendment were to pass, Congress would essentially be setting the rules 
for who can and who cannot participate in presidential debates. I 
believe that that decision should remain with the independent 
commission.
  Certainly, this is an item that in another forum that we could 
discuss, have hearings on, and I think that would be in our interest. 
But in any event, I feel, Mr. Chairman, that we should vote ``no'' on 
this amendment and take it up at another point in time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) on this. And in a way I have a lot of 
sympathy for the amendment, because I am one who feels that everyone 
should have a right to participate in these debates and opportunities.
  But, Mr. Chairman, there are times in almost any election, 
particularly at the presidential level, in which we need to focus on 
the candidates who are going to be the major candidates who the 
majority of people by far in this country are going to vote on.
  I think it should be up to the independent commission to make that 
decision so that they can formulate it, come forward with it, and make 
absolutely sure that everyone in this country who is going to be voting 
for the

[[Page H6798]]

most important person in the United States has the opportunity to focus 
on how well those individuals know the issues, can handle themselves 
and deal with one another. So, I rise with some reluctance in 
opposition to this, but I do feel it should be opposed.
  In addition, I would just like to take this moment to thank the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for the extraordinary work which they have done 
on this piece of legislation. It really has been an exceptional effort 
by them, and I think that they deserve all the credit we can possibly 
give them.
  Indeed, at some later point perhaps an amendment like this should be 
considered, but I think in the context of this particular bill, and 
with the language which is in this amendment, we should rise in 
opposition to it and I would encourage us all to oppose it.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). All time having expired, the 
question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Paul) 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 announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceeding on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) will be postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendments Nos. 
27 and 28 offered by me be withdrawn, and my amendments Nos. 25 and 26 
be considered one after another, immediately after amendment No. 19, 
and the text of amendment No. 85 as submitted to the desk today be 
substituted for amendment No. 29.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot entertain the third element of the 
gentleman's request.
  Is there objection?
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object. I first did 
not understand what the Chair cannot entertain.
  The CHAIRMAN. The request had three parts.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully request that we have an 
understanding. We are eager to try to comply with the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip, and also to 
welcome him back into the Chamber, because he has had some very 
difficult things to deal with with the death of our two colleagues who 
guard this place. But I would like to take each of those items so we 
can see what does not remain.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's questions. What 
I am attempting to do is to group three amendments together. The first 
amendment would deal with what we call issue alerts, or what I call 
issue alerts. The second amendment deals with background music. And the 
third amendment deals with coordination.
  And in order to do that, in my unanimous-consent request I am 
withdrawing completely amendments Nos. 27 and 28. Then I am taking Nos. 
25 and 26 and moving them up to this point in time. Mr. Chairman, 
amendments 25 and 26 are the background music and the coordination 
amendment.
  I am taking the text of an amendment way down below, No. 85 as 
pointed out in the rules, and submitting that language and substituting 
that language for amendment No. 29, which was my limit express advocacy 
communications.
  So, I would take out the limit advocacy communications amendment 
completely and substitute the amendment that deals with issue alerts, 
if that makes any sense.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, what is No. 85?
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. MEEHAN. We would need to know----
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. The Committee of the Whole 
cannot entertain a request to change the form of one of the amendments.
  Mr. SHAYS. Then should there be two unanimous consent motions?
  The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman would offer amendment 19, maybe the 
staff----
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, if I could withdraw my unanimous consent 
request and make a new one. That would be that I would ask unanimous 
consent that amendments 27 and 28 be withdrawn completely, and 25 and 
26 be considered one after another immediately after amendment 19.
  To save confusion, I will go on to amendment 19 and we will work it 
out with the Parliamentarian.


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

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the 
nature of a substiute..
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment to the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
  Amendment offered by Mr. DeLay to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:
       Add at the end of section 301(20) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971, as added by section 201(b) of the 
     substitute, the following:
       (C) Exception for legislative alerts: The term ``express 
     advocacy'' does not include any communication which--
       (i) deals solely with an issue or legislation which is or 
     may be the subject of a vote in the Senate or House of 
     Representatives; and
       (ii) encourages an individual to contact an elected 
     representative in Congress in order to exercise the right 
     protected under the first amendment of the Constitution to 
     inform the representative of the individual's views on such 
     issue or legislation.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 17, 
1998, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I apologize for confusing the Committee. Mr. Chairman, 
I am offering this amendment in order to ensure issue-oriented citizens 
groups their first amendment right to urge like-minded citizens to 
contact their elected representatives about upcoming votes in Congress.
  The Shays-Meehan substitute, in my opinion, would restrict 
communications that express viewpoints to incumbent lawmakers during 
the period of time that this House could be in session. Now, these 
communications are intended to encourage like-minded citizens to 
express themselves regarding upcoming votes on the floor of the House. 
My amendment makes a distinction between communications that address 
upcoming votes and communications that endorse candidates for 
elections, two very real differences.
  Due to the time limit, I will concentrate on just one of these 
restrictions. Under section 201 of Shays-Meehan, if a group sends out a 
communication at any time of the year, this would include flyers or 
newspaper ads or any other printed communications, that explain that 
Congressman Doe, for instance, voted incorrectly on a given issue the 
last time it came up and the same issue is coming up, say, again the 
next week. And if voters are interested in Congressman Doe 
reconsidering his vote, they should give him a call.
  Under the onerous provisions of Shays-Meehan, Congressman Doe would 
regard this as an attack on him and, therefore, an example of 
impermissible express advocacy. Congressman Doe's reason would lie in 
section 201 of the bill which states a given communication is express 
advocacy if it contains words that can have no reasonable meaning other 
than to advocate support or defeat, or if it contains words that 
express unmistakable and unambiguous opposition. These are the words in 
the bill.
  Now, maybe the citizens groups' words are like, ``Do you know that 
Congresswoman Smith has voted time and again in favor of brutal 
partial-

[[Page H6799]]

birth abortion procedures and has repeatedly described partial-birth 
abortion as a godsend?''
  Maybe the words are, and I quote, ``Congressman Jones voted to strip 
women of their constitutional right to choose and call it a great 
stride for mankind,'' closed quote.
  It does not matter what the issue is. It does not matter what side of 
the issue a group is on. These groups have a right, a constitutionally 
protected right, to inform like-minded constituents to contact their 
representative, to let their representative know how his constituents 
may feel.
  Simply put, issue-oriented citizens' groups have a first amendment 
right to express their opinions. These citizens deserve an unfettered, 
unobstructed right, not only to be informed of political issues but 
also to enjoy freedom of political speech.
  I think that section 201 of Shays-Meehan prohibits any citizen group, 
other than, say, a Federal PAC, from even mentioning the name of a 
Member of Congress in a broadcast communication for 60 days before a 
primary election and again for 60 days before a general election, 
easily the most critical periods in the American electoral process. 
These are the times during which citizens are frantically seeking to 
inform and educate themselves as to what candidates stand for and 
against, and this provision undermines and subverts the entire 
electoral process.
  So my amendment, I think, is a necessary measure to protect and 
secure free speech and the integrity of our electoral process and allow 
citizens' groups to participate in the legislative process. So I ask 
support for my amendment and support for freedom of speech.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is once again an effort to 
really undermine and cancel out the so-called issue ads and all of the 
express advocacy and issue advocacy provisions in this bill.
  If you look at the language of the amendment of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), you see that there is an exception, an entire 
exception, to the issue advocacy provisions in case of any 
communication which deals solely with an issue or legislation which is 
or may be subject to a vote in the Senate or House of Representatives.
  It does not say when. It could be next year. It could be 3 years from 
now. It could be anything. It encourages an individual to contact an 
elected representative in Congress in order to exercise the right 
protected under the first amendment.
  So that once again opens the door to these so-called issue ads that 
attack a candidate in a clear campaign manner and does not say 
``defeats so and so,'' but says, after attacking him, after vilifying 
him or her, after making it clear that that person should be defeated, 
does not use the term ``defeat'' but says, contact so and so.
  So, the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) goes far 
beyond this instance of where we may be in session and where perhaps a 
group is truly not trying to campaign against that person but get a 
message to that person or to his or her constituents about something 
that is immediately pending.
  Also I would urge that the protections we have in here are more than 
adequate to take care of the problem that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay) says he is trying to address. This is the effort of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), all over again to take out 
of Shays-Meehan the issue advocacy provisions that attempt to get at 
ads that proclaim or parade as noncampaign ads but are truly nothing 
but that.

                              {time}  1845

  There would be no other reasonable interpretation. So this is bigger 
than driving a Mack truck through Shays-Meehan. This is one of these 
amendments that has a huge truck with a lot of poison pills in them 
which will sink Shays-Meehan. I think it is bad policy in and of 
itself. It goes way beyond its pretended purpose.
  The momentum is now on the side of campaign finance reform. We should 
defeat amendments, the purpose of which is to throw a huge barrier in 
front of our reaching the promised land. We can reach it. There are 
some in this body who want to destroy it by any means. This is one such 
instance. We do not have to be worried about freedom of speech, in our 
judgment. We have carefully drafted this.
  Defeat the DeLay amendment.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  If I heard the previous speaker correctly, and Shays-Meehan already 
allows this in all probability, why do we not just be specific about 
it? This really just says that you can contact, you can encourage 
others to contact a Member of the House or a Member of the Senate 
during this 60-day blockout period, if in fact there is an issue before 
the Congress or likely to come before the Congress, and encourage that 
they be contacted on how they would vote. When we come back in 
September, everything we deal with would be in that 60-day period, 
where it is arguable whether you could contact, whether you could 
encourage the contact of a Member of Congress.
  I think it is probably not arguable that you could call a Member of 
Congress and say, we would like you to do this. It is probably not 
arguable that you could write your own letter. But Shays-Meehan appears 
to say that you cannot encourage others to do that.
  We have got appropriations bills that will be coming, that we will 
send to the Senate, others that will be coming back in conference from 
the Senate. Are we saying that no group could send out a postcard that 
says, contact your Member of Congress about this issue that is coming 
up next week or a specific Member of Congress and mention their name? 
Are we saying that nobody could send out a postcard and say, last time 
this issue came up, this Member of Congress voted yes, contact them and 
encourage them to vote no on the bill that is coming up this week?
  I think really this gets down to the very fundamental point of issues 
before the Congress at a time, if the gentleman from Michigan is 
correct and it is in there, what does it hurt to make it even more 
specific?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. My point is not that the DeLay amendment is in there. The 
way it is drafted, it refers to all of these sham ads, whenever they 
are produced, whether 60 days in advance or not. If you read section C, 
it applies to subsection A and B and all the provisions therein.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would help me here for a 
minute, figure this out, if you cannot mention the name of a Member of 
Congress on anything you pay for, including a postcard, within 60 days 
of the election, how do you alert others who feel the same way you do 
about an issue to contact a given Congressman who may be, a given 
Member of Congress who may be thinking about which way they want to 
vote on that issue?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
first of all, again, I urge that anyone who is thinking of supporting 
this amendment read it. It applies to all of the provisions on express 
advocacy, whenever an ad would be launched, whether it is 60 days, 90 
days, 120 days or whatever. It destroys the entire issue advocacy 
provisions. That is number one.
  Mr. BLUNT. Reclaiming my time, the amendment says that this deals 
solely with an issue or legislation which is or may be the subject of a 
vote in the Senate or House of Representatives.
  Mr. LEVIN. But, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that could 
be 120 days before, it could be any time and something that is subject 
to a vote that could be a year away. So I just urge that the gentleman 
read the amendment.
  Number two, in relation to the 60-day provision, that only relates to 
paid advertisements transmitted through radio or television 60 days 
preceding an election. And if it is a notification through paid media 
that is truly not an effort to influence a vote but influence an 
election, then it should come under the same rules and regulations as 
all

