[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 105 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6827-H6851]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 2145
BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN INTEGRITY ACT OF 1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution
442 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 2183.
{time} 2150
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. Blunt (Chairman pro tempore) in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole House rose
earlier today, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Peterson) had been disposed of.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22 offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw amendment No. 22, and ask the House to consider amendment No.
23, at the Chairman's desk.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia to the Amendment in the Nature
of a Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 23 to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays.
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:
[[Page H6828]]
Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr.
Shays:
Add at the end the following new title:
TITLE --PROHIBITING BILINGUAL VOTING MATERIALS
SEC. 01. PROHIBITING USE OF BILINGUAL VOTING MATERIALS.
(a) Prohibition.--
(1) In general.--No State may provide voting materials in
any language other than English.
(2) Voting materials defined.--In this subsection, the term
``voting materials'' means registration or voting notices,
forms, instructions, assistance, or other materials or
information relating to the electoral process, including
ballots.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--The Voting Rights Act of 1965
is amended--
(1) by striking section 203 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa--1a);
(2) in section 204 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa-2), by striking ``, or
203''; and
(3) in section 205 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa-3), by striking ``,
202, or 203`` and inserting ``or 202''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House on
Friday, July 17, 1998, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have introduced an amendment which bans the use of
bilingual ballots in Federal elections. We know that almost 25 years
ago this Congress provided for bilingual ballots. Back then our country
was just beginning to see a huge influx of immigrants to our shores who
wished to exercise their right to vote when they became American
citizens.
We need to recognize that if an individual becomes a naturalized
citizen of this country, they are required to demonstrate a knowledge
of English before they can achieve citizenship status. This Congress,
in 1950, explicitly added a specific requirement that persons who wish
to become citizens must ``demonstrate an understanding of English
language, including an ability to read, write, and speak words in
ordinary usage in the English language.''
While we require individuals to learn English, bilingual ballots
contradict this by allowing them to vote in their native language, a
language other than the English language.
We all recognize, Mr. Chairman, that our Nation is made up of more
nationalities than any other country in the world. We are all proud of
that fact, because it demonstrates and confirms to us what we have
always known about America, that it remains the best country in the
world.
However, all we need do is look to our neighbor in the north, Canada.
Canada is a divided nation, a deeply divided nation, a sometimes
violently divided nation, because of the acceptance of but two, but
two, national languages, only two. Look at the problems they have: near
secession, rioting. These are the wages of lingual disunity. It is
essential to our national interest to maintain one language, the
English language, in the transaction of our Nation's business,
government services, and, most importantly, voting.
What business of government is more important to the government and
the people of a country than voting? By making the choice to become an
American citizen, immigrants take upon themselves the responsibility to
learn the English language and to become productive citizens of this
country. A foreign language on a Federal ballot provides that an
individual can still easily exercise one civic duty, and yet completely
neglect their other duty of mastering the English language.
Mr. Chairman, let us also note a paradox which exists with respect to
this issue. Supporters of bilingual ballots have argued that they are
desperately needed. Claims have been made that citizens who speak
foreign languages would be less likely to register and vote if they
could not vote with a bilingual ballot. Studies, I might add
parenthetically, do not prove this to be the case.
Yet, the same people who support bilingual ballots because people are
not learning English turn right around and say a constitutional
amendment making English the official language of American government
is unnecessary because everybody is already learning the language.
Mr. Chairman, the only essential thing is that when languages other
than English appear on a ballot, the language of the ``immigrant
ancestors'' is given official status by the Federal Government co-equal
with the English language. That is neither contemplated nor
appropriate. It is certainly not contemplated in our citizenship laws,
which require proficiency in the English language to become a citizen.
Bilingual ballots are just one more way that well-meaning people
hinder the progress of certain groups in this country of foreign
ancestry. English is the language of this Nation. Those who do not
learn it will be unable to take their rightful place and excel in the
political arena, in the economic arena, in the education arena, and
every other arena in this land.
I ask my colleagues to vote for this important amendment, which
simply reaffirms existing law on citizenship and brings that down to
the ballot box, where it is perhaps the most important indice and most
important chore and responsibility, and indeed, right that any citizen
has, naturalized or native born.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Meehan) rise in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. MEEHAN. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Again, the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) has
nothing to do with campaign finance reform. Mr. Chairman, Republicans
have a great idea to improve democracy: let us hold an election, but
make sure some specially singled out voters do not have the chance to
read fully about what the issues are, or who they are voting for.
Who do they seek to single out? True to form, they single out
immigrants who fled political persecution or economic repression, who
encourage their children to study hard, who attend weekend classes to
improve their English skills, all the while holding down two jobs to
support their families. These are people proud to be American citizens.
Yes, there is an elementary language provision under the immigration
law to become a United States citizen, but there are also exceptions
for those seniors who are elderly and who are exempted. They would be
not having the access to understand what they are voting for.
Think about the ballot questions that come forth and the complexity
of those ballot questions. These are people Republicans want to punish.
I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, people who use
bilingual voting materials are people who want to participate in the
process, who want to be informed about the issues, who want to know
where the candidates stand. Otherwise, they would not be using these
materials in the first place.
Come November, I believe these hardworking Americans who pay their
taxes, serve in the Armed Forces of the United States, and are
Americans in all other respects, will remember the contempt this
amendment treats them with.
We should vote down this amendment and at the same time keep Shays-
Meehan free from anything that is not campaign finance reform.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I begin by saluting my colleague, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays), for their tremendous patience. Because as we are seeing with
this amendment, we have been offered everything but the kitchen sink as
an amendment to this bill.
This really has nothing to do with the underlying issue of campaign
finance reform. It does have to do with a movement concerning
proficiency in English, which I agree is an important part of being an
American. But I also
[[Page H6829]]
know that there are many people that are some of our strongest and best
Americans whose first language is, in my community, Spanish or
Vietnamese. They are some of our hardest working citizens. They pay
taxes, they contribute to our community, and they deserve a right to
participate in the electoral process.
{time} 2200
As I review the specifics of this amendment that the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Barr) is offering, it allows the ballots to be bilingual,
which they certainly should be. It is the voting materials that he says
cannot be in another language.
My goodness, in our State, we provide instructions, we use bilingual
instructions to teach people how to get a driver's license. Why can we
not provide the same manner of instruction for those who want to
exercise their franchise as Americans? I can tell my colleagues that in
the State of Texas, unlike some other parts of the world, language is
not dividing us. It is only those who attack other languages and other
cultures from their own misunderstanding who divide us.
Mr. Chairman, let us come together and support what this bill is all
about and not get divided over a question of bilingual information for
voters.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Blunt). The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) has 1 minute remaining, and has the
right to close.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand), a leader in the effort of
campaign finance reform.
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Meehan) for yielding me this time, and for the great work he has
been doing on this. In closing, let me remake a couple of the points
that have been said so eloquently by my colleagues here.
First, this proposed amendment is not about campaign finance reform.
This is more properly before discussion and debate on voters' rights
and the Voting Act.
Number two, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) talks about this is
not an allowable provision under the Voting Act. He in fact says that
it is not allowable for people who do not understand English to be
American citizens under the 1975 Voting Act.
Mr. Chairman, that is not true. The fact is that people that are
older and have been here for 15 or 20 years, depending upon their age,
are allowed to become citizens of the United States by taking a test in
their own language. This, therefore, would discriminate against many of
the older immigrant Americans who have been naturalized from
participating in the voting process that they have worked so hard and
so dearly to attain.
Last but not least is the complexity by which many questions are
placed on the ballot. Again, they need some description, some
assistance. By having such a referendum in their own language, it
provides an easy way for people who are truly Americans to be able to
participate in the voting process that we so rightly and so richly
deserve.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is interesting, of course, that the opponents of
this very simple and straightforward amendment regarding the fact that
voting materials provided by the government should be in English, not
in other languages, it is very interesting that they refer several
times to an amendment to the laws of this land that provide for a small
category of persons, elderly, who speak another language who have been
in this country for a certain lengthy number of years. They keep
referring to that, yet I am sure that they would not agree to a
friendly amendment that those people indeed could have bilingual
materials. They are just opposed to having these materials in the
English language.
Mr. Chairman, they are so opposed to it, that they call this a poison
pill. A poison pill, simply saying that ballot materials, voting
materials shall be in the English language. That is somehow poisonous
to this country, that is poisonous to the standards, to voting
procedures in this country.
That, I think, says perhaps more than anything else, more than all of
the great eloquent words on the other side that this to them is
poisonous, simply standing up for the English language.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) 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.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) 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 by the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Traficant To The Amendment in the
Nature of a Substitute No. 13 Offered By Mr. Shays
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Traficant to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:
Add at the end the following new title:
TITLE --EXPULSION PROCEEDINGS FOR HOUSE MEMBERS RECEIVING FOREIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS
SEC. 01. PERMITTING CONSIDERATION OF PRIVILEGED MOTION TO
EXPEL HOUSE MEMBER ACCEPTING ILLEGAL FOREIGN
CONTRIBUTION.
(a) In General.--If a Member of the House of
Representatives is convicted of a violation of section 319 of
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (or any successor
provision prohibiting the solicitation, receipt, or
acceptance of a contribution from a foreign national), it
shall be in order in the House at any time after the fifth
legislative day following the date on which the Member is
convicted to move to expel the Member from the House of
Representatives. A motion to expel a Member under the
authority of this subsection shall be highly privileged. An
amendment to the motion shall not be in order, and it shall
not be in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the
motion was agreed to or disagreed to.
(b) Exercise of Rulemaking Authority.--This section is
enacted by Congress--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of
Representatives, and as such it is deemed a part of the rules
of the House of Representatives, and it supersedes other
rules only to the extent that it is inconsistent therewith;
and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
the House of Representatives to change the rule at any time,
in the same manner and to the same extent as in the case of
any other rule of the House of Representatives.
Modification to Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Traficant to the
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my
amendment be modified with the language that will be sent to the desk
forthwith.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to read it and send it up to the Clerk
here. It would strike on page 1, line 12, after ``foreign national''
and all that follows through line 14, page 2, and insert the following:
``The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall immediately
consider the conduct of the Member and shall make a report and
recommendation to the House forthwith concerning that Member, which may
include a recommendation for expulsion.''
Mr. Chairman, I will send it to the Committee and I would like to, if
the Committee is satisfied and there is no objection, proceed with my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will treat the modification as
having been read.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is modified.
[[Page H6830]]
Pursuant to the order of the House on Friday, July 17, 1998, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to bypass the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct. It is my intention, however, to
highlight the importance of the infusion of illegal foreign money into
our campaigns.
If we are to truly reform this system, there must be that statement
which exists within this reform. The original Traficant language said
within 5 days it must be brought to the floor, once a Member has been
convicted of having knowingly accepted an illegal campaign
contribution.
The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and some of the
Members who have done a good job, including the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin), believe that perhaps it would be seen as an effort to
circumvent and to bypass the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct. It is not my intentions to do that, but I will say this. The
key words in there, ``it shall be immediately referred'' to that
committee and ``it shall be brought forthwith'' without placing any
specific dates on that.
And the original Traficant amendment never did say that that Member
had to be expelled, but there had to be a vote on expulsion. It would
still be subject to the same constitutional requirements. I am hoping
that this will satisfy, but it will still associate with that heinous
crime some punishment timely with the deed.
Mr. Chairman, the House should not let those matters be carried over
too long. And having conferred with our ranking member of that
committee, I am comfortable with it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask to claim the time in
opposition, but I am not in opposition but in support of the
gentleman's amendment. I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Traficant) yielding me this time. Perhaps we could conclude debate on
this quite quickly.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to put on the record that I appreciate two
things: the conscientious concern of the gentleman from Ohio about the
conduct of Members of this body; and, secondly, his accommodating the
concerns that have been expressed about the appropriate functioning of
our committee structure by the amendment that he made.
I think the gentleman's amendment leaves the authority with the
committee. It does not compel an answer one way or the other.
So, I would rise in support, and yield back with my compliments to
the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a fellow
graduate of the University of Pittsburgh. I think his improvement of
this amendment is well worth his time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Traficant) for his willingness to work with us on this amendment. The
point that he is raising is a very important point, and that is if a
Member has been convicted of violating the foreign contribution ban,
that that matter must be immediately considered by the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct and a report must come back forthwith to
the House for action.
I think that that is the appropriate way to handle it. I want to
congratulate the gentleman for bringing this to our attention. It is
very important that the House have an opportunity to act promptly when
these types of circumstances develop. Hopefully, it will never happen,
but it is important that that statement be made. I congratulate my
colleagues.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Traficant) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, for those that may be following this debate and wonder
at times what ``poison pill'' and some of the references actually mean,
I want to point to the motives of the Shays-Meehan effort. That is
really to try to remove the influence that special interests have on
Federal election campaigns.
I also want to point out, with this amendment being an example, that
we are not killing everything that comes up. If it is germane, if it is
special interest, if it is about money in Federal elections, and it is
something that is going in the same direction of real reform, we are
willing to work with the authors of amendments such as the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and this is a great example.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his work and his
persistence on this legitimate issue of foreign money coming into the
American Federal political process. There is some domestic money that
we think is also egregious and we are trying to put some reasonable
limitations on soft money and the proliferation of these outside
interests. I thank the gentleman for his work.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the efforts of the
committee in helping to fashion this amendment. It was no intent to
circumvent the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. They have
done a fine job.
Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
otherwise reserved for one who is in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell)?
There was no objection.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment, as
modified, offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
The amendment, as modified, to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 25.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Blunt to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 25 as the designee of
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment to
the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute is as follows:
Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Blunt to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . EXPRESS ADVOCACY DETERMINED WITHOUT REGARD TO
BACKGROUND MUSIC.
Section 301 (2 U.S.C. 431) is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(20) In determining whether any communication by
television or radio broadcast constitutes express advocacy
for purposes of this Act, there shall not be taken into
account any background music used in such broadcast.''
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House Friday,
July 17, 1998, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) will each control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in defense of music. I represent
one of the music capitals of the world, Branson, Missouri. In Branson,
we do not quote Voltaire often but if we did, we might paraphrase
Voltaire by saying, ``I may not like your choice of music but I will
defend to the death your right to play it.''
We may ask ourselves, Mr. Chairman, what does music have to do with
campaign reform? I asked that very question myself. Yet the Federal
Election
[[Page H6831]]
Commission speech police deemed background music relevant.
I, like most reasonable people, do not think that the FEC has the
authority or the right to decide what background music can or cannot be
used in issue ads. This amendment prohibits that kind of regulatory
intimidation.
Now, I am not joking about this, Mr. Chairman. The FEC has a history
of prosecuting on the basis of background music. For instance, in the
case of Christian Action Network versus FEC, the FEC stated that
background music should be a determining factor in establishing the
presence of express advocacy. Thankfully, this case was dismissed and
the FEC was severely castigated in court for pursuing it.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals even awarded the victims of the
FEC, the Christian Action Network, attorneys' fees because the
prosecution was not substantially justified.
