[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.

                          ____________________