[[Page H6800]]

other methods of communication relating to elections and candidates.
  Mr. BLUNT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just say that if 
we begin to say that we cannot, with a radio ad or some other 
communication, some instant communication, try to encourage that 
specific Members of the Congress be contacted, we are a long way down, 
I think, the wrong road.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to maintain the express 
advocacy standard championed by the Shays-Meehan legislation, and we 
need to do that, we cannot go halfway on this. The distinguished whip, 
the distinguished leader from the other side, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay) knows that quite well. This is a complex issue. Folks 
listening and watching are trying to still figure out what is the 
difference between soft and hard money, maybe like some Members. But 
there is a very, very severe distinction here.
  We are not saying in Shays-Meehan that the candidate or dollars 
cannot be spent on behalf of the candidate by other groups. What we are 
saying is it must be hard money or else it is wrong and it is banned. 
The whole purpose of this legislation is to ban soft money. We know how 
that has grown. We are talking about two political parties that have 
raised $67 million between them in the first 3 months of this year.
  So we can really boil this down into two very basic things. There are 
those of us on both sides of the aisle who believe there is too much 
money in politics, too much money in our campaigns.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PASCRELL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, could the gentleman tell me how much money 
is enough money in politics? Could the gentleman tell me how much money 
is enough? The gentleman said there is too much money in it. How much 
money is enough?
  Mr. PASCRELL. If the average, Mr. Chairman, if the average campaign 
costs $660,000, we know that we cannot put a cap on it due to a Supreme 
Court decision, but working together I am sure we can come to specific 
advocacy issues of ourselves, such as banning soft money. Because if 
you have $10 to spend in your campaign and not $660,000, and third-
party advocacy groups can spend whatever they wish, that is not 
controlling expenditures in a campaign. The gentleman knows it, and I 
know it.
  So I believe this Shays-Meehan is simply attempting to ban soft money 
so that all of the hard money that is spent is disclosed. That is a 
critical issue, Mr. Chairman.
  We want the dollars, we want the names and the addresses of people 
who contributed to our campaigns. That is a very underlying argument 
within Shays-Meehan, disclosure, the banning of soft money. And the 
sooner we do it, the better.
  I think that this is what this is all about, what we are going to 
open up here, and trying to go in the opposite direction. What we are 
going to open up is more advocacy, more issue advocacy, more spending 
of money, not only 6 months or 6 weeks but 6 days before a campaign.
  I believe Shays-Meehan is on target. I believe we cannot equivocate. 
This amendment is a poison pill.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, the discussion that we are having right 
now goes to the very crux of this entire issue of campaign finance 
reform. Those who have been advocating reform talk about special 
interest money. One thing is pretty clear, special interest money is 
the money of any group you do not agree with.
  Second of all, too much money, no one has been able to define what is 
too much money. Third of all, sham ads. What is a sham ad? It is an ad 
that you do not like. Then fourth of all, disclosure.
  Now, I find it ironic that I am up here this evening speaking in 
favor of the majority whip's amendment to allow groups to take out ads 
in the newspaper or radio or whatever to express their concern about 
issues before the Congress; and you all want to stop that, in essence.
  Yet a group called Public Campaign ran ads in every newspaper in my 
district 2 days ago saying that Ed Whitfield does not think politicians 
are hooked on special interest money so he wants to triple the dose.
  Now, I did not like this. It made me feel bad to read this, every 
newspaper in my district, but I think this group has a constitutional 
right to run this ad if they want to run it.
  But in your definition of express advocacy, you expand it so far that 
you are going to eliminate and curtail the rights of groups like Public 
Campaign to talk about these issues.
  In fact, the third way you expand express advocacy, it says, express 
advocacy is expressing unmistakable and unambiguous support for or 
opposition to one or more clearly identified candidates when taken as a 
whole and with limited reference to external events such as proximity 
to an election.
  This ad meets that definition. And under the Shays-Meehan, this ad 
would be illegal. So here I am, up here defending the right of this 
third party, independent group to run these ads, and all that the 
majority whip's amendment does is to be sure that they have a right to 
do that.
  I might further say that the third way you expand the definition of 
express advocacy, the Supreme Court already, in a case FEC versus Maine 
Right to Life, has declared that specific language, not approximate 
language, but specific language unconstitutional.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First off, we do not ban anything. This is just totally a 
misstatement. The issue is whether it is an issue ad or a campaign ad. 
The issue is whether you come under campaign rules or do not come under 
campaign rules.
  First and foremost, Mr. Chairman, we ban soft money. I do not think 
that there is any amendment to try to deal with that, so that is off 
the table.
  The issue is dealing with sham issue ads that are truly campaign ads. 
It is not that they do not have a right to do it, but they are campaign 
ads and should come under the campaign rules. Organizations and labor 
unions and other interest groups have tried to get around the campaign 
laws by simply pretending that they are issue ads, by not saying vote 
for or vote against, but mentioning the name of the candidate and 
showing a picture. We have the bright line test expanded by the name of 
the picture or the name of the candidate. That is for radio and TV.

                              {time}  1900

  This is not radio or TV. This does not ban it based on the issue of 
60 days before an election.
  Now, there is the issue of unambiguous and unmistakable support for 
or opposition to a clearly identified Federal candidate can run at any 
time. Telling an individual that he should vote for something or vote 
against to me does not meet that test at all. It does not meet the 
unambiguous and unmistakable test that would affect this paper.
  So the bottom line is radio and TV, yes. Name or the picture of the 
candidate 60 days to an election, that is right. We are trying to get 
at these campaign ads so people do not get around disclosure of them 
and are not able to use corporate and dues money. That is the purpose 
of it.
  The bottom line to the gentleman's amendment is it is an exemption 
that totally swallows the rule. He basically abolishes by this 
amendment any attempt to deal with the whole issue of not dealing with 
the recognition of sham issue ads. It basically allows for this 
loophole because all you have to do is say, ``Contact your 
representative,'' and then two days before the election you can then 
say, ``Contact your representative and say whatever you want,'' which 
is the reason why I have objection to it.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I would just say to the gentleman that I think he has 
confirmed my concern and his third method of expanding express advocacy 
can be by newspaper, radio, television or whatever. Reasonable minds 
can disagree about what is unmistakable and

[[Page H6801]]