The Shays-Meehan bill is extremely vague and the expansive definition
of express advocacy gives the FEC even more rope to strangle speech by
private citizens and groups. Without my amendment, the FEC could again
cite background music as a basis for persecution. Without my amendment,
who knows what would happen if Shays-Meehan became the law of the land.
The Battle Hymn of the Republic, express advocacy if I ever heard it;
John Philip Souza, forget it. You would have to have a legal defense
fund. Francis Scott Key in the background, you better call your lawyer.
We are not just whistling Dixie with this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
The FEC has already tried using background music in an enforcement
action. If not for the Fourth Circuit Court, they would have gotten
away with it. Do not let them try it again. It is time for the FEC to
face the music, Mr. Chairman. Stand up for freedom of speech and
freedom of music. Vote for this amendment. It is in tune with the first
amendment.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf).
(Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I have strongly supported campaign finance
reform legislation for years and I have worked very hard for Washington
State's excellent campaign finance reform bill, but our basic task
today is to pass the Shays-Meehan bill.
Many of the amendments offered are good amendments, concepts I have
supported for years. In fact, I would have voted for most of the
amendments if they had not been added to this particular bill, but
there is a larger goal here today to pass the Shays-Meehan bill.
We must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We cannot
afford, in striving for a perfect bill, to add amendments that split
off key voting blocks and thus sink the only chance for real reform
this year. Some of these amendments have that purpose.
I have the faith that we will enact real and honest campaign finance
reform. This bill is just the first step, not a complete fix. I have
faith that my colleagues will not vote for the amendments that will
kill this first step toward the reform that the American people are
asking for.
{time} 2215
I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment and subsequent
amendments that put the Shays-Meehan reform bill in jeopardy.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Our good friend and distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay), who offered this amendment, and I had a discussion.
He is not present here, no doubt in connection with his duties of
consoling the family of the heroic agent who died in his office and the
other officer as well. But before this day, before that sad event, I
discussed with the whip whether the phrase ``music'' may be ambiguous,
and I certainly doubt it was the whip's intention, that lyrics be
included in ``music.'' That is just obvious.
The lyrics might say, and in giving this example, I will not sing,
and impose that on my colleagues. Vote for DeLay, DeLay, DeLay; vote
for DeLay, DeLay, DeLay,'' to allow that would obviously undermine the
heart of the amendment.
What I am offering is, if my good friend and colleague from Missouri
would be able, in the absence of the distinguished whip, to take a
unanimous consent to amend so that the phrase ``not including lyrics''
is included right after the word ``music.''
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Modification to Amendment Offered by Mr. Blunt to the Amendment in the
Nature of a Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the words ``not
including lyrics'' be added after the word ``music.''
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is so modified.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just, again, would like to urge that we clarify this and take the
FEC clearly out of this realm of expression and, in defense of music,
that we add this modified amendment to the bill.
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 Missouri (Mr. Blunt), as modified, to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
The amendment, as modified, to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 26.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Mc Intosh to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to offer amendment No. 84 to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows.
Amendment offered by Mr. McIntosh to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute No.13 offered by Mr. Shays:
In section 301(8) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971, as amended by section 205(a)(1)(B) of the substitute,
add at the end the following:
(F) For purposes of subparagraph (C), no communication with
a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives
(including the staff of a Senator or Member) regarding any
pending legislative matter, regarding the position of any
Senator or Member on such matter, may be construed to
establish coordination with a candidate.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Friday July 17, 1998, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and a
Member opposed, each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I understand there would be agreement to
limit the time on each side to 3 minutes, which I would be willing to
do, and I ask unanimous consent to so limit the debate.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I just want
to understand the amendment, and I yield to the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. McIntosh).
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I have seen it numbered 84. I have also
seen it numbered 16 in some of the materials. And 26 is the number I
understand that it is.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, could the gentleman read the amendment so
we are clear?
Mr. McINTOSH. For purposes of subparagraph (C), no communication with
a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives (including the
staff of a Senator or Member) regarding any pending legislative matter,
regarding the position of any Senator or Member on such----
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
[[Page H6832]]
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh)
is recognized for 3 minutes.
(Mr. McINTOSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This amendment secures the right of Members of Congress and our
staffs to receive information on pending legislative matters and to
transmit information regarding our positions on issues without them
being deemed to be coordinated with the various outside organizations
that provide or receive such information.
This includes all two-way communication, whether it be
questionnaires, conversations of any sort and exchange of letters or
any other communication. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Washington (Mrs. Linda Smith) does not protect this right, as I will
explain in a moment, and so it is necessary to bring this amendment
forward.
Section 205 of the Shays-Meehan bill defines ``coordination with a
candidate'' as any of 10 broad categories of direct or indirect
contacts, actual or presumed, between a candidate, including offices of
incumbent Members of Congress and a citizen group. This coordination
includes all types of contact that are routine for issue-oriented
groups that lobby Congress, whether it be an environmental group, a
health issues group or an abortion control group, gun control or any
other issue.
For example, section 205 can easily be construed to prohibit issue-
oriented groups from soliciting information from candidates, including
incumbent Members of Congress, regarding their positions on issues,
then communicating that information to citizens in grassroots lobbying
or voter education campaigns.
The bill states that ``coordination with a candidate'' includes ``a
payment made by a person pursuant to any general or particular
understanding with a candidate or an agent.''
I am afraid that this could apply, for example, to the common
practice of issue-oriented groups sending candidates a survey regarding
their positions on an issue or group of issues or sending a Member of
Congress a letter soliciting his position on an issue and then
subsequently using it in a grassroots communication.
Some groups use forms by which a lawmaker or other candidate can
indicate his or her endorsement of a certain legislative initiative,
for example, the balanced budget or even the Shays-Meehan bill. Of
course, these questionnaires are submitted with the general
understanding, as the bill says, that the sponsoring organization will
disseminate the answers to interested citizens.
But under this bill, that coordination is an activity that would be
defined as prohibited coordination. Any and all two-way communications,
a phone call, an interview, a meeting or exchange of letters, all of
these perfectly legitimate activities would be considered coordination
under this bill.
I am sure that was not the intent of the authors, and we are offering
this amendment as a way to correct that and construe the matter in a
way that allows those type of communications.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) is
recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Let us really
look at the wording. I cannot believe that we want to suggest what this
amendment does.
This amendment weakens the existing law, weakens the ability for the
FEC to enforce the law. This amendment allows Members to conspire about
a campaign issue.
Let us take the tobacco issue. This amendment allows you to meet with
a lobbyist for the tobacco industry to figure out how you are going to
vote and what Members are going to vote on it and devise a campaign out
of that. I do not think that is really what you want to happen.
Look at the language, no communication with a Senator or Member of
the House, including a staff member, regarding any pending legislative
matter regarding the position of the Senator or the Member on such
matter may be construed to establish coordination with a candidate. You
are saying that you cannot use that collaboration as being construed as
collaboration under the law. Therefore, illegal.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of any current law that
makes that type of communication illegal currently.
Mr. FARR of California. It does. You cannot sit down in your office
with a group that wants to do a campaign and figure out and coordinate
how you are going to be working on legislation and then go out and run
a campaign on it. That is just totally illegal. You are making an
exception for legislation.
I think it is an exception being made, frankly, that the big
political battle here is for the tobacco interests. This bill would
allow the tobacco interests and the legislators to sit down and figure
out a plan of how to run a national campaign. Maybe that is not what
you intended, but that is what the law allows. And I do not think it is
good, and I would oppose it.
This is not about campaign finance reform. This is essentially about
how to let more lobbyists into the door of legislative offices and be
involved in designing and collaborating for campaigns.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman from Indiana
that the present FEC law where there is that kind of a communication
would result in an in-kind contribution. You really are changing, with
your amendment, unintentionally perhaps, present FEC regulations. I
would urge very much that you take another look, because we would have
to oppose this as loosening present law. I think that is clear.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
certainly the intent is not to loosen existing law, though I am not
convinced that existing law puts those types of limits on issue-
oriented campaigns. There is coordination as to helping a candidate
with his or her election. Then that is a different matter. It is
certainly not the intention to change existing law.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it does.
And the language, just look at it, no communication may be construed to
establish coordination. Those are the operative words. I do not think
that is in the best interest of campaign reform.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) 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. McINTOSH. 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 Indiana (Mr.
McIntosh) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27. The Chair
understands that the amendment will not be offered.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 28. It is the Chair's
understanding that that amendment will not be offered.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 29. It is the Chair's
understanding that that amendment will not be offered as well.
It is now in order to consider the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht). Is there a designee for the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht)?
It is now in order to consider the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Bob Schaffer). Is there a designee for the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Bob Schaffer)?
[[Page H6833]]
It is now in order to consider the amendment by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn).
Amendment Offered by Mr. Horn to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 32 offered by Mr. Horn to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:
Add at the end the following new title:
TITLE--REDUCED POSTAGE RATES
SEC. 01. REDUCED POSTAGE RATES FOR PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN
COMMITTEES OF CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES.
(a) In General.--Section 3626(e)(2)(A) of title 39, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``and the National
Republican Congressional Committee'' and inserting ``the
National Republican Congressional Committee, and the
principal campaign committee of a candidate for election for
the office of Senator or Representative in or Delegate or
Resident Commissioner to the Congress''.
(b) Limiting Reduced Rate to Two Pieces of Mail Per
Registered Voter.--Section 3626(e)(1) of such title is
amended by striking the period at the end and inserting the
following: ``, except that in the case of a committee which
is a principal campaign committee such rates shall apply only
with respect to the election cycle involved and only to a
number of pieces equal to the product of 2 times the number
(as determined by the Postmaster General) of addresses (other
than business possible delivery stops) in the con-
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Friday, July 17, 1998, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and a
Member opposed, each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).
{time} 2230
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The amendment I am offering is a straightforward effort to take a
positive step toward improving our campaigns. This proposal would
reduce the cost of campaigns for all candidates for Congress, those
that are incumbent, those that are challengers. It will create a better
balance between incumbents and challengers and it will encourage real
debate and discussion of these issues that are very important to our
voters. This is a proposal to level the playing field, for incumbents
and challengers.
With more and more millionaires entering politics, the change in the
postal rate will give those who are not wealthy the opportunity to get
out their message by two mailings to each household in their district.
What this means is that you will get the postage at half the price it
is now for candidates but at the price that is already authorized in
law for national party committees and State party committees. This
simply changes the law to include candidates for Congress, that
includes the Senate and Members of the House of Representatives.
Under the current rules of the House, Mr. Chairman, we prohibit mass
mailings under the frank in the 60-day period before a primary or a
general election. This limit reduces one advantage enjoyed by
incumbents under the current system. The Shays-Meehan bill would expand
this prohibition by eliminating mass mailings under the congressional
frank for the 6 months before an election. The limiting advantages for
incumbents can be very appropriate reform, but I believe we should also
seek to level the playing field for all candidates and thus improve the
quality of the political dialogue. That is the goal essentially of this
amendment. I think that the fact that we already can do that through
the State and national committees, this is simply clearing out the
intermediaries and the middle people and getting it directly to the
challengers and to the incumbents. The difference is they would deliver
the mail at 6.9 cents for what is generally a mailer versus the 13.2
cents that is already paid. So it would help everybody. That, I think,
is in the interest of the public to have a decent political debate in
this country.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The gentleman from
California (Mr. Fazio) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume. I think this is a very well-intentioned amendment, but I
have problems with it from several perspectives.
First of all the estimate of cost made by the Postal Service based on
eight candidates per district, primary and general, is $130 million.
That is a very large sum, one that I think would bring this bill under
criticism from many who support Shays-Meehan but do not support public
financing. This would be perceived to be a backdoor way of providing
public financing to candidates.
Now, there are those who would advocate some sort of proposal like
this if it were tied to the concept of spending limits. But this bill
has avoided getting into that thicket because the controversy would
weigh down the basic benefits of passing the Shays-Meehan law which
many of us think does not go far enough but many also believe is about
all we can accomplish with this very even balance we have achieved here
on a bipartisan basis in this Congress. Since there is no spending
limit and there would be no way of inducing people, therefore, into
agreeing to limit their public spending, we would have to raise issues
with this amendment that frankly would cause us to come down on the
side of a ``no'' vote.
The problem with this is that it is perceived as a way of giving
challengers funding. And while there may be people in the country and
certainly in this body who would like to help challengers, most of us
want to deal with people on an equal basis and therefore provide equal
benefits to people running as incumbents and as outsiders. Shays-Meehan
has done a major thing to restore some balance by setting the date at 6
months prior to an election. I know the gentleman from California (Mr.
Horn) voluntarily does not mail at all in the last year of the two-year
cycle, but I do think that the effort made in this bill moves in the
right direction, to move the franking privilege away from being a
benefit to incumbent candidates.
I worry that the combination of opposition that might result both
because it is too much reform, public financing and because it takes on
the incumbent with money that would go to his challenger, creates a
situation in which regrettably we would lose votes for this bill from
both ends of the political spectrum and perhaps endanger the enactment
of Shays-Meehan which we all believe is a major improvement, maybe not
perfection but certainly the best we can do in this very evenly
balanced proposal. I would have to on that basis regretfully indicate
opposition.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise, too, in very
reluctant opposition and I say reluctant because the author of this
bill the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) is not only one of the
brightest individuals in the House, he has been a true reformer,
offering multiple bills and multiple amendments, really an academic
expert in this issue of campaign finance reform. But I do come from the
other ideological perspective.
I encouraged the authors of Shays-Meehan early on when it was in a
different form not to go the route of public financing, not to go the
route of broadcaster financing and we have put together this coalition
amazingly well of people who had great heartburn with those two
provisions. This would effectively take us there, albeit in a small
way, but it would take us there to public financing. Frankly I am on
this train with the understanding we were not going to go to this
destination. So I certainly want to speak to that. But I very much
commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) for all that he
continues to do because he is truly trying his best to go in our
direction.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, to say this is public financing is not really accurate.
Sure, money is involved in postage. This is the postal administration
that has several billion, I believe, in profits now. They deliver these
at both the nonprofit rate and the higher rate. It does not really make
any cost change in adding people to the route they run. It simply gives
[[Page H6834]]
now what is given to State parties to the candidates.
The original Shays-Meehan bill and McCain-Feingold reform plans had a
proposal like this in them. Now, they probably took it out for some
reason. But I cannot imagine except incumbents would not like this
because that would give their challenger a chance. I think we ought to
get a little broader and not just be protecting incumbency, we ought to
let the challengers have the same type of opportunity we have; because,
let us face it, incumbents generally, unless you are running against a
millionaire, can have a lot in their bank accounts. I do not happen to.
So do hundreds of others in here. But a few of our Members, as we know,
have million-dollar campaign funds, and that scares off the
competition. This would at least give the competition a chance to get
the message out twice, to the households in the district at the
nonprofit rate.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Let me just conclude by saying I personally believe public financing
is the way of the future. I think we have neglected it in the
presidential system and need to reinvigorate public support for it. But
I am more concerned tonight that we not impede progress on Shays-
Meehan, that we not upset the balance that has been achieved in this
version of this bill. It is the best we can accomplish under the
circumstances. I would not want to endanger its enactment because we
went too far in the direction that some of our colleagues that support
this bill cannot go. I do not want to inflame some of our colleagues on
the other end of the spectrum who are concerned about advantaging their
challengers.
I realize we have not made perfection, but I think we have come a lot
further than any would have anticipated. We are on the verge of
success, enacting something we can all be proud of. I hope the
gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) can accept our reluctant
opposition to his amendment, and I hope he can support Shays-Meehan as
a major step in the right direction. Hopefully in subsequent Congresses
we can readdress some of these same kinds of issues and perhaps reach
common ground on going further.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The gentleman from California knows that I have been a sponsor and
coauthor of Shays-Meehan. I think there are a lot of good things in it.
But these are simple, little things that can make a difference for
candidates that are new to the political game and give them a chance to
get their message over. I would hope the gentleman is not throwing the
red herring of public finance out to this body to simply protect the
incumbents' present superiority to most of the challengers, unless you
have the increasing millionaires. I would hope we could rise above that
and give the challenger two mailings to households in all our
districts. You have to pay for them. You pay for them at half the rate
you do now unless you go through the party committee at the State level
and the national level, and then you are going to get the rate right
now which you can already do. If you are calling that public financing,
fine, but it makes no sense, because the public financing we are
talking about is what is given Presidents of the United States,
candidates for the presidency, and, that is, to have the money that is
fungible throughout your campaign with no limit on when it is. This is
one limit, getting the two mailers to the houses in your district.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) 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. HORN. 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. Horn) 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 by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton). Is there a designee for the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton)?
It is now in order to consider the amendment by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith) as modified by the order of the House of July 20,
1998. Is there a designee for the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith)?
It is now in order to consider the amendment by the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
Amendment Offered by Mr. Shadegg to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment to
the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute is as follows:
Amendment No. 35 offered by Mr. Shadegg 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. EXPEDITED COURT REVIEW OF CERTAIN ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT OF
1971
(a) In General.--Section 309 of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsection:
``(d)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
section, if a candidate (or the candidate's authorized
committee) believes that a violation described in paragraph
(2) has been committed with respect to an election during the
90-day period preceding the date of the election, the
candidate or committee may institute a civil action on behalf
of the Commission for relief) against the alleged violator in
the same manner and under the same terms and conditions as an
action instituted by the Commission under subsection (a)(6),
except that the court involved shall issue a decision
regarding the action as soon as practicable after the action
is instituted and to the greatest extent possible issue the
decision prior to the date of the election involved.
``(2) A violation described in this paragraph is a
violation of this Act or of chapter 95 or chapter 96 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 relating to--
``(A) whether a construction is in excess of an applicable
limit or is otherwise prohibited under this act; or
``(B) whether an expenditure is an independent expenditure
under section 301(17).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to elections occurring after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Friday, July 17, 1998, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have an amendment which seeks to solve a problem in existing law.
That problem is that under the way the FEC laws are currently written,
if a campaign law violation occurs in the last 90 days before an
election is held, there is essentially no remedy. That is, that
violation goes by and cannot be remedied. The reason for that is that
under current law, the only existing remedy is to go to the Federal
Election Commission in Washington, D.C., file a complaint and under the
FEC guidelines no action, absolutely no action is to be taken on that
complaint for a period of 90 days.
What that means is that during the last 90 days of a campaign, there
simply is no remedy for many of the violations which occurred. Indeed
there is no remedy whatsoever. The FEC cannot get to it before the
election. Oftentimes such complaints are rendered moot by the election
and, therefore, there is a gaping hole in existing law. What my
amendment would do is to solve this. It solves this problem by simply
saying that for any violation of the FEC provisions which occurs in the
last 90 days before the election, a candidate involved in that campaign
would be able to pursue a remedy in Federal District Court in their
district. And it requires that the Federal District Court give that
candidate expedited review of their complaint.
[[Page H6835]]
What that means is that when an egregious violation of law occurs
during this key last 90 days of the campaign, the candidate would have
an option to go to Federal District Court, file a pleading, request a
remedy, ask the court to give them a remedy, and say, yes, this is a
violation and provide an answer to the problem. It is, I think, an
eminently fair provision. It would bias neither side, but it would
solve the problem in the way the current Federal Election Code is
written.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. It is good sense. It
would provide the court with the authority to grant injunctive relief
if necessary, and it requires the court to both act on an expedited
basis and if possible to resolve the complaint before the election. I
think it has tremendous merit. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time normally in
opposition but not to oppose the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Tennessee is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is another good example where the gentleman offering the amendment
is in a constructive way enhancing what we are trying to accomplish
with good reform. Certainly the reformers here in support of Shays-
Meehan accept the amendment and commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Shadegg) for bringing this idea to us and actually putting it into a
form that will certainly strengthen the Federal Election Commission and
the laws and rules that govern we as candidates here in the House and
in the Senate. I thank the gentleman very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 2245
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, is it my understanding the amendment has
been accepted?
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, the amendment has been accepted, but we will
have a voice vote at the pleasure of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Shadegg).
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the expression of support from both this
side and the other side. I think it is an improvement in the current
law that will benefit the system and help to clean up elections in
America.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider Amendment
No. 36.
Is there a designee present for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)?
It is now in order to consider the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
Amendment Offered by Mr. Shaw to the Amendment In The Nature of a
Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays
Mr. SHAW. 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. Shaw 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. REQUIRING MAJORITY OF AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTIONS
ACCEPTED BY HOUSE CANDIDATES TO COME FROM IN-
STATE RESIDENTS.
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) With respect to each reporting period or an
election, the total of contributions accepted by a candidate
for the office of Representative in, or Delegate or Resident
Commissioner to, the Congress from in-State individual
residents shall be at least 50 percent of the total of
contributions accepted from all sources.
``(2) As used in this subsection, the term `in-State
individual resident' means an individual who resides in the
State in which the congressional district involved is
located.''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Friday, July 17, 1998, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we are here tonight at a quarter of eleven.
Unfortunately, it is so late the offices are closed; the staff have
gone home; there is only a handful of Members here on the floor
tonight. I was tempted to call a point of order to bring the Members
back in because I think this is really pitiful that Members are not
here to listen to what we are talking about here tonight.
But what we are talking about is campaign finance reform, and my
amendment would be the most simple and, I think, productive type of
campaign reform that we could possibly have, and that is just simply to
say this, and it is so simplistic:
Half of the campaign money that my colleagues receive has to come
from their home State. I am not talking about colleagues' home
districts. Much in the Calvert amendment, much was to do with the
question of poor districts. I understand that, and I can well
understand that. My district is 91 miles long and only 3 miles wide,
but I think that it is not too much to say if we want to be able to
take campaign finance away from K Street and back to Main Street with
our own districts that we should be able to do so.
We have found here, as incumbents and long-term incumbents such as
me, we have found that it is so easy to raise money here in Washington
that we are tempted to do so instead of going home and raising money in
our own State, campaign in our own districts and our own States. And I
think that if we are really going to be talking about campaign finance
reform, me and all the incumbents who have found it so easy over the
years to raise money here in Washington should be able to be required
to say, hey, money is the mother milk of politics today. We should be
able to require ourselves and anyone else running for office in a
Federal election to be able to go home to their home State and raise
half of their money.
This is not too much to ask. I think it is a very, very reasonable
amendment. I cannot see how anybody could possibly oppose it. And if
someone could come up here and say to me that I have got a good reason
to say this is bad, this should not be, I would yield them the time.
I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) who is
standing there and all the gentlemen over there who are going to jump
up and talk about a poison pill, if they can tell me how this is bad, I
would yield them the time.
Does anybody want me to yield time because they can criticize the
amendment? Or do they want to criticize it because it is a poison pill?
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin my
argument against it, and then after I use the rest of the gentleman's
time, I will ask for the time in opposition.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman is going to criticize the
amendment and come out and say this amendment is bad, and we go back a
long time, but I do not think the gentleman would do that.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I would stay on the merits of
the argument, if the gentleman would continue to yield.
Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very, very
difficult concept to administer, and let me give my colleagues some
examples as to how difficult it would be.
If a Member is from Kansas City, Missouri, this places a much higher
value on funds they would raise in St. Louis than in Kansas City,
Kansas. In other words, if Members are one of those people on the
borders of the State--
Mr. SHAW. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman.
[[Page H6836]]
That cannot possibly be on the merits. If Members are from Kansas
City, then they have got to decide which side of the border they are
from, and then they should decide where they are running from, where
their support should come from, who the people are that they are
representing and bring this back closer to the people.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I was beginning to point out in my colloquy with my
friend from Florida the unworkability of this amendment but also the
fact that it is an artificial barrier. We ought to be focusing on the
region that the individual comes from, for example, and why would not
people who come from Kansas City, Missouri, have the same interests
that people two miles away in the other State have on issues of
importance to the region, to its economy, to its employers, to its
workers?
This sets an artificial standard. For example, Members may have
hundreds of bus drivers who want to support them in their district and
in their State, but their home office where their PAC is located may be
States away. This would mean that those people would, in effect, not
been counted as people from their State. The same would be true of a
corporate PAC that is home based at corporate headquarters hundreds of
miles, thousands of miles away from where many of its workers are
located in a plant in their district. They would not be counted as part
of the in-State or in-district contributor base.
The marketplace of political debate should determine whether it is
appropriate or not to raise money from any given place or individual.
This can be an issue in a campaign. If Members are surviving only on
the basis of Washington money or out-of-State money, it is a legitimate
issue to be brought up. But to establish this standard is an artificial
one, particularly difficult for Members who come from poor and small
States, areas where it is hard to raise money and yet they have many
legitimate issues they want to bring to the attention of their voters.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand).
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
California and I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for bringing
up the issue, and I think the issue that he is talking about is
important and pertinent for States like Florida or California or New
York.
But I come from Rhode Island. Rhode Island has a total of a million
people in the State, only two congressional districts. I can travel 20
minutes from the center of my district and be in the State of
Connecticut, travel about a half hour and be into Massachusetts.
For us in small States like Rhode Island this is an extremely
difficult kind of amendment that would be imposed upon us. Not that the
people in Rhode Island should not deserve representation and contribute
to campaigns, to those people they want to have represent them, but for
many people in Rhode Island and other small States like Delaware it
becomes virtually impossible to raise that kind of money for a
congressional campaign.
Secondly, for people that may be low income or minority in my State
or other small States, they often connect with other people from other
States that happen to be of the same ethnic background or same
political direction, and it becomes very important for them to do that.
This bill, if every State were the size of the State of Florida, I
could understand the gentleman's point. If everybody were centered in
the middle of a large State, I could understand his point. But for a
very small State it becomes almost impossible.
The second point that the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) made
which is critical:
People within labor or business or advocacy groups that happen to be
located in my State but their home or major office is someplace else,
in Washington, New York, California or Texas, the funds that they use
to support candidates in Rhode Island go to those Washington, Texas or
California offices, then come back to us. They would not fall into the
category within the confines of the gentleman's amendment, again
hurting small States and low-income areas.
So I can sympathize with the intent of trying to keep the money
within the area that Members represent, and when there is 30 seats, or
26 seats, or 52 seats in the Congress from one State, that is possible.
But when there is only one or two seats, like Rhode Island, South
Dakota, North Dakota, Delaware, it becomes very impossible.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
To conclude, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say this is an important
effort in Shays-Meehan to stop the explosion of soft money and sham
issue ads. It does not deal with many of the other issues that have
been brought up in other campaign finance reform bills. It is a
carefully crafted and balanced proposal, and many people who support it
do not agree with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and therefore,
regrettably for him, would oppose the overall bill were this amendment
to be adopted.
So I hate to say it, but it is, in fact, the proverbial poison pill.
It would cause the coalition to shatter and end up destroying what
chance we have in this late hour in this Congress to take some
fundamental steps forward, not perhaps addressing all of the issues
that all the Members would like to have before us but making a real
difference in the electoral process and in the restoration of
confidence in the American political system.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would briefly say in rebuttal to the gentleman I
think what we are talking is trying to bring balance back to the
American political system, and to stand there and argue that PACs may
have some problem with this particular amendment is not a very good
argument.
What we are talking about, Mr. Chairman, is trying to bring the
political system back to the people that we represent. Now to bring it
back to just their congressional district creates a problem, and we
understand that problem because there are some districts that are
extremely poor. But to say that we cannot bring it back to a State, I
do not think that we have any States that are that poor that they
cannot support the people that they send up here to represent them.
We think this is terribly important, Mr. Chairman, and I think that
for us to turn our backs on the people that we represent and say that
we are going to vote against this particular amendment, which just
simply says to take back the political system back to the States, back
to the people who have sent us here, it is very important and vital for
us to remember where we came from and remember the people that sent us
here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) 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. SHAW. 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 Florida (Mr.
Shaw) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by
Mr. Shays will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Will the gentlewoman designate which
amendment? Is it amendment number 38?
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of the Record, this would be
the original amendment listed as 39. I will not be officially offering
it this evening. It has to do with the constitutional amendment to
overturn Buckley versus Valeo, which I think is the real answer to
these questions. But we will be moving on to Amendment 39.
[[Page H6837]]
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman wish to offer
Amendment No. 38?
Ms. KAPTUR. Not at this point.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 39 offered
by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays
Ms. KAPTUR. 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 Ms. Kaptur to the Amendment in the
Nature of a Substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:
Add at the end the following new title:
TITLE ____--ETHICS IN FOREIGN LOBBYING
SEC. ____01. PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES BY
MULTICANDIDATE POLITICAL COMMITTEES OR SEPARATE
SEGREGATED FUNDS SPONSORED BY FOREIGN-
CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS.
Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 441 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``prohibition of contributions and expenditures by multicandidate
political committees sponsored by foreign-controlled corporations and
associations
``Sec. 323. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law--
``(1) no multicandidate political committee or separate
segregated fund of a foreign-controlled corporation may make
any contribution or expenditure with respect to an election
for Federal office; and
``(2) no multicandidate political committee or separate
segregated fund of a trade organization, membership
organization, cooperative, or corporation without capital
stock may make any contribution or expenditure with respect
to an election for Federal office if 50 percent or more of
the operating fund of the trade organization, membership
organization, cooperative, or corporation without capital
stock is supplied by foreign-controlled corporations or
foreign nationals.