what is unambiguous, and that is the reason that the court has adopted 
a bright line test. Your expansion of express advocacy is going to end 
up right back in the courts.
  Mr. SHAYS. The bright line test is emphatically what we do have, and 
the name or the picture of the candidate has been what is expanded to 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. 
Rivers).
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker said that this issue 
goes to the crux of what this bill is about and it does.
  A couple of weeks ago I very facetiously read a little poem by Dr. 
Seuss or in a Dr. Seuss like manner and I said that what this bill was 
about was about calling what waddles and quacks a duck, and that is 
what this bill is about. It is about ending the ability of some 
individuals and some groups to do an end run around the laws that we 
have in place for electing candidates.
  This seems like a very innocent proposal. But frankly to pass it 
would allow some very pernicious political behavior to continue. This 
proposal includes a huge loophole, and the gentleman from Michigan did 
mention this to some extent. But I want to be very clear. The provision 
that the majority whip proposes would include not just issues that are 
scheduled to come up in front of a legislative body but issues that 
might or may be scheduled in the future. This is a huge issue. This 
means that any issue, any issue that conceivably could be put in front 
of a legislative body should fall within this particular exemption.
  A couple of weeks ago when I spoke on issue advocacy, I read from the 
New York Times and other newspapers the express script of a campaign 
ad, really a whole series of campaign ads that ran in Staten Island. 
But they had similar gists to them. They went like this. Because one of 
the candidates was a member of the New York legislature, the ads ran 
talking about the number of times that that legislator had raised 
taxes, a number of things that he had done as a State legislator, they 
finished up by saying, even though there was no vote scheduled in the 
New York legislature on taxes, ``Call Representative A and tell him to 
stop raising your taxes.''
  Would that fit within the exemption that the majority whip is 
proposing? Absolutely. Are we dealing with an express attempt to 
influence the election or defeat of a particular candidate? Yes. Are we 
talking about a legislative issue that just might at some time be in 
front of the legislative body that this individual belongs to? Yes. But 
this is the sort of behavior we are trying to stop. We are trying to 
make the rules clear and we are trying to make sure that everyone 
follows them. If you are attempting to elect or defeat a candidate, 
there are clear laws with which you must comply. What the majority whip 
tries to do is to blur those rules and to continue to provide an end 
run opportunity for those people who do not wish to follow the laws.
  Please do not accept this. Let us do what I said a couple of weeks 
ago. Let us make sure that we call what waddles and quacks a duck.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
This is exposing Shays-Meehan for what it is. The opposition to my 
amendment is trying to confuse the Members. In one section of 202, they 
do talk about 60 days before an election. But in other sections in 202, 
they talk about other parts of the year. And 60 days it is radio or 
television communication. But in other parts of the year it could be 
the kind of ad that the gentleman from Kentucky was talking about.
  My amendment is very, very simple. It simply states that an exemption 
to the express advocacy part of their bill that deals solely with an 
issue or legislation. I do not understand why the proponents of Shays-
Meehan are scared to death to have ads run against them dealing with 
issues while we are in session or the next week of the session.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, there is one thing that I did want to 
clarify. Obviously if you have an ad that is running and under the new 
definition of express advocacy of Shays-Meehan that ad is included and, 
as I said, I think it is so broad and so ambiguous and subject to so 
many interpretations, the Supreme Court has already declared part of 
this language unconstitutional. But obviously you can run those ads. 
The gentleman was correct. You can run the ads, but the group would 
have to form a PAC, the group would have to have an attorney, the group 
would have to file all those reports with the FEC and that is precisely 
the type of chilling effect that the Supreme Court has repeatedly said 
you cannot require.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) for their extraordinary commitment to this issue and their hard 
work on it for many years.
  Many of the amendments that come before us tonight collectively serve 
only one purpose, and, that is, to sidetrack reform. We have the power 
to change that today by passing and voting for Shays-Meehan, voting 
down absolutely every single amendment. We have a commission that is 
attached to it that can review all of these. The Shays-Meehan as we 
have said bans soft money and it also prevents the so-called 
independent groups from running sham issue advocacy ads whose true aim 
is to elect or defeat a particular candidate. This particular amendment 
really would create a sham legislative alert. Whether it is a sham 
issue advocacy ad or a sham legislative alert, all we are saying is 
disclose who is paying for it. Let the American public know who is 
wooing whom and pay for it, not with the huge loophole of soft money 
but with hard money.
  I think that all of us have been attacked by these so-called 
independent groups in our campaigns. What is very troubling, in many 
cases I believe these independent groups are spending more money than 
the candidates themselves. But I am all for free speech. We all support 
free speech. Just let the American public know who is paying for it. Is 
that too much to ask? But the real point is that we have before us a 
very carefully crafted bill that has what I call the fragile flower of 
consensus. We have a majority of Members in this Congress that support 
Shays-Meehan. We can pass it and enact it into law. We can consider 
other important amendments in the commission bill. That is what we 
should be doing tonight.
  What I find particularly troubling is that I suspect that many of the 
Members who have offered amendments this evening have absolutely no 
intention for voting for Shays-Meehan. Their real agenda is to try to 
destroy it with poison pills or with amendments that disrupt the 
balance that we have created.
  Vote for Shays-Meehan. Vote against all amendments.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. 
I would like to get back to the original intent of the maker of the 
amendment which I think is to preserve the right to give legislative 
alerts. I do not quarrel with the gentleman's motivation. I think the 
motivation is proper. I do think that the bill protects that right, 
because there is clearly a voting record or voting guide exception. The 
term express advocacy does not include printed communication that 
presents information in an educational manner solely about the voting 
record or positions on a campaign issue. I think that the gentleman's 
concern is well covered in the bill.
  Let me tell Members the problem I think we are trying to solve with 
this legislation. I think the laws of this land with regard to campaign 
finance and campaign communication worked pretty well until the 
relatively recent number of years. And the intensity of the fight 
across the country for this Congress, for this House in particular, has 
been such that it has distorted the laws. It troubles me that whenever 
there is a special election in America now, we no longer rely upon the 
people of that community to listen to a good debate among the 
candidates, to identify who stands for which issue, participate in the 
campaign and they go

[[Page H6802]]

vote. Instead, immediately out rushes Planned Parenthood, out rushes 
the Family Research Council, out rushes the AFL-CIO, out rushes the 
business organizations, term limits, every organization in America 
rushes out and starts dumping millions and millions of dollars into 
these sham ads which are just sham ads. They are sham ads not because, 
as my friend from Kentucky said, we do not agree with them, because 
they masquerade as something they are not. They masquerade as 
information when in fact they are the most clever and deceptive and 
nonproductive and nonsubstantive attacks on character and the record of 
the candidates, and they need to be managed as free speech does 
throughout our society.
  I ask for a negative vote on the DeLay amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Allen), a distinguished freshman Member of Congress.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment like others is a poison pill. 
It is designed to undermine campaign reform. It is designed to change 
the Shays-Meehan bill in a way to reduce its support.
  I simply want to raise a couple of things, go back to a couple of 
things that have been said here. This is not about denying any group 
its right to speak in American politics. This is not about preventing 
groups from sending postcards. It is not about preventing people from 
communicating about their representatives. What it is about is saying, 
if you are going to communicate in a way that pretends to be about an 
issue but in fact is meant to influence an election, we need to know 
who is paying for the ads. We need to get disclosure. That is what this 
is about.
  There are those on the other side who preach disclosure, disclosure, 
disclosure as one approach to the abuses of this campaign season, 
except when it comes to outside groups running ads. And then they say, 
``Oh, no, we can't have disclosure.'' We need disclosure when it comes 
to issue advocacy. That is why I think this is an amendment that needs 
to be defeated.
  The second point I will make is just this. It was asked earlier how 
much money is too much money in politics. Well, this is not about free 
speech. It is about big money. It is not about protecting the free 
speech of a constituent. It is about preserving big money in this 
system. Too much money is unlimited money flowing to the national 
parties to run ads. Too much money in politics is unlimited money with 
no disclosure of who it is that is spending that money by outside 
groups.
  The Shays-Meehan bill is a good approach to campaign reform. I 
believe there are other approaches.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. I would just like to ask the gentleman whom I think is 
well motivated and well intentioned in this debate, in your sense of an 
effort to persuade someone on an issue or to encourage a vote on the 
issue but you said that masquerades as that when it is really something 
else, who decides that is I think really my concern. Who draws the line 
between what masquerades as an ad or what is really clearly encouraging 
a result on an issue?

                              {time}  1915

  What we do not want to do here is shut the door on people's ability 
to rightly influence the legitimate debate of the Congress. And who 
decides where that line is? What is the standard?
  Mr. ALLEN. I believe that in this, as in many other areas of law, 
that the law, the standard, will be developed. It will be developed by 
the FEC, it will be developed by the courts over time until we have a 
fairly clear understanding of what that standard is.
  And we do this all the time. We write standards into law, and we hope 
they are clear enough to be effectively enforced.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Meehan-Shays substitute bans soft money, and then 
what we also do is we recognize that the sham issue ads are truly 
campaign ads, and that is the key point. They are not sham in the sense 
that they do not have a right to speak, but they are not issue ads, 
they are campaign ads, and we call them such. One of our provisions is 
obviously already in existing law. Vote for or vote against it; it 
makes it a campaign ad. And people get around the sham issue ads by not 
saying vote for or vote against, but they might as well based on what 
they say. When they mention the name or show a picture of a candidate 
by radio or TV, we call them campaign ads; that is true. The fact is, 
though, that these voter alerts, we do not impact the voter alerts 
through that process of the picture or the name.
  The bottom line is, this is an amendment that is an exemption that 
truly does swallow the rule. It abolishes any attempt whatsoever to 
deal with sham issue ads. It is a gigantic loophole that is intending 
to deal with something that is not a problem.
  Now my colleague used the word ``manage.'' I do not agree it is 
managed. I think it is simply saying playing by the same rules. People 
have a right to speak out. They can do their legislative alerts. But if 
they are on radio or TV 60 days to an election, it is going to be a 
campaign ad and they come under the campaign rules with all the voice 
that is allowed under that process.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The time of the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has expired.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the opponents to my amendment are very upset 
with this amendment because this amendment may pass, and they are upset 
with this amendment and oppose this amendment because it exposes the 
biggest part of the Shays-Meehan bill that we object to, and that is 
the part that manages free speech.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania used the term we need to ``manage'' 
free speech. To me, that is an oxymoron. We cannot manage free speech, 
particularly in the part of political advocacy and political 
participation that my amendment addresses.
  My amendment is very simple. It just exempts from the section of the 
bill any ads or alerts sent out by groups that deal solely with an 
issue or legislation which is or may be subject to a vote in the Senate 
or the House of Representatives. Now why would they be afraid of issue 
ads that express opposition for or support for a vote in the House of 
Representatives or the Senate?
  And it also exempts any communication that encourages an individual 
to contact an elected representative in Congress in order to exercise 
the right protected under the first amendment of the Constitution to 
inform the representative of the individual's views on such an issue of 
legislation.
  Now, if we look at some of the opponents and what they have actually 
been saying, I am going to dissect a little of it. Number one, they 
confuse the whole issue by talking about bigger issues, smaller issues, 
loopholes, sham ads. In fact, the gentlewoman from New York has turned 
a new term of art in addition to the term of art ``sham ads'' that has 
been started by the Shays-Meehan. Now we have sham issue alerts.
  Can my colleagues imagine in this country of free speech, free speech 
guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, we are talking 
about sham issue alerts in the House of Representatives? We want to 
manage the free speech of groups that may want to tell the American 
people how we vote? This is what we have been talking about all along. 
The proponents of Shays-Meehan are proponents, number one, that are 
incumbents, and they are sick and tired of people around America 
revealing, using our communication services in this country to reveal 
how they vote, and so they want to get rid of these sham ads. Or they 
want to manage them in such a way as to discourage them.
  The gentleman from New Jersey was talking about capping spending. The 
gentleman from Maine was talking about we need to know who these 
subversive people are that are writing ads that may tell the American 
people how we vote. And we need to know who is we? Who decides? Is we 
the big-brother government at the Federal Election Commission? Of 
course it is. They want

[[Page H6803]]

big-brother government to manage free speech, if we put all the 
opponents' speech together. That is what they have been saying here.
  What we are saying is very simple: As the gentleman from Connecticut 
has said, we take care of issue alerts in our bill. It is no problem. 
Of course, we cannot find it in their bill, but they just arbitrarily 
say we take care of it. Well, if they take care of it, why are they 
afraid of my amendment? They are afraid of my amendment because they 
are afraid for people to gather together, raise some money, send out an 
ad, do a radio spot that tells the American people and District 22 of 
Texas how the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Tom DeLay) votes.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not afraid of how I vote, and I am not afraid to 
stand up and stand toe-to-toe and debate those groups that are against 
the way that I vote. That is the American process. What Shays-Meehan 
does in its limitation of free speech and its now-management of free 
speech is wants to shut down organizations' abilities and rights to 
freely express themselves in the political process because in their 
bill they say communications, radio and TV, that is run 60 days before 
an election, which means when we get back from the August recess in 
September, if my colleagues run a radio spot that happens to say, ``Tom 
DeLay voted to ban partial-birth abortions and he is a bad dude for 
doing it,'' that organization could come under attack by the Federal 
Election Commission, and they have no defense to say we are just 
advocating a vote on the floor of the House during a pre-election 
period. But in my amendment that group, whether it be Planned 
Parenthood or others, could stand up and say, no, in the law it says 
that we are dealing with a vote on the floor of the Senate and the 
House of Representatives.
  It just amazes me every time I debate this campaign reform why people 
want to limit people's freedom of speech to participate in the 
political process, and it all comes back to the same reason: They are 
afraid for the American people to know what is going on in this town, 
to know what is going on on the floor of this House, and they are 
uncomfortable sometimes by some of the ads that groups run, and they 
want to do away with them once and for all.
  So I just ask the Members to look at my amendment, digest it, 
understand it and vote for it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time having expired, the question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) 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 noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeLAY. 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 Texas (Mr. 
DeLay) will be postponed.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that Amendments 27 
and 28 offered by me be withdrawn and my amendments 25 and 26 in the 
order of July 17 on H.R. 2183 may be considered in the sequence at this 
point and that 26 be modified by the form at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair cannot entertain that request in 
the Committee of the Whole.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the unanimous consent, and I have 
Amendment No. 25 at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman intend to offer 
Amendment No. 20?
  Mr. DeLAY. No, Mr. Chairman. No. 25, I ask unanimous consent to take 
No. 25 out of order and consider it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. That being the case, it is now in order to 
consider the amendment by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Peterson). The Committee of the Whole may not entertain a request to 
consider an amendment that deviates from the previous order of the 
House.


 Amendment Offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania to the Amendment in 
            the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Shays

  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. 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. Peterson of Pennsylvania to the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Shays:
       Add at the end the following new title:

            TITLE __--VOTER ELIGIBILITY CONFIRMATION PROGRAM

     SEC. __01. VOTER ELIGIBILITY PILOT CONFIRMATION PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General, in consultation with 
     the Commissioner of Social Security, shall establish a pilot 
     program to test a confirmation system through which they--
       (1) respond to inquiries, made by State and local officials 
     (including voting registrars) with responsibility for 
     determining an individual's qualification to vote in a 
     Federal, State, or local election, to verify the citizenship 
     of an individual who has submitted a voter registration 
     application, and
       (2) maintain such records of the inquiries made and 
     verifications provided as may be necessary for pilot program 
     evaluation.
     In order to make an inquiry through the pilot program with 
     respect to an individual, an election official shall provide 
     the name, date of birth, and social security account number 
     of the individual.
       (b) Initial Response.--The pilot program shall provide for 
     a confirmation or a tentative nonconfirmation of an 
     individual's citizenship by the Commissioner of Social 
     Security as soon as practicable after an initial inquiry to 
     the Commissioner.
       (c) Secondary Verification Process in Case of Tentative 
     Nonconfirmation.--In cases of tentative nonconfirmation, the 
     Attorney General shall specify, in consultation with the 
     Commissioner of Social Security and the Commissioner of the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service, an available 
     secondary verification process to confirm the validity of 
     information provided and to provide a final confirmation or 
     nonconfirmation as soon as practicable after the date of the 
     tentative nonconfirmation.
       (d) Design and Operation of Pilot Program.--
       (1) In general.--The pilot program shall be designed and 
     operated--
       (A) to apply in, at a minimum, the States of California, 
     New York, Texas, Florida, and Illinois;
       (B) to be used on a voluntary basis, as a supplementary 
     information source, by State and local election officials for 
     the purpose of assessing, through citizenship verification, 
     the eligibility of an individual to vote in Federal, State, 
     or local elections;
       (C) to respond to an inquiry concerning citizenship only in 
     a case where determining whether an individual is a citizen 
     is--
       (i) necessary for determining whether the individual is 
     eligible to vote in an election for Federal, State, or local 
     office; and
       (ii) part of a program or activity to protect the integrity 
     of the electoral process that is uniform, nondiscriminatory, 
     and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 
     U.S.C. 1973 et seq.);
       (D) to maximize its reliability and ease of use, consistent 
     with insulating and protecting the privacy and security of 
     the underlying information;
       (E) to permit inquiries to be made to the pilot program 
     through a toll-free telephone line or other toll-free 
     electronic media;
       (F) subject to subparagraph (I), to respond to all 
     inquiries made by authorized persons and to register all 
     times when the pilot program is not responding to inquiries 
     because of a malfunction;
       (G) with appropriate administrative, technical, and 
     physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure of 
     personal information, including violations of the 
     requirements of section 205(c)(2)(C)(viii) of the Social 
     Security Act;
       (H) to have reasonable safeguards against the pilot 
     program's resulting in unlawful discriminatory practices 
     based on national origin or citizenship status, including the 
     selective or unauthorized use of the pilot program.
       (2) Use of employment eligibility confirmation system.--To 
     the extent practicable, in establishing the confirmation 
     system under this section, the Attorney General, in 
     consultation with the Commissioner of Social Security, shall 
     use the employment eligibility confirmation system 
     established under section 404 of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 
     104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-664).
       (e) Responsibilities of the Commissioner of Social 
     Security.--As part of the pilot program, the Commissioner of 
     Social Security shall establish a reliable, secure method 
     which compares the name, date of birth, and social security 
     account number provided in an inquiry against such 
     information maintained by the Commissioner, in order to 
     confirm (or not confirm) the correspondence of the name, date 
     of birth, and number provided and whether the individual is 
     shown as a citizen of the United States on the records 
     maintained by the Commissioner (including whether such 
     records show that the individual was born in the United 
     States). The Commissioner shall not disclose or release 
     social security information (other than such confirmation or 
     nonconfirmation).
       (f) Responsibilities of the Commissioner of the Immigration 
     and Naturalization

[[Page H6804]]

     Service.--As part of the pilot program, the Commissioner of 
     the Immigration and Naturalization Service shall establish a 
     reliable, secure method which compares the name and date of 
     birth which are provided in an inquiry against information 
     maintained by the Commissioner in order to confirm (or not 
     confirm) the validity of the information provided, the 
     correspondence of the name and date of birth, and whether the 
     individual is a citizen of the United States.
       (g) Updating Information.--The Commissioner of Social 
     Security and the Commissioner of the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service shall update their information in a 
     manner that promotes the maximum accuracy and shall provide a 
     process for the prompt correction of erroneous information, 
     including instances in which it is brought to their attention 
     in the secondary verification process described in subsection 
     (c) or in any action by an individual to use the process 
     provided under this subsection upon receipt of notification 
     from an election official under subsection (i).
       (h) Limitation on Use of the Pilot Program and Any Related 
     Systems.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, nothing in this section shall be construed to permit or 
     allow any department, bureau, or other agency of the United 
     States Government to utilize any information, data base, or 
     other records assembled under this section for any other 
     purpose other than as provided for under this section.
       (2) No national identification card.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to authorize, directly or 
     indirectly, the issuance or use of national identification 
     cards or the establishment of a national identification card.
       (3) No new data bases.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to authorize, directly or indirectly, the Attorney 
     General and the Commissioner of Social Security to create any 
     joint computer data base that is not in existence on the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (i) Actions by Election Officials Unable to Confirm 
     Citizenship.--
       (1) In general.--If an election official receives a notice 
     of final nonconfirmation under subsection (c) with respect to 
     an individual, the official--
       (A) shall notify the individual in writing; and
       (B) shall inform the individual in writing of the 
     individual's right to use--
       (i) the process provided under subsection (g) for the 
     prompt correction of erroneous information in the pilot 
     program; or
       (ii) any other process for establishing eligibility to vote 
     provided under State or Federal law.
       (2) Registration applicants.--In the case of an individual 
     who is an applicant for voter registration, and who receives 
     a notice from an official under paragraph (1), the official 
     may (subject to, and in a manner consistent with, State law) 
     reject the application (subject to the right to reapply), but 
     only if the following conditions have been satisfied:
       (A) The 30-day period beginning on the date the notice was 
     mailed or otherwise provided to the individual has elapsed.
       (B) During such 30-day period, the official did not receive 
     adequate confirmation of the citizenship of the individual 
     from--
       (i) a source other than the pilot program established under 
     this section; or
       (ii) such pilot program, pursuant to a new inquiry to the 
     pilot program made by the official upon receipt of 
     information (from the individual or through any other 
     reliable source) that erroneous or incomplete material 
     information previously in the pilot program has been updated, 
     supplemented, or corrected.
       (3) Ineligible voter removal programs.--In the case of an 
     individual who is registered to vote, and who receives a 
     notice from an official under paragraph (1) in connection 
     with a program to remove the names of ineligible voters from 
     an official list of eligible voters, the official may 
     (subject to, and in a manner consistent with, State law) 
     remove the name of the individual from the list (subject to 
     the right to submit another voter registration application), 
     but only if the following conditions have been satisfied:
       (A) The 30-day period beginning on the date the notice was 
     mailed or otherwise provided to the individual has elapsed.
       (B) During such 30-day period, the official did not receive 
     adequate confirmation of the citizenship of the individual 
     from a source described in clause (i) or (ii) of paragraph 
     (2)(B).
       (j) Authority to Use Social Security Account Numbers.--Any 
     State (or political subdivision thereof) may, for the purpose 
     of making inquiries under the pilot program in the 
     administration of any voter registration law within its 
     jurisdiction, use the social security account numbers issued 
     by the Commissioner of Social Security, and may, for such 
     purpose, require any individual who is or appears to be 
     affected by a voter registration law of such State (or 
     political subdivision thereof) to furnish to such State (or 
     political subdivision thereof) or any agency thereof having 
     administrative responsibility for such law, the social 
     security account number (or numbers, if the individual has 
     more than one such number) issued to the individual by the 
     Commissioner.
       (k) Termination and Report.--The pilot program shall 
     terminate September 30, 2001. The Attorney General and the 
     Commissioner of Social Security shall each submit to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Ways and 
     Means of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on 
     the Judiciary and the Committee on Finance of the Senate 
     reports on the pilot program not later than December 31, 
     2001. Such reports shall--
       (1) assess the degree of fraudulent attesting of United 
     States citizenship in jurisdictions covered by the pilot 
     program;
       (2) assess the appropriate staffing and funding levels 
     which would be required for full, permanent, and nationwide 
     implementation of the pilot program, including the estimated 
     total cost for national implementation per individual record;
       (3) include an assessment by the Commissioner of Social 
     Security of the advisability and ramifications of disclosure 
     of social security account numbers to the extent provided for 
     under the pilot program and upon full, permanent, and 
     nationwide implementation of the pilot program;
       (4) assess the degree to which the records maintained by 
     the Commissioner of Social Security and the Commissioner of 
     the Immigration and Naturalization Service are able to be 
     used to reliably determine the citizenship of individuals who 
     have submitted voter registration applications;
       (5) assess the effectiveness of the pilot program's 
     safeguards against unlawful discriminatory practices;
       (6) include recommendations on whether or not the pilot 
     program should be continued or modified; and
       (7) include such other information as the Attorney General 
     or the Commissioner of Social Security may determine to be 
     relevant.