``(b) Information Required To Be Reported.--The Commission
shall--
``(1) require each multicandidate political committee or
separate segregated fund of a corporation to include in the
statement of organization of the multicandidate political
committee or separate segregated fund a statement (to be
updated annually and at any time when the percentage goes
above or below 50 percent) of the percentage of ownership
interest in the corporation that is controlled by persons
other than citizens or nationals of the United States;
``(2) require each trade association, membership
organization, cooperative, or corporation without capital
stock to include in its statement of organization of the
multicandidate political committee or separate segregated
fund (and update annually) the percentage of its operating
fund that is derived from foreign-owned corporations and
foreign nationals; and
``(3) take such action as may be necessary to enforce
subsection (a).
``(c) List of Entities Filing Reports.--The Commission
shall maintain a list of the identity of the multicandidate
political committees or separate segregated funds that file
reports under subsection (b), including a statement of the
amounts and percentage reported by such multicandidate
political committees or separate segregated funds.
``(d) Definitions.--As used in this section--
``(1) the term `foreign-owned corporation' means a
corporation at least 50 percent of the ownership interest of
which is controlled by persons other than citizens or
nationals of the United States;
``(2) the term `multicandidate political committee' has the
meaning given that term in section 315(a)(4);
``(3) the term `separate segregated fund' means a separate
segregated fund referred to in section 316(b)(2)(C); and
``(4) the term `foreign national' has the meaning given
that term in section 319.''.
SEC. ____02. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN ELECTION-RELATED
ACTIVITIES OF FOREIGN NATIONALS.
Section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 441e) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
subsection:
``(b) A foreign national shall not direct, dictate,
control, or directly or indirectly participate in the
decisionmaking process of any person, such as a corporation,
labor organization, or political committee, with regard to
such person's Federal or non-Federal election-related
activities, such as decisions concerning the making of
contributions or expenditures in connection with elections
for any local, State, or Federal office or decisions
concerning the administration of a political committee.''.
SEC. ____03. ESTABLISHMENT OF A CLEARINGHOUSE OF POLITICAL
ACTIVITIES INFORMATION WITHIN THE FEDERAL
ELECTION COMMISSION.
(a) Establishment.--There shall be established within the
Federal Election Commission a clearinghouse of public
information regarding the political activities of foreign
principals and agents of foreign principals. The information
comprising this clearinghouse shall include only the
following:
(1) All registrations and reports filed pursuant to the
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)
during the preceding 5-year period.
(2) All registrations and reports filed pursuant to the
Foreign Agents Registration Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 611 et
seq.), during the preceding 5-year period.
(3) The listings of public hearings, hearing witnesses, and
witness affiliations printed in the Congressional Record
during the preceding 5-year period.
(4) Public information disclosed pursuant to the rules of
the Senate or the House of Representatives regarding
honoraria, the receipt of gifts, travel, and earned and
unearned income.
(5) All reports filed pursuant to title I of the Ethics in
Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) during the preceding
5-year period.
(6) All public information filed with the Federal Election
Commission pursuant to the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) during the preceding 5-year
period.
(b) Disclosure of Other Information Prohibited.--The
disclosure by the clearinghouse, or any officer or employee
thereof, of any information other than that set forth in
subsection (a) is prohibited, except as otherwise provided by
law.
(c) Director of Clearinghouse.--(1) The clearinghouse shall
have a Director, who shall administer and manage the
responsibilities and all activities of the clearinghouse.
(2) The Director shall be appointed by the Federal Election
Commission.
(3) The Director shall serve a single term of a period of
time determined by the Commission, but not to exceed 5 years.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to conduct
the activities of the clearinghouse.
SEC. ____04. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DIRECTOR OF
THE CLEARINGHOUSE.
(a) In General.--It shall be the duty of the Director of
the clearinghouse established under section ____03--
(1) to develop a filing, coding, and cross-indexing system
to carry out the purposes of this Act (which shall include an
index of all persons identified in the reports,
registrations, and other information comprising the
clearinghouse);
(2) notwithstanding any other provision of law, to make
copies of registrations, reports, and other information
comprising the clearinghouse available for public inspection
and copying, beginning not later than 30 days after the
information is first available to the public, and to permit
copying of any such registration, report, or other
information by hand or by copying machine or, at the request
of any person, to furnish a copy of any such registration,
report, or other information upon payment of the cost of
making and furnishing such copy, except that no information
contained in such registration or report and no such other
information shall be sold or used by any person for the
purpose of soliciting contributions or for any profit-making
purpose;
(3) to compile and summarize, for each calendar quarter,
the information contained in such registrations, reports, and
other information comprising the clearinghouse in a manner
which facilitates the disclosure of political activities,
including, but not limited to, information on--
(A) political activities pertaining to issues before the
Congress and issues before the executive branch; and
(B) the political activities of individuals, organizations,
foreign principals, and agents of foreign principals who
share an economic, business, or other common interest;
(4) to make the information compiled and summarized under
paragraph (3) available to the public within 30 days after
the close of each calendar quarter, and to publish such
information in the Federal Register at the earliest
practicable opportunity;
(5) not later than 150 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act and at any time thereafter, to prescribe, in
consultation with the Comptroller General, such rules,
regulations, and forms, in conformity with the provisions of
chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, as are necessary to
carry out the provisions of section ____03 and this section
in the most effective and efficient manner; and
(6) at the request of any Member of the Senate or the House
of Representatives, to prepare and submit to such Member a
study or report relating to the political activities of any
person and consisting only of the information in the
registrations, reports, and other information comprising the
clearinghouse.
(b) Definitions.--As used in this section--
(1) the terms ``foreign principal'' and ``agent of a
foreign principal'' have the meanings given those terms in
section 1 of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as
amended (22 U.S.C. 611);
(2) the term ``issue before the Congress'' means the total
of all matters, both substantive and procedural, relating
to--
(A) any pending or proposed bill, resolution, report,
nomination, treaty, hearing, investigation, or other similar
matter in either
[[Page H6838]]
the Senate or the House of Representatives or any committee
or office of the Congress; or
(B) any pending action by a Member, officer, or employee of
the Congress to affect, or attempt to affect, any action or
proposed action by any officer or employee of the executive
branch; and
(3) the term ``issue before the executive branch'' means
the total of all matters, both substantive and procedural,
relating to any pending action by any executive agency, or by
any officer or employee of the executive branch, concerning--
(A) any pending or proposed rule, rule of practice,
adjudication, regulation, determination, hearing,
investigation, contract, grant, license, negotiation, or the
appointment of officers and employees, other than
appointments in the competitive service; or
(B) any issue before the Congress.
SEC. ____05. PENALTIES FOR DISCLOSURE.
Any person who discloses information in violation of
section ____03(b), and any person who sells or uses
information for the purpose of soliciting contributions or
for any profit-making purpose in violation of section
____04(a)(2), shall be imprisoned for a period of not more
than 1 year, or fined in the amount provided in title 18,
United States Code, or both.
SEC. ____06. AMENDMENTS TO THE FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION
ACT OF 1938, AS AMENDED.
(a) Quarterly Reports.--Section 2(b) of the Foreign Agents
Registration Act of 1938, as amended (22 U.S.C. 612(b)), is
amended in the first sentence by striking out ``, within
thirty days'' and all that follows through ``preceding six
months' period'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``on January
31, April 30, July 31, and October 31 of each year, file with
the Attorney General a supplement thereto on a form
prescribed by the Attorney General, which shall set forth
regarding the three-month periods ending the previous
December 31, March 31, June 30, and September 30,
respectively, or if a lesser period, the period since the
initial filing,''.
(b) Exemption for Legal Representation.--Section 3(g) of
the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended (22
U.S.C. 613(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``A person may be exempt under this subsection only upon
filing with the Attorney General a request for such
exemption.''.
(c) Civil Penalties.--Section 8 of the Foreign Agents
Registration Act of 1938, as amended (22 U.S.C. 618), is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(i)(1) Any person who is determined, after notice and
opportunity for an administrative hearing--
``(A) to have failed to file a registration statement under
section 2(a) or a supplement thereto under section 2(b),
``(B) to have omitted a material fact required to be stated
therein, or
``(C) to have made a false statement with respect to such a
material fact,
shall be required to pay a civil penalty in an amount not
less than $2,000 or more than $5,000 for each violation
committed. In determining the amount of the penalty, the
Attorney General shall give due consideration to the nature
and duration of the violation.
``(2)(A) In conducting investigations and hearings under
paragraph (1), administrative law judges may, if necessary,
compel by subpoena the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence at any designated place or hearing.
``(B) In the case of contumacy or refusal to obey a
subpoena lawfully issued under this paragraph and, upon
application by the Attorney General, an appropriate district
court of the United States may issue an order requiring
compliance with such subpoena and any failure to obey such
order may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof.''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Friday, July 17, 1998, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, could I claim the 5 minutes in opposition?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut has claimed
the time in opposition and will be recognized later for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, historically, Congress has been very clear about
disallowing foreign contributions to U.S. campaigns at every level, and
if we look, however, at the foreign lobbying activities that have
grown, especially in this past quarter century, and the organization of
multinational corporations that have in many ways outgrown existing
law, it is clear that an amendment like this is needed and, as
originally proposed, my amendment sought to both clarify the definition
as well as the disclosure by foreign-controlled political action
contributions to U.S. election campaigns.
{time} 2300
But I am going to offer a modified version of this after considerable
consultation with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and others on the other side of the
aisle and this one.
But it is certainly true to say that U.S. law has been abundantly
clear about who can contribute to U.S. campaigns: citizens of this
country as individuals and citizens through political action committees
expressly organized for that purpose. But corporations cannot
contribute directly, nor can trade unions outside of a formally
recognized political action committee.
But because of a loophole dating back to 1934, while foreign
nationals and foreign citizens cannot directly or indirectly contribute
to U.S. elections, foreign-controlled corporations and trade
associations, including those based in the United States, can
contribute.
The Federal Election Campaign Act, section 441(e) says, and I quote,
A foreign national shall not directly or through any other
person make a contribution or expressly or implicitly promise
to make a contribution in connection with an election to any
political office or in connection with any primary election,
convention, or caucus held to select candidates for any
political office or for any person to solicit, accept, or
receive any such contribution from a foreign national.
The Federal Elections Act defines a foreign principal as a government
of a foreign country or a foreign political party; a person outside the
United States who is not a citizen; or a partnership, association,
corporation, or organization, or other combination of persons organized
under the laws of or having its principal base of business in a foreign
country.
The loophole in all of that is that foreign-owned corporations and
trade associations which are organized under U.S. law and have their
principal place of business in the United States are not classified as
foreign principals and are, therefore, allowed to operate PACs, even
though their control and ownership are foreign in nature.
The principal law governing the disclosure of lobbying by these
entities, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, when the GAO studied in
1990 what had been happening, it is that, in fact, disclosure of those
activities are very thin.
The GAO found that the lack of timeliness of the filing of reports
required under the Foreign Agents Registration Act contributes to the
failure to fulfill the Act's goal of providing the public with
sufficient information on foreign agents and their activities in this
country, including political activities.
As modified, my amendment will not disallow contributions as I had
hoped to do in a bill that I had filed earlier, because, frankly, there
was opposition to doing that. But it does take the one section of our
proposal that will allow us to at least collect the information that we
need to understand the impact and the extent of these involvements.
As presently constituted, my amendment would establish within the
Federal Election Commission a clearinghouse on that of public
information regarding the political activities of foreign principals or
their agents.
Currently, public information on these activities is collected by the
government in scattered ways. But this information would be brought
together in one place and provide the public and Congress a better idea
of what is actually going on in regard to foreign lobbying and giving
activity.
No one will be required to provide any information that is not
already collected but in several disparate places. Nor would anyone be
required to provide duplicative information to a new agency.
The responsibility for furnishing the data to the FEC would rest with
the agency itself. The clearinghouse will only collect public
information already compiled and will provide a comprehensive picture
of what political activities are taking place by these foreign
interests.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Modification to Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur to the Amendment in the
Nature of a Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the
amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute in the form at
the desk.
[[Page H6839]]
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment, as modified, offered by Ms. Kaptur 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. ESTABLISHMENT OF A CLEARINGHOUSE OF INFORMATION ON
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE FEDERAL
ELECTION COMMISSION.
(a) Establishment.--There shall be established within the
Federal Election Commission a clearinghouse of public
information regarding the political activities of foreign
principals and agents of foreign principals. The information
comprising this clearinghouse shall include only the
following:
(1) All registrations and reports filed pursuant to the
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)
during the preceding 5-year period.
(2) All registrations and reports filed pursuant to the
Foreign Agents Registration Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 611 et
seq.), during the preceding 5-year period.
(3) The listings of public hearings, hearing witnesses, and
witness affiliations printed in the Congressional Record
during the preceding 5-year period.
(4) Public information disclosed pursuant to the rules of
the Senate or the House of Representatives regarding
honoraria, the receipt of gifts, travel, and earned and
unearned income.
(5) All reports filed pursuant to title I of the Ethics in
Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) during the preceding
5-year period.
(6) All public information filed with the Federal Election
Commission pursuant to the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) during the preceding 5-year
period.
(b) Disclosure of Other Information Prohibited.--The
disclosure by the clearinghouse, or any officer or employee
thereof, of any information other than that set forth in
subsection (a) is prohibited, except as otherwise provided by
law.
(c) Director of Clearinghouse.--
(1) Duties.--The clearinghouse shall have a Director, who
shall administer and manage the responsibilities and all
activities of the clearinghouse. In carrying out such duties,
the Director shall--
(A) develop a filing, coding, and cross-indexing system to
carry out the purposes of this section (which shall include
an index of all persons identified in the reports,
registrations, and other information comprising the
clearinghouse);
(B) notwithstanding any other provision of law, make copies
of registrations, reports, and other information comprising
the clearinghouse available for public inspection and
copying, beginning not later than 30 days after the
information is first available to the public, and permit
copying of any such registration, report, or other
information by hand or by copying machine or, at the request
of any person, furnish a copy of any such registration,
report, or other information upon payment of the cost of
making and furnishing such copy, except that no information
contained in such registration or report and no such other
information shall be sold or used by any person for the
purpose of soliciting contributions or for any profit-making
purpose; and
(C) not later than 150 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act and at any time thereafter, to prescribe, in
consultation with the Comptroller General, such rules,
regulations, and forms, in conformity with the provisions of
chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, as are necessary to
carry out the provisions of this section in the most
effective and efficient manner.
(2) Appointment.--The Director shall be appointed by the
Federal Election Commission.
(3) Term of service.--The Director shall serve a single
term of a period of time determined by the Commission, but
not to exceed 5 years.
(d) Penalties for Disclosure of Information.--Any person
who discloses information in violation of subsection (b), and
any person who sells or uses information for the purpose of
soliciting contributions or for any profit-making purpose in
violation of subsection (c)(1)(B), shall be imprisoned for a
period of not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount
provided in title 18, United States Code, or both.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to conduct
the activities of the clearinghouse.
(f) Foreign Principal: Foreign principal shall have the
same meaning given the term ``foreign national'' in this
section (2 U.S.C. 441e), as that term was defined on July 31,
1998. For purpose of this section, the term ``agent of a
foreign principal'' shall not include any person organized
under or created by the laws of the United States or of any
State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States and that has its principal place of business
within the United States.
Ms. KAPTUR (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the modification be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the gentlewoman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to state that, first, this is a
fairly comprehensive amendment, but we are not sure whether or not it
is in conflict with the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Gillmor).
So what I am going to be suggesting to this Chamber is that we have a
vote. I will be voting ``no'' tonight. I will be suggesting that we go
over in depth line by line the gentlewoman's amendment to see if it is
an amendment that, when we have an actual rollcall vote, it will be one
that we can accept or not. Because the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Gillmor) is not here tonight, I am uncomfortable in suggesting that it
meets the conflict that he had.
The bottom line is that his amendment said that any American citizen
had a right to contribute. That was implicit, and that was whether or
not they worked for an American company or a foreign company.
Our concern is that a company like, for instance, Chrysler, that now
has significant ownership by German interests, that the employee still
be allowed to organize a political action committee, still be allowed
to contribute, still be allowed to fight for things they think are
important for Chrysler and its workers just as the employees of
Chrysler, to make sure that we have that same process that the workers
have when they organize as well.
I am not passing judgment because we still just are not sure of it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Kelly).
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that in my home State
of New York nearly 349,000 American citizens work for American
subsidiaries of companies headquartered abroad. These are hard-working
Americans that are employed by American subsidiaries of companies; and
they, I believe, need to have the right to contribute their own money
to candidates through employer-based PACs. It is a political right that
is granted to all American citizens at this time.
Because we are not certain at this time about whether or not this
amendment will change the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Gillmor), I want to be certain that we have the right to vote on this
tomorrow since the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) is not here.
I believe that the political rights of all Americans should not be
determined by where they work. I think it should be determined because
they are American citizens. They should not be disenfranchised from the
political process.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time I
have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays)
has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur)
has no time remaining.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, evidently, I have misinterpreted the gentlewoman's
amendment. I would like for her to describe what she thinks her
amendment does, and I would respond to that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) to explain what she feels her amendment does and
does not do.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for
yielding to me and the gentlewoman from New York, because, in
consultation with both of them, we substantially scaled back our
original amendment. This particular amendment, as modified, that we are
offering this evening would only take the clearinghouse section out of
the original proposal to collect information from the lobbying
disclosure.
Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, when the gentlewoman says take it out
she means she leaves the clearinghouse in and take out the other parts?
Ms. KAPTUR. That is correct. We lift that out and we table the
remainder of the bill.
The gentleman was saying and the gentlewoman from New York was saying
that Chrysler Corporation employees could not contribute or people
[[Page H6840]]
should not be allowed to contribute. We agree that U.S. citizens should
be allowed to contribute. This amendment, as modified, has nothing to
do with that. All it provides is for disclosure as we do with U.S.
contributions that are currently flowing into campaigns.
We are saying that we want to create a clearinghouse at the FEC for
all these donations. We will do that by recording existing information
from the Lobbying Disclosure Act, from the Foreign Agents
Administration.
Mr. SHAYS. If I can reclaim my time, if I can say to the gentlewoman,
as the amendment is described, I am comfortable and I think other
Members are. I do think it will be healthy to have a vote on this
tomorrow. I am not going to oppose it if there is all yeses. I still
ask for a rollcall vote. I think it is important for us to sit down
with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and others and make sure
that we are clear as to our recommended vote to our colleagues when
they vote on the floor.
{time} 2310
So I am not going to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. I would
suggest we get to a vote, but I will ask for a rollcall vote.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and gentlewoman for
working with us, and we look forward to having the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Gillmor) with us very soon here in resolving this.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, we will have a vote on the floor here
tomorrow and by then it will be resolved.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The question is on the
amendment, as modified, offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur) 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. Pursuant to House Resolution 442, further proceedings
on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Kaptur) 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 amendment No. 46 offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute No. 13 offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays). Is there a designee for Mr. Smith?
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 47 offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute No. 13 offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays).
Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute No. 13 is as follows:
Amendment No. 47 offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Stearns) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute No.
13 offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays):
Add at the end of title V the following new section (and
conform the table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 510. CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
SPENDING LIMITS.
(a) In General.--Section 9003 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9003) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(g) Prohibiting Conspiracy to Violate Limits.--
``(1) Violation of limits described.--If a candidate for
election to the office of President or Vice President who
receives amounts from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund
under chapter 95 or 96 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
or the agent of such a candidate, seeks to avoid the spending
limits applicable to the candidate under such chapter or
under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 by
soliciting, receiving, transferring, or directing funds from
any source other than such Fund for the direct or indirect
benefit of such candidate's campaign, such candidate or agent
shall be fined not more than $1,000,000, or imprisoned for a
term of not more than 3 years, or both.
``(2) Conspiracy to violate limits defined.--If two or more
persons conspire to violate paragraph (1), and one or more of
such persons do any act to effect the object of the
conspiracy, each shall be fined not more than $1,000,000, or
imprisoned for a term of not more than 3 years, or both.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply with respect to elections occurring on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House on
Friday, July 17, 1998, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment because I think after
the debate that I had concerning legal aliens, there was some question
that came up, and I thought I should attempt to amend, offer an
amendment tonight. It sort of rectifies a problem that was raised by
the gentleman from Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
During the debate a couple of weeks ago, this amendment that I
sponsored and also the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella)
sponsored, both of them passed overwhelmingly. But there was something
that was in both his amendment and mine that concerned me a bit. My
amendment banned all political contributions from Federal, State or
local elections from noncitizens, which included resident aliens.
But I realized, Mr. Chairman, during the debate that the gentleman
from Samoa had a very valid point about resident aliens who are serving
in the military. Such permanent residents may be drafted, as they were
in Vietnam and other military actions.
So what I am trying to do tonight is to say okay, if one is serving
in the military, I think one should be able to participate.
So frankly, this amendment seeks to rectify the situation with
resident aliens who serve in the U.S. military, which includes the
reserves.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, does this make them permanent
in their status if they served and then leave the service, or do they
lose their right to vote after they have left military service?
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, if they are in the service for 3 years,
they automatically become U.S. citizens.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, so in other words, at that
point the issue goes away.
Mr. STEARNS. No, Mr. Chairman, but if during that period for 1 or 2
years they are serving in the military, we are saying we will allow
them to contribute.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Now, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
continue to yield, as I remember the gentleman's comments from that
earlier debate, he was also talking about people who were taxpayers, as
many legal residents are, who are not citizens.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I do not remember what I said about
taxpayers, other than that I felt that non-U.S. citizens should not be
participating, but I think after talking to the gentleman from Samoa, I
think if they served in the military or are presently serving in the
military, then I think that one should have a chance to vote on this.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield
further, I certainly do not oppose this. I think it makes a bad
proposal less bad, but I understand that the gentleman has the votes on
his side, so I certainly will not oppose it. In fact, I encourage him
to offer it.
But I do think that when we begin to think about those things that
cause us to recognize the contributions of legal residents, we should
not just stop with military service; we should think of all of the
things they do, including contributing in many other ways, as well as
being taxpayers.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the amendment
is pretty simple and it will pass overwhelmingly. I think my good
friend from Samoa had made a good
[[Page H6841]]
point, so I am here really to recognize his point and to try to bridge
the gap with the two amendments that passed, and I think that is pretty
much my argument tonight.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Weygand) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, really it is a point of clarification, and I would like
to yield to the gentleman.
Regarding those that have served in the military, am I to understand
that not only those that are presently serving in the military and
those that have served 3 years and are out of the military, what about
those people who have served a year-and-a-half, 2 years, and perhaps
have not reached the 3-year period of time?
Is the gentleman saying that anyone who has served, that is a
resident, could contribute to a campaign?
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, if they are
serving in the military.
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, presently serving?
Mr. STEARNS. Presently serving, yes.
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, so that if they have served in Vietnam, in
Desert Storm, if they have done that, but they are now out of the
military, they are not eligible?
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's effort to try
to make some amends, but it would seem to me that whether one is
serving presently or one has served in Vietnam and one has provided
that service to this country, the motivation for the gentleman's
amendment would be indeed to provide some kind of an allowance for
someone to contribute to a campaign by way of serving in the military,
and I would think if anyone served 5 years ago, 10 years ago or 20
years ago, they would be eligible for the same merits that the
gentleman is giving to the people who are presently serving in the
military
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WEYGAND. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, of course, if they served 3 years, then
they automatically become U.S. citizens. So we are trying to bridge
here a little bit of support.
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand what the
gentleman is saying, but if someone had served only a year-and-a-half,
who was injured and was discharged from the military because of injury
or something else and does not qualify for that 3-year citizenship that
the gentleman is talking about, and therefore, in that case, may be
still not an American citizen, but have served valiantly for this
country, perhaps even given part of their body for this country, would
now be eligible to contribute to a campaign.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WEYGAND. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman can certainly offer an
amendment to change what we have passed here on the House floor, but I
think this amendment goes a long way and probably will receive a
majority of support.
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman be willing to accept
an amendment that would allow for someone who has served in the
military, been discharged, to be eligible for this benefit of
contributing to a campaign?
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WEYGAND. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, probably not, just because I am just going
to keep this amendment as it stands, but I think certainly the
gentleman could offer his own amendment.
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the
gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Meehan).
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague makes a very valid
point. I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. Clearly, a
member of the Armed Forces or the Armed Forces Reserves should have the
right to contribute to a Federal election. Yet I would remind the
gentleman that all legal permanent residents have the right to
contribute in Federal campaigns, according to the United States Supreme
Court.
With this amendment, it seems to me the gentleman is making a value
judgment that legal permanent residents who served in the Armed Forces
are worthy of first amendment protection because they laid down their
lives for this country. But how about those legal permanent residents
who are doctors? They save American lives every day. Or how about the
legal permanent residents who are the parents of those young men and
women who have lost their lives fighting for our country? Should they
not also be given the full protection of the first amendment?
I do not object to the gentleman's amendment, but I do want to point
out the arbitrary nature of this particular exclusion. This amendment
is only necessary because the gentleman, rightly, perceives the
inequities of a flat-out ban. The problem is, I could think of many
worthy exemptions and exceptions.
There are so many ways that legal permanent residents prove their
allegiance to this government and to the United States. Serving in the
Armed Forces is only one example. But I certainly would accept the
gentleman's amendment, but I think it is important to point out the
injustice of just picking out one small group.
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield to gentleman from California (Mr.
Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman I just have a question of how
the gentleman would manage this, if the author would so indulge. One is
a legal resident of the United States, one is here, the law says one is
here.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, a permanent legal alien, not a U.S.
citizen.
{time} 2320
Mr. FARR of California. The gentleman is going to check all of this?
They are legally here. We do not go around every day trying to check
whether someone is here legally. I mean, if they are here legally, they
are here legally; right?
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I do not understand the gentleman's
argument.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the
argument is how does the gentleman intend to enforce this amendment he
is making? How do we enforce it? How do we check from campaign
contributions? How do we go back to check whether the people are
permanent residents, served in the Armed Forces? I mean, just look at
the mountain of incredible research that we are going to have to do on
everyone.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do not think it will be hard to do that, because we have Social
Security numbers and we could tell quickly and easily who was in the
service.
Mr. Chairman, the argument of the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Weygand), he wants to go back to the old argument that some wish to
allow legal permanent aliens to contribute, has already been decided.
We had a vote; 350 Members voted to do that. And now we have had two
other votes, my vote and the vote on the Fossella amendment. In three
cases now we have decided that legal permanent aliens should not
contribute.
So my point is that I think it is easy to identify. And I think this
is a step to try and really help the gentleman's cause by saying
instead of ruling out all of them, let the people who are actually
serving in the military less than 3 years have an opportunity to do so.
And I am surprised that the other side objects to giving the military
people an opportunity to contribute.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
[[Page H6842]]
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) to
the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider the amendment No. 48 offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute No. 13 offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays).
Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 48 offered by Mr. Stearns to the amendment in
the nature 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. PERMITTING PERMANENT RESIDENT ALIENS SERVING IN
ARMED FORCES TO MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS.
Section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 441e) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, an
individual who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence
(as defined in section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act) and who is a member of the Armed Forces
(including a reserve component of the Armed Forces) shall not
be subject to the prohibition under this section.''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Friday, July 17, 1998, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment and the next one are generally just a
little bit more clarification. This one goes to the fact that in
presidential campaigns, oftentimes the folks who are running for office
intentionally, perhaps not realizing it or perhaps they do,
intentionally violate campaign spending limits.
So what I try to do in this amendment is to impose criminal
penalties. My amendment would immediately close the current loop that I
believe has been exploited under the law, which is the Federal Election
Campaign Act. There are strict limitations and restrictions on
presidential candidates who voluntarily accept, decide to receive
public financing for their campaigns. The fundamental tenet of this law
is that presidential candidates are eligible to receive funding if they
comply with expenditure limits and other restrictions imposed by law.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment attempts to strengthen the law by ensuring
that the presidential and vice presidential candidates do not try to
evade the limits and restriction under the law by intentionally trying
to circumvent these rules.
Of course, the reason, Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment
is that I think myself and others were greatly troubled by the evidence
that the Federal Elections Campaign Act was intentionally violated. I
think this came out in the hearings in the Senate Committee on
Government Affairs when they investigated campaign finance abuses in
1997.
The committee underlined the purpose of the law by reporting, quote
``Under FECA, a presidential candidate who accepts Federal matching
funds cannot exceed the applicable expenditure limits for the
campaign.'' The intent of this, of course, in providing limited Federal
funding is to remove the candidate from the fund-raising process and to
prevent the raising of large private contributions.
The deal the taxpayers make with the candidate is that in exchange
for their funding, the candidate will foreswear outside money and
therefore make it less likely that the election will be influenced or
appear to be influenced by big money.
Now the Senate Committee on Government Affairs found a great deal in
their report. And, of course, the White House was cited several times.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to report what the committee said.
During the 1996 election cycle, the White House was very close to the
DNC and they tried to micromanage it. Harold Ickes, then Deputy Chief
of Staff to the President, simply seized the reins of financial power
and went about exerting direct control over the DNC's finance division.
Now, this is the type of thing we are trying to stop. I will not go
through and read a lot of the testimony in there, because I am not here
to point fingers at one side or the other. I am just trying to convince
my colleagues of the need to put in place the penalties in this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I think in short, though, most of us would agree that
there were some evidence of collusion here. The purpose of our
amendment here is to prevent this. The committee concluded that, ``In
the matter before us, the clear purpose of the law was circumvented.''