     SEC. __02. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department 
     of Justice, for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
     for fiscal years beginning on or after October 1, 1998, such 
     sums as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this 
     title.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Friday, July 17, 1998, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) 
and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SHAYS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I just need to know. We have gone from 
Amendment 19, and now we are going to Amendment 21. Does that mean 
Amendment 20 has been dropped?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas did not offer 
Amendment 20.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I seek to take the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offer today is an amendment that 
is a pilot program. It would allow the Attorney General, in 
consultation with the Commissioner of Social Security and the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, to establish a pilot program to 
test a confirmation system through which they respond to inquiries made 
by State and local officials, including local voting registrars with 
responsibility for determining an individual's qualification to vote in 
a Federal or State or local election, to verify the citizenship of an 
individual who has submitted a voter registration application and 
maintain such record of the inquiries made and verifications provided 
as may be necessary for pilot program evaluation.
  This is a pilot project that would expire in 2001. It would give 
State and local officials the option, only an option if they want to 
use it, to verify the citizenship of voters using Social Security and 
INS records. It is totally voluntary. It is not a State mandate. It is 
a pilot program to be used in five States that already are testing an 
employee verification program for noncitizens: California, Florida, 
Illinois, New York and Texas. And this expires in the year 2001, and 
then a report would be written on how this system worked and if it was 
effective.
  Currently, the law requires citizenship to vote. The Federal law 
requires it. All 50 States require it. I guess the question is, should 
we enforce the law? Or should we repeal the law and not require 
citizenship if one does not agree

[[Page H6805]]

with this pilot? Currently, I would ask the question: Do we have the 
ability to enforce this law? And the answer is no.

                              {time}  1930

  Can local election officials currently stop the fraud that is far too 
common? Not often enough. So why do we have the requirement for 
citizenship? Elections are the very lifeblood of democracy. Fraud in 
election poisons our electorial system and undermines the trust that is 
essential to democracy.
  Under this amendment we are introducing today, State and local 
election officials would be able to make inquiries to the Social 
Security Administration, which has a record of citizenship when they 
assign a Social Security number, and to the Immigration Naturalization 
Service which can also help verify people who have submitted to 
naturalization and citizenship. This would be set up by the Attorney 
General.
  Voting, as I suggested, is the most fundamental act of citizenship. 
The people who administer our elections ought to have the access to the 
information they need to ensure integrity at the ballot box.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Fazio).
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
this amendment. It is perhaps the most significant poison pill 
amendment that has been offered to the underlying Shays-Meehan reform 
bill.
  The motor voter law which passed this Congress in the early 1990s has 
proven to be a helpful way of bringing new people to the political 
process. If there is a need in this country, it is to engage people in 
the public debate, to bring them on to the voter rolls and to get them 
to participate.
  People across the country have chronicled the decline in voter 
participation in primary elections and general elections. The public 
interest is not served when less than a third of the American people 
take the opportunity to participate in the elections that keep this 
representative form of democracy vibrant.
  The motor voter law was established with broad bipartisan support so 
that we would remove impediments to becoming registered voters. By all 
accounts, it is working. In fact, there are even those who would argue 
that it is probably working far more to the benefit of Members of the 
other party than many anticipated when Republicans lead the opposition 
to this law.
  This amendment would take on motor voter by setting up a very 
difficult and unworkable voter eligibility system using Social Security 
and the INS. The amendment would have, I think, a chilling effect on 
the effort to bring more people into the political process and would, 
as well, raise serious questions, not only of individual privacy, but 
of administrative workability.
  All it would take would be a brief recollection of the difficulty we 
had in the case of my colleague from California Rep. Loretta Sanchez, 
attempting to get information from the INS in any timely fashion to 
give Members an impression that this proposal is a recipe for potential 
disaster.
  There is no need for us at the moment to make any significant change 
in the motor voter law. There has been an outpouring of support for it 
from the League of Women Voters and many other groups who strive to 
introduce new participants to the American political process.
  There has been no justification offered for this amendment. To the 
degree that we have people voting inappropriately, I know of no reason 
why our district attorneys, our State election officials, and others 
responsible at the State and local level do not have the authority 
today to step in and eliminate whatever minor amount of voter fraud may 
exist.
  So this is really a solution in search of a problem. But in real 
terms, it threatens the passage of reform in this Congress, which we 
all know is far more important than tinkering with the motor voter law 
that, by all odds, has been implemented successfully.
  If we were to take this amendment tonight and put it into this bill, 
we would destroy the coalition, the bipartisan coalition that is on the 
verge of enacting one of the most significant reforms in the last 25 
years and under the guise of doing something to solve a problem that I 
believe no one can attest to in terms of the reality of its existence 
in any significant way anywhere in the country, including my home State 
of California.
  It goes far beyond the scope of campaign finance reform. It would 
override innumerable anti-discrimination safeguards which must remain 
in the law to make sure that all Americans, regardless of birth place 
or appearance, ethnicity, race, creed, have equal access to the voter 
rolls.
  Mr. Chairman, I am in strong opposition to the Peterson amendment. I 
would hope Members who care about the enactment of Shays-Meehan, who 
want to go right at the heart of the dilemma we face today, and that is 
that voters are opting out of the process because they do not believe 
that they can impact it. They think it is only for those with money who 
control our political system.
  The Shays-Meehan campaign reform bill will do more to instill 
confidence in the average American that it still matters if they bother 
to vote. That is something that we ought to be working on, not this 
fictitious problem, which I know some people on the other side of the 
aisle are fixated on, that holds that there are somehow illegal voters 
determining the outcome of the elections.
  If we really want to make sure that elections are fought fair and 
square, we ought to be encouraging more people to vote, not suppressing 
their interest, as this amendment does.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield 10 seconds to 
me?
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to my friend, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I am most grateful. I would simply ask 
that, at some point, the author might give me 30 seconds to ask a 
question, and that could come after the gentleman's prepared remarks.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to hear the gentleman's 
question.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, that is very polite. I just wanted to ask 
about the bill's provision of what is called a final confirmation. If 
the Social Security or the INS does not have a record of you, as, for 
example, if you do not have a Social Security card, or you are born 
here so you do not have an INS record, the bill specifies that there 
must be what is called a ``secondary verification,'' and it must 
provide ``final confirmation.'' I just wonder what that might be. I 
appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, let me talk about the bill a little bit 
while the gentleman from Pennsylvania is getting that answer for the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Let me also say that I think this is essentially the same kind of 
campaign reform that the House voted for on February 12, a bill that 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) introduced, a bill that the 
chief election official from California said he thought was an 
improvement and an important addition to the ability of States to be 
able to, once again, manage the election process.
  Until motor voter, with the exception of establishing age 
qualifications for voting for Federal office, which almost always, 
then, for reasons of practicality required the States to adopt that 
same age, we have left election administration to the States. This just 
simply allows the States to look at this to see if, in their State, 
this would work.
  A majority of Members of this body said just a few months ago, on 
February 12, that this kind of thing was a good idea. It was a good 
addition to campaign reform.
  I rise in support of the concept of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Peterson), that if we are going to reform campaigns, let us reach 
campaigns. A number of States already require that citizens give the 
Social Security number for registration.
  So in Georgia, in Hawaii, in Kentucky, in New Mexico, in South 
Carolina, and Tennessee and Virginia, the