I mean, that is what they said. That is why I believe we need to
protect the Federal Election Campaign Act.
We cannot allow the limits and restrictions in the law to be
circumvented while candidates receiving public financing abuse the
system in order to gain advantage over their opponent.
So in a sense what we tried to do is do the following: By putting in
place that if a candidate or agent seeks to avoid the limits and
restrictions by soliciting, receiving, transferring, or directing funds
from any source other than the presidential election campaign fund for
the direct or indirect benefit of such candidate's campaign, then the
candidate, Mr. Chairman, or the agent shall be fined not more than $1
million or imprisoned for a term of not more than 3 years, or both.
So in essence, Mr. Chairman, what I have done is put in a penalty. I
think that we have had the history of this, so I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take the time
reserved for anyone opposed to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the amendment?
Mr. MEEHAN. No, but I would ask to take the time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan)?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Meehan) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this would ban any presidential or vice presidential
candidate who receives public funding from raising soft money. While we
support the gentleman's position, this amendment is really unnecessary
in the context of the Shays-Meehan bill.
Not only does the Shays-Meehan bill ban soft money in Federal
elections, but the Shays-Meehan bill expressly prohibits Federal
candidates, office holders, and agents of Federal candidates and office
holders from soliciting, receiving, directing, transferring or spending
soft money on behalf of any other Federal candidates or office holders.
So, the Shays-Meehan bill takes care of exactly what the problems
were in the last presidential election on both sides and both parties.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, he had an amendment pass
just now. We are going to vote tomorrow. And this amendment I think we
are going to agree to. And so certainly the gentleman from Florida, my
friend from Florida is getting his amendments passed. Does this mean
the gentleman is going to support and join the majority of Members here
and support us in passing the Shays-Meehan bill that has such strong
bipartisan support? Which, by the way, I have to say in all of the
years we have been working on campaign finance reform, my colleague
cannot look at any evening and have witnessed any more broad-based,
incredible success and support for our legislation than this evening.
Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if the gentleman has decided to join us
in our efforts.
[[Page H6843]]
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MEEHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, there are a lot
more amendments to come. Also, several amendments I voted for today
were defeated. I think the Goodlatte amendment is a good example.
So I think this campaign finance bill is still in doubt. I think
there are lots of areas that need to be improved, and frankly we have
other substitutes and other bills that are going to be offered that I
think we should look at.
I think it is premature to talk about that. I would remind the
gentleman from Massachusetts that I think what he has to worry about is
the executive branch micromanaging either the DNC, or either party.
{time} 2330
Mr. MEEHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, what we on this side
and both sides who are fighting for campaign finance reform, what we
have to worry about is making sure we get as many votes as we can. I am
delighted that we are going to accept a couple of your amendments, but
I just want to illustrate the point that ultimately you are not going
to support our bill, which is unfortunate. But I will point out, this
evening we had several historic votes, broad bipartisan support to
defeat poison pill amendments.
I am encouraged, I think my colleagues who are here are encouraged
with the tremendous support. We look forward to dealing tomorrow with
the remaining amendments and voting yes on those amendments that we are
accepting and voting no on those amendments which would destroy the
unique and historic bipartisan coalition that we have in support of our
legislation.
I look forward to getting through the amendments this evening. We are
moving along slowly but surely. I am delighted at how well things are
going this evening.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Judging from the information given by my colleague, I assume he is
supporting my amendment. I think that the idea of putting penalties in
place is important. I think the whole idea of the executive branch
micromanaging any other area of the campaign financing operations is
what we are trying to prevent. I would say to my colleague that I
appreciate his support.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was
agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 49 offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Stearns
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 49 offered by Mr. Stearns 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. ENFORCEMENT OF SPENDING LIMIT ON PRESIDENTIAL AND
VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES WHO RECEIVE PUBLIC
FINANCING.
(A) In General.--Section 9003 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9003) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(f) Illegal Solicitation of Soft Money.--No candidate for
election to the office of President or Vice President may
receive amounts from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund
under this chapter or chapter 96 unless the candidate
certifies that the candidate shall not solicit any funds for
the purposes of influencing such election, including any
funds used for an independent expenditure under the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971, unless the funds are subject
to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements
of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply with respect to elections occurring on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Friday, July 17, 1998, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a
Member opposed, each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment is similar to the other one except we ask that
candidates certify their intent. Let me just read a portion of this so
we can clarify it:
No candidate for election to the office of President or Vice
President may receive amounts from the Presidential Election Campaign
Fund unless the candidate certifies that the candidate shall not
solicit any funds for the purpose of influencing such election,
including any funds used for an independent expenditure, unless the
funds are subject to the limitations, prohibitions and reporting
requirements under the law.
The reason I offer this amendment, of course, is that, again, some of
the testimony in the Senate hearing that brought forth the clear
intent. And so we need to establish that a candidate for President and
Vice President will certify that they are going to comply and that they
have a full understanding so that they cannot use rigorous, specious
logic to say they were not aware.
There was a lot of testimony that came out from Dick Morris, which I
have here, and I will, Mr. Chairman, include Dick Morris's testimony as
a part of the Record so I do not have to read the whole thing.
I just would like to summarize some of the things that he testified
to that committee and that is why I think the certification is
required.
The President reviewed and modified and approved all advertising
copy, reviewed and adjusted and approved media time buys, reviewed and
modified polling questions, received briefings on and analyzed polling
results.
So the President had significant involvement with the DNC media
consultants in the area of polling, advertising, speech writing,
legislation strategy and general policy advice.
I think that is, frankly, what the Shays-Meehan bill is trying to
prevent. I am hopeful that my colleagues will support this amendment
and ask that the candidates who do run for President and Vice President
will certify so that they have a full understanding before they go into
this what their roles will be.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Meehan) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MEEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think we can support this amendment, although I was a little
concerned when you indicated you are going to read into the Record some
of Dick Morris' words. It makes me a little nervous as to whether or
not we really support the amendment.
Everything sounded great until we got to that. I get a little
concerned about which statements from Dick Morris were going to be read
into the record, but, in any event, we generally support the amendment.
I think that the Shays-Meehan legislation addresses precisely the
matter that you are concerned about. I do not know that it does address
matters that Dick Morris may be concerned about, but in any event we
are delighted to accept the amendment, notwithstanding the statements
of Mr. Morris that have been submitted into the Record.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the reason I mentioned Dick Morris was just to give an
[[Page H6844]]
example of what occurred, and I think the folks realize that he was the
principal advisor to the President and basically they started running
these ads that were constantly lauding the President all around the
country and his record and running specific issue ads, and the problem
was funding those ads.
So I am not categorically going after Mr. Morris or anybody but other
than to say this is a clear example of what the committee on the Senate
was talking about, which we need to prevent.
The problem of funding these ads got very difficult and where they
got the money is where they started to get into the micromanaging. So
putting this in the record is important to establish a reason why you
support this amendment and why I support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes some very good points. I have no
idea why the President ever hired Dick Morris to begin with. After so
many Republican campaigns, I have no idea why he did hire him. I think
when the history books are written, the President will regret ever
having hired him.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think Congress needs to strengthen the law by
preventing the type of activity that Dick Morris mentioned in his
testimony. This type of abuse should be prevented from ever happening
again in presidential campaigns, and I urge my colleagues to support
the amendment.
The infamous Dick Morris testified to the Committee that,
The President had significant involvement with the DNC
media consultants in the areas of polling, advertising,
speech-writing, legislation strategy, and general policy
advice. The President: (1) reviewed, modified and approved
all advertising copy; (2) reviewed, adjusted and approved
media time buys; (3) reviewed and modified polling questions;
and (4) received briefings on the analyzed polling results.
A significant amount of the polling work the consultants
performed for the President ``related to substantive issues
in connection with his job as President, but is (also) could
be considered political.'' The President wanted to keep total
control over the advertising campaign designed by Morris and
the DNC media consultants.
The defenders of the President will argue that this is not a
violation of the letter of the law under the Federal Election Campaign
Act, but this intertwined coordination between the President, his
political advisors, and DNC media consultants is certainly a violation
of the spirit of the law.
Congress needs to strengthen the law by preventing this type of abuse
from happening again during another presidential campaign. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers).
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, a few weeks ago when we were discussing
campaign finance abuses, I spent some time on the floor talking about a
system that has been developed over time by both parties, where blame
really needs to go, to both parties, and change really has to come from
both parties.
So I listened with some interest tonight when the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Stearns) was making his comments, because my recollection
is there is, in addition to investigations going on around the Clinton-
Gore campaign, there is currently an investigation going on around the
Dole-Kemp campaign for their micromanagement of their money and
coordination of their efforts in the campaign issues.
So I think what we need to do is to go back to the very place I
started several weeks ago, which is we have a campaign system that has
been built by both parties that does not work anymore, that has to be
changed by people on both parties.
I applaud the fact that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is
now interested in soft money and very interested in making sure that
some people in the system do not abuse soft money.
Those of us that are part of the reform group want to make sure that
no one in the system abuses soft money, and I would invite the
gentleman from Florida to join us in supporting a ban on all soft
money, and then we would not have worry about whose words have to be
read into the Record. Then we would know that no one is going to engage
in the kind of behavior that we all find offensive.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just add on that, there is still a lot of room
left on this Shays-Meehan bandwagon, and we would love to have you
joining with us in abolishing soft money, sham issue ads, giving the
FEC the teeth that they need to enforce the election laws that are on
the book.
{time} 2340
We are very, very proud of the Members on both sides of the aisle
that have demonstrated I think this evening on a number of votes
wonderful support, Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals.
There is still plenty of room on this bandwagon as we roll to a
majority vote by the Members of this body coming early next week. We
would encourage the gentleman to join with us on those votes.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 442, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Stearns) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) will be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 50.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Whitfield to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 50 offered by Mr. Whitfield to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:
Add at the end of title I the following new section (and
conform the table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 104. INCREASE IN CONTRIBUTION LIMIT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO
CANDIDATES BY PERSONS OTHER THAN PACS.
Section 315(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)(A)) is amended by striking
``$1,000'') and inserting ``$3,000''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Friday, July 17, 1998, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. As we conclude the debate on this important legislation, I
have been very pleased with the debate that has been a long and lengthy
debate and I think we have covered about every aspect of campaign
finance that one can cover. The advocates for campaign finance have
talked a lot about special interests. They have talked a lot about sham
ads. They have talked a lot about too much money. They have talked
about inadequate disclosure. We have said many times, I guess, that
special interest depends on who supports you and who does not; and sham
ads if you do not like it, maybe it is a sham ad. So those are valid
reasons that people have for supporting this legislation.
I have told some people, and I firmly believe this, that one of the
unintended consequences of this act is to protect incumbents. The
amendment that I am offering is to try to help alleviate the burden
that is placed on people running for Congress the first time. I think
all of us know that about 80 percent of the political action committee
money goes to incumbents. One thing about the Shays-Meehan bill, it
does not do anything about the way candidates raise their money or
spend their money. It applies only to the way other groups
[[Page H6845]]
out in the country spend their money and participate in the political
system.
This is a very simple amendment in that it increases the amount that
an individual can give a candidate from $1,000 to $3,000. Now, this
contribution limit was set in 1974. When you consider inflation, it is
worth in today's dollars $325 instead of the $1,000 that was in 1974.
But I would ask that Members give some serious thought to this,
because, as I said, 80 percent of political action committee money goes
to incumbents. All of us know the first time that we ran, it is very
difficult to raise the money. If we can increase the amount that an
individual can contribute from $1,000 to $3,000, I think it will go a
long way in making this a more equitable system, particularly for those
very few candidates, one of which may be on the floor this evening, who
do not accept political action committee money. This kind of evens the
playing field, and that is really my purpose in introducing this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
may be uniquely qualified to address this amendment because, as the
gentleman from Kentucky knows, he and I got here together in early 1995
and within just a few weeks, I had a bill on the floor called the Wamp
Congress Act of 1995. I think the gentleman from Kentucky was probably
one of my cosponsors, which actually did in fact increase the
individual contribution limit. But over the last 4 years as I have
worked this body on both sides of the aisle to try to build consensus
around this issue of campaign reform, knowing that there were land
mines throughout the entire process and knowing that this fundamental
system has not been changed since Watergate because there are too many
good ways to kill it, I looked for a consensus around a few principles,
and that is what we have on the floor tonight represented in Shays-
Meehan. That is why I reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Because there is an intellectual argument to be made for the fact that
an individual contribution in 1974 is actually worth about $3,000
today, but the fact is there is not much support in this body for
raising individual contribution limits, and none of us can be king for
a day. If I were king for a day, I would have my own bill here and it
would be much different than what we have. But this process is a
process of compromise and consensus. We are looking for a majority,
especially a bipartisan majority, so that we can actually accomplish
something that has not been accomplished in a generation because there
are too many ways to chop the legs out from underneath this particular
issue, because this one issue is the issue that is at the heart of
whether or not we can stay in power as Members of Congress, and that is
why the oldest trick in this business is to put something on the floor
and promote it, that then everybody can say, ``Well, I supported that
but I didn't support this, therefore, I didn't support final passage''
and we never get reform.
That is why I rise today even though I did support this principle
early in my career here, knowing that there is no support here for
that, and we cannot add it to this bill because frankly it is one of
the things that will sink the boat.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment because I cannot understand what is broken and needs fixing.
This amendment suggests that there is not enough money in campaigns.
This whole debate, this whole process started when we tried to put
limits on what candidates running for a seat in Congress would spend in
campaigns. They still have that comprehensive bill on the floor. That
is the way this bill started out. Nowhere were we going to try to get
more money into campaigns. And just to show you that only .1 percent of
the American people, about 235 individuals gave contributions of $1,000
or more in 1995 and 1996 to Federal candidates and to PACs and parties
that support candidates. Yet this group gave as much money for Federal
elections, $638 million, as the millions who gave under $200.
This is not the part of the campaign finance system that is broken
and needs fixing, to get more money into the system. In fact, this
amendment, as well-intentioned as the author may be on it, is a poison
pill. It is opposed by all of those groups that advocated for campaign
finance reform, including League of Women Voters, Public Citizen,
Common Cause, the U.S. PIRG and others.
I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, because it is not going
to help get the Shays-Meehan bill passed, and it is not going to help
the perception of the American public that we need to have more money
and bigger contributions in campaigns.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, recognizing that the gentleman from Kentucky
has the right to close, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to say that Meehan-Shays
does three primary things: It bans soft money, the unlimited sums of
money that go from individuals, corporations, labor unions and other
interest groups; it deals with the sham issue ads and calls them what
they should, campaign ads; and it also has FEC enforcement and
disclosure.