[[Page H6806]]

only change in this law would be that we also would have access to INS 
records. We would only have access to those records until 2001 to see 
if this concept is helpful or harmful.
  It allows a pilot project for the States that want to do it. It does 
not require a single State to do a single thing. It was approved by a 
majority of voters that voted on the floor of this House in February.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) brings it as an 
additional element of campaign reform. It is not a mandate. It is a 
pilot program. I would suggest it is the kind of thing that we ought to 
return back to the States while we are talking about election reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell) to answer his question.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I would be so grateful. Of course it is 
the gentleman's time. If he would yield to me, I have a follow-up.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I heard the gentleman's 
question. It is my understanding that, if the INS records and the 
Social Security records did not prove one to be a citizen, then the 
body requiring that information could, if they choose, remove one from 
the rolls or refuse to enroll one as a voter.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield to me just a 
second longer?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Sure.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, let me say at the start, the gentleman 
has been very courteous to me and also my good friend, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  The gentleman says, at least as I read it, that if one is not going 
to be picked up by INS, which is going to be the case for those of us 
born in the United States, and, for some reason, one is not picked up 
by Social Security, which might be the case if one has not worked yet, 
it may be true for an 18 year old, then it says the Attorney General 
shall specify a secondary verification process to confirm the validity 
of information provided and to provide final confirmation or 
nonconfirmation.
  So my question, if someone does not have a Social Security card 
because that person has not started working, and is born in this 
country, so there is no INS record, what would the secondary 
verification process be?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Well, I think, one, if one has some 
record as a person to prove that one is a citizen, and one should have 
if one is, then one would provide that; and that serves the bill. Or 
the Attorney General could come forth with other means that he felt was 
ample proof.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield just for two 
seconds further?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's answer. I 
will not use his time to make a comment about it.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the remainder 
of my time.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, 5 years ago, as a new Member of the House 
of Representatives, I was so proud to support the motor voter bill, a 
bill which made it easier for people to vote. It made it easier by 
allowing more convenient access to voter registration for new voters or 
for voters who had moved to a new area.
  The motor voter bill is a symbol of our country's belief that it is 
every citizen's right to have access to the ballot box, every citizen's 
right, not just some citizens.
  Today, I am ashamed that some in this body would turn the clock back, 
back to a time when the Federal Government would make it more 
difficult, not less difficult, for every person to vote in this 
country, every legitimate person.
  For example, the amendment by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Peterson) would unreasonably burden some would-be voters by requiring 
them to show proof of citizenship at the polls on election day. Because 
of what? Their appearance? The color of their skin? That they have an 
accent?
  I would ask my colleagues, at a time when voter turnout is 
embarrassingly low in this democratic country of ours, do we really 
want to make it more difficult for citizens to exercise the right to 
vote? Of course the answer is no, which is exactly how we should vote 
on this ill-conceived amendment: ``No'' on the Peterson amendment, 
``yes'' on the Shays-Meehan bill.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself what time 
is needed to respond.
  It is interesting. A few moments ago, we were told that this was the 
most significant poison that is being attempted to be added to this 
bill. That is a pretty significant statement, that it is poison to try 
to eliminate fraud. I have a hard time understanding that.
  I am going to say it again. It has been said that this is the most 
significant poison that will be offered to this bill that only has a 
pilot program that allows States, if they choose, to try to eliminate 
fraud. I find that hard to understand.
  Someone else just said that it was unthinkable to amend motor voter. 
Motor voter had some problems and has some problems today because there 
is no system of verification. I could register my dog ``Ralph'' by 
calling him Ralph Peterson, and he would be registered. I could 
register my cat. I do not happen to have one, but I could.
  Motor voter has opened the registration process to fraud. That is one 
of the weaknesses of motor voter. Just to share with you, a Committee 
on House Oversight task force uncovered serious voter fraud in 
California during the 1996 election.

                              {time}  2045

  They conducted an exhaustive year-long examination and found 820 
individuals who were not citizens at the time of registration that 
likely voted. In 1996 the California Secretary of State found over 700 
noncitizens on the California voter rolls and invalidated their 
registrations, and he would like this legislation to help him do that 
more effectively.
  Texas Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Tom Harrison reports that 
750 resident aliens from Guadalupe, Texas filed applications for 
absentee ballots in November of 1994 elections, after campaign workers 
told them that their green cards enabled them to vote by mail.
  The Los Angeles Times reported in May of 1994 that Jay McKama, an 
undocumented immigrant, was sentenced to 16 months in State prison for 
registering noncitizens to vote. The bounty hunter worked for Steve 
Martinez, a Los Angeles political activist who paid $1 per 
registration. The practice of paying bounty hunters to register 
individuals to vote has contributed to an increase in noncitizen 
voting. In some cases noncitizens have been targeted by those bounty 
hunters.
  Every time someone votes illegally, they cancel our vote. They cancel 
a good vote.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentleman made that point, 
because our colleague from California just made the point that every 
legitimate voter, that is exactly the statement she made, should be 
allowed to register to vote and should be allowed to vote, and that is 
certainly right, and they should be allowed to do that with as little 
encumbrance as is reasonably possible. The least encumbrance would be 
no registration at all.
  We tried that for generations in America, and finally we found out 
that that did not work, because people voted more than once, they voted 
at more than one location. We decided we had to have voter 
registration, and every legitimate voter should be allowed to register, 
every legitimate voter should be allowed to vote. But every time we let 
someone cast a ballot who is not a legitimate voter, who does not meet 
the requirements to vote in that election or in this country, we do 
just exactly what the sponsor of the amendment said; we cancel out the 
vote of voters who had a right to vote. That is every bit as big a 
problem as

[[Page H6807]]

any other problem we could have in this process.
  If people begin to think that there is no reason to go to the polls 
because their vote is going to be canceled by somebody who should not 
have been allowed to register because they were not a citizen, they 
stop going to the polls for that reason as well. Every legitimate voter 
should be able to vote.
  This amendment, which the House has already passed in the form of a 
bill one other time and needs to be included in this reform package, 
merely says to the States, if the States want to try this as a way to 
verify that, in fact, the people who are casting ballots at your 
election have a right to do that as American citizens, give it a try 
until 2001 and we will see if that produces better results.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to convey to the gentleman 
that I rise to support the gentleman's idea and to oppose his 
amendment, and let me say why and why it is we call it a poison pill.
  I think it was in 1995 when we voted for motor voter legislation. I 
voted against it and I drafted legislation to change it, not because I 
did not want to encourage Americans to register and to vote, but 
because I was afraid that we would never be able to purge people who 
should not vote, that, in fact, it would become a system too easily 
defrauded; and it does need to be changed, and I agree entirely with 
the gentleman and his proposal here.
  It is a poison pill because the coalition that we need to pass this 
legislation consists of a lot of Democrats, and the motor voter bill is 
based on relatively party lines. What we do not want to happen, those 
of us who are just determined to do away with soft money in these sham 
ads, what we do not want to do is let the perfect become the enemy of 
the good.
  We think that the gentleman's proposal, while it is a good one, 
becomes the enemy of the passage of our bill. It is not the idea that 
is poison, it is the way that it breaks up our coalition. I am sure 
that is not the gentleman's purpose.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding. I have 
a warning to libertarians. Libertarians, please be worried, be very 
worried about a bill that creates, and I quote, ``. . . the Attorney 
General shall specify . . . an available secondary verification process 
. . . to provide final confirmation,'' regarding citizenship status.
  I do not see how this can be done without a new federal record system 
on individuals. ``Secondary'' means if one cannot prove citizenship by 
INS records, cannot prove it by Social Security records. I do not see 
how this can lead to anything but a national I.D. system. That is in 
the gentleman's amendment. Therefore, I oppose it.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
that warning to all of the libertarians and others. I appreciate that 
very articulate presentation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Bilbray), another leader in the bipartisan effort to pass campaign 
finance reform.
  (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise regretfully in opposition to this 
amendment. I do not rise in opposition to the intention and the spirit 
of the amendment.
  I think that, quite appropriately, the gentlewoman from California 
pointed out that qualified voters should vote. I think that the 
gentleman from California who spoke in opposition to this motion 
probably made his point clear, by saying that we want people to vote. 
We want people to be able to vote. We want people to be able to 
register to vote.
  In all fairness, I agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania that 
citizens should be able to vote. Qualified citizens, not just any 
person. I strongly support the intention of the gentleman's amendment.
  I think that, sadly, as somebody who was a county supervisor and 
supervised the electoral process for over 2.7 million people, that too 
often we talk about quantity, and not the quality of the process. The 
fact is that the integrity of our electoral process needs to be 
defended.
  But tonight I must speak in opposition to this special vehicle, which 
is asking Shays-Meehan to carry this burden, while trying to keep 
enough votes together to be able to pass comprehensive campaign finance 
reform. There are people on both sides of the aisle who will use this 
as an excuse to oppose our campaign finance reform, Shays-Meenhan, if 
we at this point require the system to require people to basically 
prove that they are qualified voters, that they are over 18, that they 
are a citizen of the United States.
  I strongly support the intention that the gentleman is trying to make 
with his amendment. It is just that the vehicle, at this time, will 
kill campaign finance reform, because there are people in this Congress 
who will adamantly kill any piece of campaign finance legislation, no 
matter how good it is, if it means that we will address this problem of 
unqualified people being able to register and vote.
  So I sadly have to oppose this, and I would ask the gentleman to join 
with those of us on both sides of the aisle that believe that the 
integrity of finance campaign reform and the integrity of our electoral 
process needs to be finally addressed one way or the other.
  Campaign finance reform. We are trying to do it with this bill. I 
hope that, at the appropriate time in the future, Democrats will come 
across the aisle and join us in supporting the gentleman's thoughtful 
effort to ensure for the integrity of the electoral vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Whitfield). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining and the 
right to close.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, if a national I.D. card is what we are 
concerned about, take some of those aspects out in conference. I heard 
some Members say this is good, but it is so good, it might hurt the 
bill.
  Bob Dole cannot write a check in a supermarket without proving his 
identity. One cannot get on a plane without proving some identity. One 
cannot get a driver's license in America without proving some identity.
  What is more important, and I always hear, ``This is good, but not 
now, do not do it now.'' This is campaign finance reform. If we do not 
do it now, this turkey is dead in the future. If we are going to do it, 
do it now, if this thing is going to fly. I support it.
  Citizens should vote. Noncitizens should not vote. We insult no one 
by ensuring that an illegal vote does not cancel out our legal votes. 
In America the people govern. There is nothing more important in this 
bill than foreign money influence, attempts to corrupt us for foreign 
interests and illegal votes cast in elections.
  Mr. Chairman, I took a lot of heat on the Democrat side, the only one 
who took a parliamentary stand in the matter of the Dornan-Sanchez 
race, and I think the gentlewoman has done a great job. But I think 
that should be straightened out, and we should have the facts before we 
certify anybody's election, especially when there is a taint of illegal 
votes.
  So look, if Bob Dole cannot write a check in a supermarket without 
proving that check with some identification, if one cannot get a 
driver's license, if one cannot get on a plane, then by God, in 
America, one should be able to do some reasonable identification to 
prove one is a citizen. Citizens govern.
  Mr. Campbell's concerns are very important, and Mr. Chairman, let me 
say this. We keep making it easy for illegal citizens and illegal votes 
in campaigns, and we will have done nothing with campaign finance 
reform. All we do is massage the politics of the American theater as 
far as politics is concerned.