It does not have a lot of things. We did not deal with issues that
some Members would like us to deal with, in-state, out-of-state. It
does not deal with motor voter and Voter Rights Act. There are a number
of things we do not do. We do not deal maybe with the need to increase
PAC contributions or individual contributions but this only limits and
allows individual contributions to be increased, and I would oppose it.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I
want to quote Justice Thurgood Marshall whom I do not think anyone
could say is a very conservative judge, but in Buckley v. Valeo he
said, ``One of the points on which all Members of the Court agree is
that money is essential to effective communication in a political
campaign.''
{time} 2250
And we do live in a world where it costs a lot of money to buy TV
ads, to buy newspaper ads, to buy radio ads, and I guess I am not
surprised that incumbents would not support this because it would be
easier for opponents to raise money if they raised the amount that an
individual can give.
And we talked about the groups that supported Shays-Meehan, and one
of those groups is Public Campaign that has been running newspaper ads
in my district against me for the last day or two and also in the
Washington Post; and, as I said earlier, I did not particularly like
it, but I think they have a right to do that. That is an issue ad in my
view. I think they have a right to do that, but they really pounded me
because they said, ``Ed Whitfield is trying to triple the amount of
money that an individual can give,'' and yet I find it quite ironic
that one of their largest contributors is a guy named Mr. Solls, who is
one of the wealthiest men in the world. He contributes heavily to them.
So I guess that sometimes it just depends upon who gives the money,
but I think that we are doing a great disservice to our political
system if we prevent individuals from giving up to $3,000 to candidates
that they have confidence in, that they believe in and they want to
support, particularly when they know that challengers are not going to
receive political action committee money.
So I would urge the adoption of this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute
No. 13 offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays.)
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. WHITFIELD. 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 Kentucky
(Mr. Whitfield) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13
offered by Mr. Shays will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 51 offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
[[Page H6846]]
Amendment Offered by Mr. Whitfield to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN 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. Whitfield to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:
Amend section 301(20)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971, as added by section 201(b) of the substitute, to
read as follows:
``(A) In general.--The term `express advocacy' means a
communication that advocates the election or defeat of a
candidate by containing 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', `reject'.''
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Friday, July 17, 1998, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and
a Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply defines ``express advocacy''
using the exact terms that the Supreme Court has used repeatedly in
defining express advocacy. This issue goes to the very core, the very
heart, of what this debate is about because the Shays-Meehan bill
expands the definition of ``express advocacy''. And when we expand the
definition of ``express advocacy,'' we automatically increase the
opportunities for hard money to be spent and decrease the opportunities
for individuals to spend money who do not have political action
committees, who have not hired lawyers to file all the reports with the
FEC, and I think it is going to be a chilling effect upon the
participation and the political system.
Now Shays-Meehan expands the definition in a number of ways way
beyond what the Supreme Court has said. One way that they do it is they
say if an ad refers to one or more clearly-identified candidates in a
paid advertisement that is broadcast by a radio broadcast station or a
television broadcast station within 60 calendar days preceding the date
of an election of the candidate, that that is express advocacy. And in
essence what they are doing here at a time when people focus on
political campaigns, as we get closer to the election, people focus on
it, and that is when we have groups like the Sierra Club, the Right to
Life, Pro-choice, labor unions; all these groups take out ads, and they
talk about voting records of candidates as you get within 60 days of an
election.
Under this bill, they will not be able to run those ads unless they
had raised the money under the hard money rules. In other words, they
would be totally caught up in the rules of the Federal Election
Commission. They would have to meet all the requirements of the Federal
Election Commission, have to meet all of the limits, all of the
financial disclosures. And the courts have repeatedly said that that is
a very chilling effect on the participation of people in the political
process, and the courts have repeatedly said that the very core of our
system is to allow participation, and this definition explicitly makes
it more difficult to participate.
And the thing that I find the most troubling about it in this
particular section is that when we get down to the end of the campaign,
the only people that are going to be talking about these campaigns are
the candidates themselves, the money that they spend for our ads. Then
we are going to have political action committees, that they can buy
ads, and then we are going to have the news media doing editorials on
who they support.
But the mass of people out there who belong to organizations, they
are not going to have much say-so unless they want to go through all of
this trouble, all of this burden of forming a political action
committee, raising money, hiring lawyers, filing reports and so forth.
So I am very disappointed, I am extremely disappointed, in the way
they expand the definition of ``express advocacy,'' and my amendment
simply brings it down to precisely what the Supreme Court has said: a
bright line test so there is no question about what is and what is not
express advocacy.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the amendment?
Mr. CAMPBELL. I am.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Campbell) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, the words kill. It is the spirit that
giveth life. The Scriptural reference applies to this part of the bill.
My good dear friend from Kentucky has given us the words, and he says
that all that may be condemned are those ads which are so explicit in
using words that they qualify in his definition as express advocacy.
But what about the spirit that giveth life? What about ads that, in
every other meaning, affect intent, purpose, are an express advocacy
ad, but they are clever enough not to use the word ``vote for'' or
``vote against?''
This kind of abuse has been documented so many times in this debate
that it is unnecessary to go too much into detail, but I refer all of
my colleagues to the examples that have been raised regarding such
comments as President Bill Clinton has done these wonderful things, but
we do not at the end say ``Vote for President Bill Clinton.'' Senator
Bob Dole has done these wonderful things, great American, but at the
end we do not say ``Vote for Bob Dole.''
It is the most gravid interpretation of campaign advocacy to say that
only those ads that actually use the word ``vote for'' or ``vote
against'' are express advocacy.
Second point: The gentleman intentionally strikes from this bill the
prohibition on using undisclosed money, money from whom no one knows
the source for advertisements that mention the name of the candidate on
radio and television in the last 60 days of a campaign.
What is wrong with disclosure? Our good friend and colleague argues
that disclosure chills. Not at all. In other contexts those who have
been advocating against the Shays-Meehan bill have said all we need is
disclosure. Indeed that was the view of many of our colleagues.
The Supreme Court's interpretations of disclosure certainly have
identified the concern about membership in NAACP, for example, at a
time when that civil rights group was under a great degree of strain in
our country but have never said that it is chilling for the American
people to know what source of money puts an ad on 60 days before the
election using the name of the candidate and hiding the identity of the
donor.
{time} 2400
Yet that would be struck by the proposal of our good friend, the
gentleman from Kentucky.
The Supreme Court has actually opined in an area very close to this
in the matter before us, in Massachusetts Committee For Life. In
Massachusetts Committee For Life, the Supreme Court says that
publication at issue there, quote, ``cannot be regarded as a mere
discussion of public issues that, by their nature, raise the names of
certain politicians. Rather, it provides, in effect, an explicit
directive for these named candidates. The fact that this message is
marginally less direct than `vote for Smith' does not change its
essential nature.'' End quote.
The Supreme Court has told us it is the spirit that giveth life when
the words can kill. We have heard this argument many times. At this
point, it is appropriate, I think, to recognize the fundamental
difference between people of goodwill.
I have the highest regard for the gentleman from Kentucky. He is
sincere. He would not make the campaign finance reform that is needed,
the campaign finance reform that is at the heart of Shays-Meehan, and
that is that the American people know who is paying for ads that are
campaign ads in every sense.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H6847]]
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the Chair tell me how much time I
have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The gentleman from
California (Mr. Campbell) has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I have been reading the
gentleman's amendment, and I think that I can come up with a number of
phrases that would apparently be permitted but which, under his
amendment, would be very questionable.
Think of words like ``Think Joe Smith'' or ``Joe Smith thinks about
our Nation's future every day'' or ``Joe Smith, the 1st District's
Congressman'' or on the crime theme, ``Joe Smith voted yes on the crime
bill,'' ``Joe Smith was sponsor of the crime bill,'' ``Joe Smith is
tough on crime.''
All of these would be passing muster under the amendment that the
gentleman from Kentucky offers. I think that they all have a clear
purpose and intent. But under this amendment, they would be permitted.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, all that we ask is
that we know who is paying for these ads, not that they be stopped.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I admire the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Whitfield) for his persistence. This is the sixth, seventh time. Do we
have to beat him again?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, we keep talking about disclosure. As I
said before, when the labor unions ran ads against me last time on
television, every ad said ``Paid for by AFL-CIO.'' The Federal
Communication Commission requires that on television that we know who
pays for these ads.
It is interesting the public campaign group is running these ads all
over the country right now. We do not really know who pays for those
ads either, but they have a right to do it.
In closing, I would simply say the third expansion of express
advocacy in this bill has already explicitly been declared
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in FEC versus Maine Right To
Life. The exact wording is in here, already been declared
unconstitutional.
I just think it is a shame that we spend this much time on a bill
that most people that have reviewed it, that have taken cases to the
Supreme Court, say will be declared unconstitutional. Also, I think it
shows very clearly that this really is an incumbent protection act. I
would ask for the adoption of my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute
No. 13 offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. WHITFIELD. 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 Kentucky
(Mr. Whitfield) 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 Amendment No. 52 offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
Amendment Offered by Mr. English of Pennsylvania to the Amendment in
the Nature of a Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays
Mr. ENGLISH 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.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. English of Pennsylvania 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. PROHIBITING BUNDLING OF CONTRIBUTIONS.
Section 315(a)(8) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(8)) is amended to read as follows:
``(8) No person may make a contribution through an
intermediary or conduit, except that a person may facilitate
a contribution by providing--
``(A) advice to another person as to how the other person
may make a contribution; and
``(B) addressed mailing material or similar items to
another person for use by the other person in making a
contribution.''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Friday, July 17, 1998, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English)
and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
I rise to offer an amendment that speaks to an issue fundamental to
campaign finance reform, one that would close a gaping loophole in the
existing campaign laws through which a torrent of special interest cash
has poured in every recent election.
My amendment is a basic reform of the current system and something
that the Shays-Meehan substitute unfortunately does not address.
Bundling is the process by which special interest groups solicit
funds from donors around the country and then deliver the money in
large bundles. It is a way of avoiding limits on donations to
campaigns.
The Center for Responsive Politics identified at least 32 bundles in
excess of $20,000 that went to House Members during the 1994 election
cycle. The center surveying this practice wrote that bundling is ``as
predictable as the sunrise.'' This practice undermines the whole
established structure of campaign finance.
My amendment simply states that intermediaries cannot engage in this
practice. They can only provide advice to individuals about making a
contribution.
In the past, opposition to bundling was close to a consensus issue
among supporters of campaign finance reform. In the past, most campaign
finance reform proposals have included some kind of antibundling
language; indeed, earlier versions of Shays-Meehan included bundling
restrictions.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, to close
this terrible conduit for cash.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the 5
minutes.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the
amendment?
Ms. DeLAURO. Yes, I am.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong opposition to the English amendment. Three years ago
when campaign finance reformers started out to change the American
election system, our goal was to try to increase the number of
participants in the political process and to take elections out of the
hands of the big-money special interests.
This amendment would, in fact, do just the opposite. It would rob
Americans of an essential tool in leveling the political playing field.
It effectively prevents bundling, which lets ordinary Americans with
limited resources pool their funds together into a single contribution
and put themselves on equal footing with the more well-heeled political
interests. It also would allow corporate officers to host campaign
functions for candidates and collect checks.
I give you an example of women in politics. Today, thanks to
coordinated grassroots efforts, over 45,000 members of EMILY'S List,
who on average have contributed less than $100 per candidate, they had
an opportunity to triple the number of women who serve in this body.
[[Page H6848]]
There is EMILY'S list on the Democratic side of the aisle. There is a
group called Wish List on the Republican side of the aisle which, in
fact, is looking at how we, in fact, change the face of the Congress
and bring new people into the process and bring women, women of color
into the process in this body. That has been accomplished by these
groups.
The ability to pool political donations helps put average Americans
on equal footing with the wealthiest of interests. This benefits
everyone, regardless of what side of the political spectrum we may
fall, self-employed men and women who sell Amway products, local
environmentalists who participate in the League of Conservation Voters.
I mentioned Wish List, the National Jewish Democratic Council, Council
for a Livable World.
The English amendment cripples such organizations. It prevents
ordinary voters from uniting together as significant political forces.
What we want to do is to get more people in the process, not less
people. The English amendment would cripple that process.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman has the right to close.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Ms. Rivers).
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I found it very interesting to hear the
comments from the gentleman from Pennsylvania because I was very
concerned when this came forward about what evil was trying to be
remedied by this particular amendment.
What the gentleman had to say does not square with my personal
experience and my understanding of this system of contributing to
campaigns. Number one, these are small donors, small donations. EMILY'S
List, for example, has 45,000 members from all 50 States, and they have
made an average contribution of less than $100 per time.
There is no ability to exceed campaign limits. All individual limits
are counted in the aggregate. For any individual donor anywhere in the
country, they cannot exceed the campaign limits put in place on any
other donor. It simply is not true.
The other thing is that all of this money is fully disclosed twice,
once when the donation is made to the bundling organization and
secondly when the candidate receives it. So any individual who is
interested in following this money can do to a much greater degree than
any other campaign contributions that a candidate will get.
{time} 0010
Again, I have to say, what is the evil that is to be remedied by
this, unless, of course, that there are more women in Congress.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Fazio).
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for
yielding.
I think if we look at this amendment, it is obviously flawed in one
sense, and that is that it only covers hard dollars. Triad Management
is an organization that has gone out and organized all kinds of soft
money bundling activities, including an entity called Citizens for the
Republic Education Fund, which gave $2 million in the final weeks of
the 1996 campaign to Republican candidates in targeted races all across
the country. One of them happened to be, by the way, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
I am wondering why this amendment is directed only at small donors,
largely, who are contributing through processes we have just heard
described as hard dollars, to the campaigns of candidates. We ought to
be attacking soft dollars that are flowing in, bundled by organizations
outside the political structure in theory, but in reality tied directly
into the political parties, the kinds of campaign expenditures that
have benefited many of the Members who now oppose this bill and oppose
the soft money ban included in it.
Mr. Chairman, I would be much more respectful of this amendment if it
were broadly based and took on all the problems of bundling. This one
is targeted to kill this bill and perpetuate a soft money political
system.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment truly does cripple
organizations, organizations that mobilize thousands of men and women
behind issues that they care about. It prevents average people from
getting together as a political force. Again, this benefits all sides
of the spectrum. We are not talking about narrowly defining this
effort. Why we want to, instead of expanding the opportunity for people
to participate, to narrow these efforts, and ``do in,'' if you will,
the ability in terms of full disclosure. What we need to do, as my
colleagues have said, is we need to ban the soft money, and bring
participation in the political process back home to the American
people.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) has expired.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) is recognized.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
English) has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
I was curious to listen to some of the arguments on the other side.