[[Page H6808]]

  Mr. Campbell has a legitimate concern. He is a very astute man. That 
could be worked out in conference, but the concept of illegal votes not 
in elections must be determined. If we do not do it this way, how the 
hell do we do it?
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment has nothing to do with campaign finance 
reform, absolutely nothing to do with campaign finance reform. This 
bill, as we are on the verge of passing, is not an excuse for anyone 
who has any idea about anything to come into this House floor and try 
to defeat this bill. This has nothing to do with campaign finance 
reform. We are on the verge of making history with the most significant 
campaign finance reform bill in 20 years. Let us get on and pass this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time. I thank him for all of his hard work on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), my friend, 
says that in America people govern, and that is true. All of the people 
govern, including those who have surnames such as mine, and who were 
born in this country. And they do not deserve the right to be 
discriminatorily applied against, which is in essence what this 
amendment does.
  I heard before the suggestion of the fact that what is wrong with the 
pilot program? Well, nothing is wrong with a pilot program, but even 
abridging rights in a pilot program does not make it constitutionally 
firm, it makes it constitutionally infirm.
  I also heard the discussion about cancelling out of a vote, but what 
happens to the American citizen who, through your process, is denied 
the ability to vote because of some problem with the INS, some problem 
with Social Security; is not their cancellation of their vote equal to 
the cancellation we are so worried about?
  For members of my family who live in Cuba and others throughout the 
world who do not have the right to vote for this, basic freedom is only 
a cherished dream. Well, what the author of this amendment, however, 
forgot about is that in America, voting is not a dream, it is not just 
another government benefit or program to be means tested, it is a 
constitutional guarantee, what all who came to this Chamber were sworn 
to uphold.

                              {time}  2000

  Americans should not be subjected to a government background check 
when they register to vote. But that is just what this amendment does, 
it turns the ballot box into an interrogation zone, where Americans are 
guilty until they have proven themselves innocent.
  Imagine going to vote, myself going to vote, having been born in this 
country, a member of the United States Congress, and having to be 
interrogated at the ballot box to try to prove that I should be able to 
vote. Particularly, I would urge some of my colleagues to look at the 
history of what has happened in different States where ballot security 
squads were created to disenfranchise minority voters. The application 
at that table by those election judges will be discriminatorily 
applied, if they wish to do so.
  What will be the guarantee? How will Members ensure that my vote is 
not annulled, as the gentleman is concerned about his being annulled? 
And to show they are citizens, Republicans want the Social Security 
Administration and the Immigration and Naturalization Service to run 
background checks and share private information on American voters.
  If it is not to be discriminatorily applied, everyone who seeks to 
register would have all of their private information given to electoral 
officials. Is that what they want, Big Brother? I have heard so many of 
them rail against that.
  Now, where is this test going to take place? This test of this 
security checkout program will take place in California, Florida, 
Texas, New York, and Illinois, States with large minority populations, 
especially Americans with Hispanic descent.
  We already know the problems with identical names and dates of birth, 
especially among minority voters, that caused many legal voters to be 
targeted by what is now the discredited Dornan investigation. If this 
new program goes forward, many, many other innocent Americans may find 
government officials targeting them, too.
  Clearly, the right to vote in this Nation should not be subject to 
government intrusion, and I say specifically that Hispanic American 
voters will not forget Members' continuing persecution of their rights. 
Vote against the Peterson amendment and keep Shays-Meehan in order.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), a leader in our bipartisan effort.
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, as a person who was one of the strong supporters of the 
pilot program of the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), and I not 
only voted for it, I promoted it back in March, that would deal with 
the eligibility of voters and the reforms that the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) was just referring to, and to the essence of the 
proposal of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), here, I 
have to say that this is only an effort to really sabotage this bill.
  We are so close. I am not going to let us take victory from the jaws 
of defeat, or defeat from the jaws of victory, either way that you want 
to say it. We must stick with Shays-Meehan. This is the golden 
opportunity in this Congress to get genuine campaign finance reform. 
The other issue is entirely separate, and we can take that up in a 
separate matter. I will be strongly supportive of that. But for now, we 
cannot sabotage Shays-Meehan. We must defeat the Peterson amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant--yet clear-eyed opposition--to the 
amendment offered by my Colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Peterson.
  I want my Colleagues to know that I support the substance of this 
amendment. The events of the past several years have uncovered a 
disturbing trend in elections.
  Without referring to a specific election or a specific state or a 
specific region, there is more than anecdotal evidence that more than a 
few of our elections are being tainted.
  Tainted by voters who should not be voters. As Mr. Peterson has 
reported--but this is not new. That's why we have had these legal 
actions.
  Voters who have no right to participate in our electoral process.
  My Colleagues, the very foundation of our representative democracy is 
``one man-one vote.'' We--in this body--have a solemn responsibility to 
preserve that foundation by protecting the integrity of the electoral 
process.
  In this regard, I think it is a worthwhile exercise that we test new 
methods to verify the eligibility of all voters in all elections. 
Indeed, I voted for Rep. Horn's pilot program back in March.
  And I have never been an enthusiastic supporter of the various motor-
voter programs. I think they present an engraved invitation for fraud 
and abuse.
  So I would support this legislation. But not here, Not now. Not on 
this bill. The clear purpose of this amendment is to undermine and 
divide support for this major reform that goes to the heart of abuses.
  As you know, I have been an original co-sponsor of the Shays-Meehan 
campaign finance reform bill--in all of its various iterations. I think 
the lack of comprehensive campaign reform has been one of the most 
glaring failures of this Congress . . . the last Congress . . . the 
Congress before that . . . and several Congresses before that.
  It just reinforces the cynicism of the American people about our 
motives and our actions.
  We have here in the Shays-Meehan substitute a golden opportunity to 
snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. We have a real opportunity to 
pass genuine campaign reform.
  Unfortunately, the Peterson amendment threatens our efforts here.
  I support the goals of the Peterson amendment and would pledge to 
work with the gentleman from Pennsylvania to pass this amendment as a 
free-standing bill. But I cannot support it as an amendment to Shays-
Meehan.
  Defeat the Peterson amendment.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment on two grounds. I 
first oppose this amendment on the logic that says, because when you go 
to the

[[Page H6809]]

supermarket and pay money, you sometimes have to show your license; and 
I oppose it on the logic that says when we go to get an airplane ride 
and we pay money, we have to show our license. Good grief, this is a 
constitutionally protected right. We do not have to pay money to vote, 
and why should we have to show a picture to vote?
  On that ground, the logic of comparing this to airline traffic, or 
when we go to supermarkets, is beyond me. This is a constitutionally 
protected right. We should not have to pay money and we should not have 
to show our picture.
  But I oppose it on other grounds, as well. The bottom line is, this 
is campaign finance reform we are debating. This legislation does not 
deal with campaign finance reform, it deals with motor voter. We are in 
the majority as Republicans, and we are pushing this proposal, this 
amendment. Just bring it out on its own separate merit and vote it up-
or-down. Do not tie it in with campaign finance reform.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to another leader in our 
bipartisan effort, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, the operative word is ``finance.'' This is 
about campaigns, this amendment. I agree, frankly, with the intent of 
the author of this amendment. I agree so many times with my friend, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). But campaign finance is about 
raising money and spending money and reelecting Federal candidates. 
That is what we have been working on here.
  This actually is a legitimate issue. It is like combining school 
vouchers with a higher education bill. They are both education, but 
they do not belong together. This issue does not belong in this bill. 
We need to pass this bill clean, and we need to vote down this 
amendment, even though I agree with the intent of the author, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, the people that come before us and say 
they are for campaign finance changes say it will protect the integrity 
of elections. What about protecting the integrity of elections? Why do 
they want to so narrowly define it that they only stick to the subject 
areas they want to?
  Kentucky is one of the States where we have to have a Social Security 
number to register. We did not do that to discriminate, we did that 
with a Democratic Party legislature, because we had such fraud in our 
voting process. We did it to protect the integrity of the election.
  What the people who oppose this today say is that, we would rather 
make our bed and pass a law with people who do not want to protect 
certain portions of the integrity of the election process in order to 
pass our own version. This is exactly what I fear about campaign 
finance reform, that we will pass laws that certain people will not 
want enforced, they will not pursue, they will not really protect the 
election process.
  If they are not willing to protect the laws that say only citizens 
can vote, I would never want to be on their team to pass any other 
laws.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would point out that the gentlewoman has no intentions of 
supporting campaign finance reform, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) 
is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes, the balance of time.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, but more, I thank him for his efforts to get this to the floor and 
finally get it passed. I think we are going to get there.
  Mr. Chairman, this is truly a poison pill, but it is a poison bill 
for a number of different reasons. Perhaps the most important to a 
number of people is the fact that it poisons the well to people who 
wish to become for the first time ever participants in our democracy, 
because they have just become U.S. citizens.
  Let us make no mistake, this is not an effort to try to make sure 
that only American citizens vote. This is an effort to try to exclude 
those who are our newest American citizens from participating. Because 
if it were an effort to try to address the issue of all of our 
citizens, all of the people who live in this country being eligible to 
vote, then it would not target just the States where the most new 
citizens happen to reside, States like mine in California.
  If we look at page 2 of the bill, there it is, States of California, 
New York, Texas, Florida, and Illinois. If I were to name the five 
States with the highest Latino population in the Nation, they would be 
States like California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois. What a 
coincidence that this bill goes after those States where the most 
Hispanics happen to reside. That is where there are a lot of new 
Hispanic voters.
  What else does this bill do? It tells us that somehow, through the 
Social Security Administration and the INS, we are going to be able to 
determine the citizenship of the 267 some-odd million people who live 
in this country.
  Wake up. Social Security has never been able to determine citizenship 
for anyone. Wake up, the INS cannot determine the citizenship for even 
all the folks who have immigrateed into this country. Wake up, they are 
targeting only those who were not born in this country, and somehow in 
their mind they are not eligible to vote. Wake up, how will someone 
determine if this individual should or should not be checked in terms 
of citizenship?
  Tell me how a county registrar of voters is supposed to determine 
which individual to ask, ``Can I get your Social Security number?'' How 
will someone at the Motor Vehicle Department, when someone is filling 
out an application for registration for voting, say, ``Wait a minute, 
you have passed your license test to drive, but can I see your Social 
Security number? Because I need to check to find out if you are a 
citizen''?
  What will determine when someone gets asked whether or not they are 
citizens or not? Will it be the way they speak or the way they look, or 
will it be by the spelling on the last name? When that official tries 
to check with the INS and SSA and finds out that they cannot do this, 
what happens to that person's eligibility to vote? This is a targeted 
effort, unfortunately, at people who are beginning to participate. It 
scares some people. I am sorry that it does. The intentions may be 
good, but the mechanics of this amendment are totally wrong.
  Someone said, let us protect the integrity of elections. Absolutely, 
let us do that. Let us do so. But let us protect the integrity of the 
Bill of Rights. Let us protect the integrity of the right to privacy. 
Let us protect the integrity of the right to freedom. Let us protect 
the integrity of this effort to reform our campaign finance laws.
  Let us not get involved in this whole debate about how we tell which 
of the 267 million people who reside in this country are or not 
citizens through a process that we know cannot work, because the Social 
Security Administration and the INS have told us they cannot give us 
that information.
  Please defeat this amendment. This is not the way to do it, and 
certainly we send the wrong message to our newest citizens who are 
trying to live in this greatest of democracies.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I want to respond to two issues first. Someone talked about 
safeguards. It says right in the bill, to have reasonable safeguards 
against the pilot program resulting in unlawful discriminatory 
practices based on national origin or citizenship status, including the 
selective or unauthorized use of this pilot program.
  Someone else said a national ID card. Nothing in this section shall 
be construed to authorize, directly or indirectly, the issuance or use 
of national identification cards, or the establishment of a national 
identification card. Those are false, bogus arguments against this 
bill.
  Is Shays-Meehan perfect? We are being told it is perfect. I get mail 
every day that says it is not perfect. I get phone calls every day that 
say it is not perfect. This is only a pilot program. If it works, we 
expand it. If it does not