They are kind of fascinating to me, because, Mr. Chairman, I served as
the first chief of staff for the first woman to ever serve in the
Republican Conference in the Pennsylvania Senate. I do not think anyone
on the floor of this House has a stronger record than I do of promoting
women in high office, and I can tell my colleagues, my old boss got
elected at the age of 28 to a State Senate seat half the size of a
congressional seat, on a shoestring and without bundling.
It is ridiculous to argue that bundling somehow has something to do
with few women being in Congress. Quite the contrary. Bundling favors
incumbents, and women as challengers would benefit from the reduction
in the practice of bundling.
In the past, the authors of this substitute have opposed the practice
of bundling. Unfortunately, tonight they have chosen to support this
widely acknowledged abuse by opposing this amendment, along with many
other worthy amendments necessary to perfect this substitute and
restore balance to this campaign finance reform proposal.
For those of my colleagues who in the past have supported legislation
that included anti-bundling provisions, including the Farr legislation,
including the earlier Shays-Meehan legislation, my colleagues are
already on record opposing bundling. Do not flip-flop tonight.
Remember, instead, the statement of Common Cause, which, as of today
was printed on their Web site, and I quote: ``Bundling, thus, is
harmful because it is a way around the contributional limits for both
individuals and PACs. It allows individuals and PACs to get credit from
candidates for delivering the kind of big money that the contribution
limits are intended to deter.''
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is fundamental reform and it is
fundamental to perfecting this legislation. I urge any Member who is
serious about campaign finance reform to support it. It is the right
thing to do. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the English amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. English) 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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 442, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
English) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered
by
[[Page H6849]]
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 53 offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) to the amendment in the nature
of a substitute No. 13 offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays).
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gekas to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays
Mr. GEKAS. 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. Gekas 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. DEPOSIT OF CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS AND DONATIONS IN
TREASURY ACCOUNT.
(a) In General.--Title III of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), as amended by sections
101, 401, and 507, is further amended by adding at the end
the following new section:
``treatment of certain contributions and donations to be returned to
donors
``Sec. 326. (a) Transfer to Commission.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, if a political committee intends to return any
contribution or donation given to the political committee,
the committee shall transfer the contribution or donation to
the Commission if--
``(A) the contribution or donation is in an amount equal to
or greater than $500 (other than a contribution or donation
returned within 60 days of receipt by the committee); or
``(B) the contribution or donation was made in violation of
section 315, 316, 317, 319, or 320 (other than a contribution
or donation returned within 30 days of receipt by the
committee).
``(2) Information included with transferred contribution or
donation.--A political committee shall include with any
contribution or donation transferred under paragraph (1)--
``(A) a request that the Commission return the contribution
or donation to the person making the contribution or
donation; and
``(B) information regarding the circumstances surrounding
the making of the contribution or donation and any opinion of
the political committee concerning whether the contribution
or donation may have been made in violation of this Act.
``(3) Establishment of escrow account.--
``(A) In general.--The Commission shall establish a single
interest-bearing escrow account for deposit of amounts
transferred under paragraph (1).
``(B) Disposition of amounts received.--On receiving an
amount from a political committee under paragraph (1), the
Commission shall--
``(i) deposit the amount in the escrow account established
under subparagraph (A); and
``(ii) notify the Attorney General and the Commissioner of
the Internal Revenue Service of the receipt of the amount
from the political committee.
``(C) Use of interest.--Interest earned on amounts in the
escrow account established under subparagraph (A) shall be
applied or used for the same purposes as the donation or
contribution on which it is earned.
``(4) Treatment of returned contribution or donation as a
complaint.--The transfer of any contribution or donation to
the Commission under this section shall be treated as the
filing of a complaint under section 309(a).
``(b) Use of Amounts Placed in Escrow To Cover Fines and
Penalties.--The Commission or the Attorney General may
require any amount deposited in the escrow account under
subsection (a)(3) to be applied toward the payment of any
fine or penalty imposed under this Act or title 18, United
States Code against the person making the contribution or
donation.
``(c) Return of Contribution or Donation After Deposit in
Escrow.--
``(1) In general.--The Commission shall return a
contribution or donation deposited in the escrow account
under subsection (a)(3) to the person making the contribution
or donation if--
``(A) within 180 days after the date the contribution or
donation is transferred, the Commission has not made a
determination under section 309(a)(2) that the Commission has
reason to believe that the making of the contribution or
donation was made in violation of this Act; or
``(B)(i) the contribution or donation will not be used to
cover fines, penalties, or costs pursuant to subsection (b);
or
``(ii) if the contribution or donation will be used for
those purposes, that the amounts require for those purposes
have been withdrawn from the escrow account and subtracted
from the returnable contribution or donation.
``(2) No effect on status of investigation.--The return of
a contribution or donation by the Commission under this
subsection shall not be construed as having an effect on the
status of an investigation by the Commission or the Attorney
General of the contribution or donation or the circumstances
surrounding the contribution or donation, or on the ability
of the Commission or the Attorney General to take future
actions with respect to the contribution or donation.''.
(b) Amounts Used to Determine Amount of Penalty for
Violation.--Section 309(a) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)) is
amended by inserting after paragraph (9) the following new
paragraph:
``(10) For purposes of determining the amount of a civil
penalty imposed under this subsection for violations of
section 326, the amount of the donation involved shall be
treated as the amount of the contribution involved.''.
(c) Donation Defined.--Section 301 of such Act (2 U.S.C.
431), as amended by sections 201(b) and 307(b), is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(22) Donation.--The term `donation' means a gift,
subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything
else of value made by any person to a national committee of a
political party or a Senatorial or Congressional Campaign
Committee of a national political party for any purpose, but
does not include a contribution (as defined in paragraph
(8)).''.
(d) Disgorgement Authority.--Section 309 of such Act (2
U.S.C. 437g) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(e) Any conciliation agreement, civil action, or criminal
action entered into or instituted under this section may
require a person to forfeit to the Treasury any contribution,
donation, or expenditure that is the subject of the agreement
or action for transfer to the Commission for deposit in
accordance with section 326.''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections
(a), (b), and (c) shall apply to contributions or donations
refunded on or after the date of the enactment of this Act,
without regard to whether the Federal Election Commission or
Attorney General has issued regulations to carry out section
326 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (as added by
subsection (a)) by such date.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Friday, July 17, 1998, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and
a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I have discussed this amendment with the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and with some representatives of
the collaborators on the Democrat side in this venture. This is an
amendment that simply states that when a political party, for instance,
discovers all of a sudden that it has in its hands let us say $100,000
which it knows has an illegal source, my amendment would compel that
organization to turn that money over to the FEC for a transitional
position in which the FEC would determine the source, the nature of the
illegality, and to see whether or not the IRS or the Attorney General
or some law enforcement agency should be brought into the picture
before that money is returned to the donor, as is the practice now.
This would go a long way in bolstering our confidence that some illegal
foreign source or some drug dealer who contributes grand sums of monies
to a political party does not get the benefit twice, first of getting
favor from a political party to which he makes a donation, and then
when it is declared illegal, he gets the money back; he sort of
launders his own money, as it were.
What we would accomplish with my amendment would be to have a
scrutiny placed upon that money before, and it may still be returned,
before it be returned to the donor when it is found to be illegal. That
is the simple text of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the 5
minutes, since I do support the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We are concluding debate on all of the amendments that have come
before us, and I think it is almost symbolic to have an amendment
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), and I
appreciate him waiting so late to offer it, an amendment that I think
we can support.
It makes logical sense that if money that was donated was not donated
[[Page H6850]]
properly and may not be that individual's money, it should not be
returned to that individual, it should be rushed to the FEC to
determine whose money it is and if it properly should be returned, and
so I compliment the gentleman on his amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan.)
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that would require the
FEC to expend its resources on investigating potentially a minor
violation at the expense of focusing some of its time on other
resources.
I would just point out that I support the amendment, but I am a
little concerned about the resources of the FEC, and I would hope that
as we look down the road when we give the FEC more responsibility that
requires them, for example, in this case to keep track of these
contributions, I hope that in the future we look to try to give the FEC
not only the teeth it needs, but the resources that they need in order
to do their job and keep the laws that are on the books and enforce the
laws that will be on the books.
{time} 0020
So, I certainly support the gentleman's amendment and would like all
of us to keep in mind the importance of fully funding the FEC in the
future so that they can do not only their job on this amendment, but
their job in other amendments and enforcing the laws that are on the
books.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I do not care to offer any more debate, but
we do need to do an amendment process to conform the text to the
sections that are outlined in Shays-Meehan.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Modification to Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Gekas to the Amendment
in the Nature of a Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to modify my
amendment pursuant to form A, which is at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The Clerk will report the
modification to the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment No. 53 offered by Mr. Gekas to
the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by
Mr. Shays:
Strike the phrase ``section 315, 316, 317, 319, or 320''
and insert in lieu thereof the phrase ``section 315, 316,
317, 319, 320, or 325'' in the one place where the former
phrase appears in my amendment.
Mr. GEKAS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I yield to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) to explain his
modification.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do here is to offer an
alteration to the amendment so it will conform to the Shays-Meehan
substitute new ban on contributions by minors which is already in the
text. And we are trying to fit it in so that it will make sense.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
gentleman's explanation. I was yielding to give him a chance to explain
if he wanted.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is modified.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) are willing to
accept the amendment. If that is the case, I will not ask for a
recorded vote. I accept their acceptance, and they may accept the
acceptance that I accept the acceptance.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, there is a
lot of acceptance here. And we will accept the gentleman's support on
the final version of Shays-Meehan when we vote on it Monday night. We
will accept the gentleman's support.
Modification to Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Gekas to the Amendment
in the Nature of a Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be
modified pursuant to form B, which is at the desk, which is another
conforming amendment to the Shays-Meehan language.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report second modification
to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Gekas).
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment No. 53 offered by Mr. Gekas to
the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by
Mr. Shays:
Strike the phrase ``reason to believe'' and replace it with
the phrase ``reason to investigate whether'' in the one place
where the former phrase appears in the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas)?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I yield to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) if he wishes to explain any
further.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Campbell) for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do is to substitute the language
that would give the Federal Elections Commission authority to
investigate. To actually say ``reason to investigate'' whether or not
something has happened, rather than what is now in the text, ``reason
to believe.''
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
for his explanation, and I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is modified.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, with that we appear to accept everything,
and I yield back the balance of my time
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment, as
modified, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
The amendment, as modified, to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider the
amendment No. 54 offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).
It is now in order to consider the amendment No. 55 offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Section 501 of the
Shays substitute amendment to H.R. 2183, the Bipartisan Campaign
Integrity Act. Section 501, entitle ``Codification of Beck Decision,''
does nothing to correct the current injustices in our federal labor law
relating to the unions' use of their members hard-earned paychecks for
political and other purposes.
The Shays amendment is not a codification of the Supreme Court's 1988
Beck decision relating to the use of union dues. First, Section 501
provides absolutely no notice of rights to members of the union--it
applies only to non-members. Second, Section 501 redefines the dues
payments that may be objected to, by limiting such to ``expenditures in
connection with a Federal, State, or local election or in connection
with efforts to influence legislation unrelated to collective
bargaining.'' This definition not only infers that there may be other
types of political expenditures to which workers cannot object--but it
also ignores Beck's holding that workers may object to any dues
payments for any union activities not directly related to collective
bargaining activities.
Mr. Chairman, if Congress is truly going to try to deal with the
issue of organized labor taking dues money from rank-and-file members
laboring under a union security agreement--taking it without their
permission and spending it on causes and activities with which the
workers disagree--then let us really deal with it. Mr. Shays' amendment
is a fig leaf which falls woefully short of covering the problem.
The Shays amendment codifies a broken system that allows unions to
raid workers' wallets, forces workers to resign from the union,
[[Page H6851]]
requires workers to object--after the fact--to their money being
removed from their paycheck, and then requires workers to wait for the
union to rebate those funds, if they get around to doing so.
As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations, I
have held six hearings on this issue in the past four years. In each
one, the Subcommittee has heard from worker after worker telling us
about the one thing they wanted from their union--the basic respect of
being asked for permission before the union spent their money for
purposes unrelated to labor-management obligations. Yes, most of these
employees were upset over finding out their head-earned dollars were
being funneled into political causes or candidates they did not
support. However, these employees supported their union and still
overwhelmingly believe in the value of organized labor. A number of
them were stewards in their union. All they want is to be able to give
their consent before their union spends their money on activities which
fall outside collective bargaining activities and which subvert their
deeply held ideas and convictions.
As our six hearings demonstrated, individuals attempting to exercise
their rights under current law often face incredible burdens, including
harassment, coercion, and intimidation. The current system is badly
broken and it is Congress' responsibility to fix it--not to legitimize
it by adopoting the Shays amendment. I urge Members to join me in
opposing Section 501's sugar-coated placebo and enact meaningful reform
on behalf of union workers.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment by Representative Roger Wicker. Much like the standard
bearers to long dead civilizations, Representative Wicker's amendment
illustrates the same antiquated belief that there should be hurdles
that citizens must clear in order to exercise their Constitutionally
guaranteed right to vote. Land owners. Male. Caucasian. One by one the
spirits of freedom and democracy have worked against other misguided
attempts to disenfranchise certain American voters, and it is my hope
that they will prevail here today.
There is an old saying that states, ``Those who cannot remember the
past are condemned to repeat it.''
Well, Mr. Speaker I remember.
I remember the days when African Americans in Mississippi sat
cowering in their homes on election day because they were too afraid to
go to the polls.
I remember when men like Medgar Evers and Vernon Dahmer were murdered
in cold blood because they realized the importance of voting and tried
to impress their convictions onto other African Americans in
Mississippi.
I remember the two youths wounded by shotgun blasts fired through the
window of a home in Ruleville, Mississippi where they were planning
ways to register blacks to vote.
I remember the dead bodies of three civil rights workers, who had
been trying to register blacks to vote, being discovered on a farm near
Philadelphia, Mississippi.
I remember James Meredith being wounded by a white sniper as he
walked in a voter registration march from Memphis to Jackson.
I remember poll taxes and literacy tests.
Mr. Speaker I remember voter intimidation and have fought long and
hard against it. This debate belongs in 1960's not in 1998, and it is
time to bury ideas like Representative Wicker's in the same grave with
separate drinking fountains and making blacks sit at the back of the
bus. This legislation is simply another attempt to appeal to mainstream
sensibilities while ignoring the realistic and historically based fears
of Black Americans.
Having both grown up in Mississippi, Representative Wicker and I
obviously have had universally different experiences, but the things I
remember make it impossible for me to support this amendment. It would
be a slap in the face of the civil rights pioneers who risked their
lives, were beaten and murdered in cold blood to protect both my right
to vote and Representative Wicker's.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, may I be clear that all amendment have been
dealt with under Shays-Meehan?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. That is the Chair's understanding.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Gekas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Snowbarger, 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.
____________________