[[Page H6810]]

work in 2001, we throw it away. Why are we afraid about stopping voter 
fraud?
  In my view, the two worst problems we face about elections are 
illegal foreign money and noncitizen voting, and Shays-Meehan does not 
do anything about either of them. The States that we have listed, many 
of them are asking for help. Local registrars are asking for help. How 
do they know if people are citizens when they register them? They are 
begging for us to help.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an argument, and those who think we should not 
stop voter fraud, those who think we should not require citizenship, 
then should stand up and support a bill that does away with it, that 
you do not have to be a citizen to vote, that you just have to be here.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a simple pilot project that makes sense, that 
can work. I urge all the Members to support it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) 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 announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MEEHAN. 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 Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Peterson) will be postponed.


        Sequential Votes Postponed in the Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 442, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment No. 9 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), amendment No. 
10 offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker); amendment 
No. 13 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert); an 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Linda 
Smith); amendment No. 16 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher); amendment No. 17 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Paul); amendment No. 18 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul); 
amendment No. 19 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay); 
amendment No. 21 offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Peterson).


Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte to the Amendment in the Nature 
              of a Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment 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) on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 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)''.

[[Page H6811]]

     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 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.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote of this series.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165, 
noes 260, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No 358]

                               AYES--165

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--260

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Gonzalez
     Istook
     Linder
     McDade
     Moakley
     Rangel
     Riggs
     Towns
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2035

  Messrs. CRAPO, LAZIO of New York, WAXMAN, McGOVERN, and HALL of Texas 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HILLEARY, WAMP, and LEWIS of California changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 442, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each 
amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings. The 
chair would request Members to remain in the chamber and to vote in the 
allotted time.


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

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

       Amendment 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:

[[Page H6812]]

         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 subsection (k); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (i) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(i) Permitting States to Require Voters to Produce Photo 
     Identification.--A State may require an individual to produce 
     a valid photographic identification before receiving a ballot 
     for voting in an election for Federal office.''.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192, 
noes 231, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 359]

                               AYES--192

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--231

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bateman
     Gonzalez
     Istook
     Kennedy (MA)
     McDade
     Moakley
     Rangel
     Riggs
     Scarborough
     Towns
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2042

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


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

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

           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.''.

[[Page H6813]]

       (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.''.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 147, 
noes 278, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 360]

                               AYES--147

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Jenkins
     Jones
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--278

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Buyer
     Fox
     Gonzalez
     Istook
     McDade
     Moakley
     Riggs
     Towns
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2050

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


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 360, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


amendment offered by mrs. linda smith of washington to the amendment in 
         the nature of a substitute no. 13 offered by mr. shays

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

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Linda Smith of Washington to the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. 
     Shays:
       In Section 301(20) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971, as added by section 201(a) of the substitute, strike 
     subparagraph (b) and add the following:
       ``(B) Voting Record and Voting Guide Exception--The term 
     ``express advocacy'' does not include a communication which 
     is in printed form or posted on the Internet that--
       ``(1) presents information solely about the voting record 
     or position on a campaign issue of 1 or more candidates, 
     provided however, that the sponsor of the voting record or 
     voting guide may state its agreement or disagreement with the 
     record or position of the candidate and further provided that 
     the voting record or voting guide when taken as a whole does 
     not express unmistakable and unambiguous support for or 
     opposition to 1 or more clearly identified candidates,
       (ii) is not made in coordination with a candidate, 
     political party, or agent of the candidate or party, or a 
     candidate's agent or a person who is coordinating with a 
     candidate or a candidate's agent; provided that nothing 
     herein shall prevent the sponsor of the voting guide from 
     directing questions in writing to candidates about their 
     position on issues for purposes of preparing a voter guide, 
     and the candidate from responding in writing to such 
     questions, and
       ``(iii) does not contain a phrase such as `vote for,' `re-
     elect,' `support,' `cast your ballot for,' `(name of 
     candidate) for Congress,' `(name of candidate) in 1997.' 
     `vote against,' `defeat,' or `reject,' or a campaign slogan 
     or words that in context can have no reasonable meaning other 
     than to urge the election or defeat of 1 or more clearly 
     identified candidates.''
       In Section 301(8) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971, as added by section 205(a)(1)(B) of the substitute, 
     strike paragraph (D) and insert:
       ``(D) For purposes of subparagraph (C), the term 
     `professional services' means polling, media advice, 
     fundraising, campaign research or direct mail (except for 
     mailhouse services solely for the distribution of voter 
     guides as defined in section 431(20)(B)) services in support 
     of a candidate's pursuit of nomination for election, or 
     election, to Federal office.''
       In Section 301(8)(C)(v) of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971, as added by section 205(a)(1)(B) of the 
     substitute, add at the end thereof,
       ``, provided however that such discussions shall not 
     include a lobbying contact under the Lobbying Disclosure Act 
     of 1995 in the case of a candidate holding Federal office or 
     consisting of similar lobbying activity in the case of a 
     candidate holding State or elective office.''

[[Page H6814]]

                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 343, 
noes 84, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 361]

                               AYES--343

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                                NOES--84

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Baker
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bilirakis
     Bono
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Camp
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Cox
     Deal
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Ehrlich
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Goodling
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Lewis (CA)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McInnis
     Meek (FL)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Northup
     Norwood
     Obey
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Paxon
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Riley
     Rogers
     Royce
     Ryun
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Solomon
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Waters
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Gonzalez
     Istook
     McDade
     Moakley
     Riggs
     Towns
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2057

  Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. SCARBOROUGH and Mrs. NORTHUP changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


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

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 155, 
noes 272, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 362]

                               AYES--155

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Ensign
     Everett
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Packard
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--272

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton

[[Page H6815]]


     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Gonzalez
     Istook
     McDade
     Moakley
     Riggs
     Towns
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2105

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


   Amendment Offered by Mr. Paul to The Amendment in the Nature of a 
                 Substitute No. 13 Offered By Mr. Shays

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on Amendment No. 17 offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Paul) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 
offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Blunt). A recorded vote has been 
demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 62, 
noes 363, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 363]

                                AYES--62

     Abercrombie
     Armey
     Bartlett
     Bilirakis
     Boswell
     Campbell
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Filner
     Foley
     Fox
     Goodling
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Leach
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pombo
     Rahall
     Redmond
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Royce
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schaefer, Dan
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Smith, Linda
     Sununu
     Taylor (NC)
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Traficant
     Watts (OK)
     Weller
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--363

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Myrick
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bateman
     Gonzalez
     Herger
     Istook
     McDade
     Moakley
     Riggs
     Towns
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2112

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


   Amendment Offered By Mr. Paul To The Amendment In The Nature of a 
                 Substitute No. 13 Offered By Mr. Shays

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on Amendment No. 18 offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Paul) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 
offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.

[[Page H6816]]

  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 88, 
noes 337, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 364]

                                AYES--88

     Abercrombie
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Bilirakis
     Camp
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ensign
     Filner
     Foley
     Gibbons
     Hayworth
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kasich
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     McCarthy (MO)
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Pappas
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Redmond
     Regula
     Rivers
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Sununu
     Taylor (NC)
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--337

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weygand
     White
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Gonzalez
     Istook
     McDade
     Moakley
     Riggs
     Towns
     Wexler
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2119

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


  Amendment Offered By Mr. DeLay To The Amendment In The Nature Of A 
                 Substitute No. 13 Offered By Mr. Shays

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Blunt). A recorded vote has been 
demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 241, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 365]

                               AYES--185

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

                               NOES--241

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse

[[Page H6817]]


     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Gonzalez
     Istook
     McDade
     Moakley
     Riggs
     Towns
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2127

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


 Amendment Offered By Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania To The Amendment In 
         The Nature Of A Substitute No. 13 Offered By Mr. Shays

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165, 
noes 260, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 366]

                               AYES--165

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Fawell
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--260

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Fox
     Gonzalez
     Istook
     McDade
     Moakley
     Riggs
     Towns
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2134

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


                          personal explanation

  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 366, I was 
inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. THOMAS. 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. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Blunt, 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.

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I missed 
rollcall votes 356 and 357 because I was unavoidably detained in my 
district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 
vote 356 and ``aye'' on rollcall vote 357.

[[Page H6818]]




                          ____________________