[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 110 (Thursday, August 6, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7298-H7330]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN INTEGRITY ACT OF 1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). 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}  1009


                     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. Ewing (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 
on Monday, August 3, 1998, amendment No. 13 by the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) had been disposed of.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, August 5, 1998, no 
further amendment is in order except the following amendments:
  Amendment No. 15 by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), 
debatable before offered for 40 minutes; amendment No. 7 by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) debatable before offered for 40 
minutes; amendment No. 5 by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Doolittle) debatable before offered for 40 minutes; amendment No. 4 by 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) debatable before offered for 40 
minutes; and amendment No. 8 by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) debatable before offered for 60 minutes.
  Each amendment may be offered only in the order stated and shall not 
be subject to amendment. The additional period of general debate 
prescribed under House Resolution 442 shall not exceed the time stated 
for each amendment pursuant to the order of the House and each 
amendment shall not otherwise be debatable.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of the legislative day of 
Wednesday, August 5, 1998, it is now in order to debate

[[Page H7299]]

the subject matter of the amendment printed in the Congressional Record 
as No. 15.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 442 and that order, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and a Member opposed will each control 20 
minutes.
  The chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I voted for the Shays-Meehan bill. I view that passage 
as one step in the right direction, an important step but a step toward 
where we need to end up. I voted for the Shays-Meehan bill because it 
will eliminate soft money and the influence of soft money but it still, 
even after passage, preserves an element of the status quo and the 
current way that we do business.
  The Tierney substitute amendment proposes an alternative to the 
private money changes. It is called the clean money option. It is an 
approach that has already been passed into law in the State of Vermont 
by its legislature there and by the main ballot referendum.
  Under a clean money system, a candidate who agrees to forego private 
contributions including his or her own and accept spending limits 
receives a limited allocation to run their campaign from publicly 
financed clean elections funds. It is not a blank check. Participating 
candidates must meet all local ballot qualification requirements and 
gather a significant number of $5 contributions from the voters they 
seek to represent.
  Clean money campaign reform is both simple to understand and sweeping 
in scope. It is a voluntary system that meets the test of 
constitutionality under the Supreme Court's ruling in Buckley versus 
Valeo. It effectively provides a fair playing field for all candidates 
who are able to demonstrate a substantial base of popular support. It 
strengthens American democracy by returning political power to the 
ballot box.
  Few of the other approaches currently under debate come close to the 
comprehensive solution because they all preserve a central role for 
private money. What sets the clean money campaign reform apart is that 
it attacks the root cause of the crisis that is perceived in our 
system, namely a system founded on private money that comes from a 
small fraction of the electorate and is dominated by wealthy special 
interests.
  As elected public officials, we should be seen only to owe our 
allegiance to the people who sent us here, not the largest campaign 
contributors. It comes down to this, Mr. Chairman: Who should be 
perceived to own the office that we serve, the public- or the private-
money interests?
  The public gets it. They know what needs to be done. Various clean-
money campaign reform bill ballot initiatives and grassroots movements 
are now in motion in more than 3 dozen communities. If we cannot act 
here in Washington to change the system, the voters will increasingly 
do it for us, Mr. Chairman. So we should all get ready because it is 
happening in our respective states.
  This proposal is sweeping in its breadth and it deserves full 
deliberation and full debate. It could benefit from the input of the 
Members of this Congress on both sides of the aisle. It is unfortunate, 
Mr. Chairman, that we did not get a chance to go through full committee 
hearings to have the full input of this body so that we could make sure 
that we have the complete support. And we all saw how much work was 
done and the belaboring that had to be completed just to get the Shays-
Meehan aspect through this Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, Shays-Meehan is a part of this bill, but we need to do 
more. The commission in Shays-Meehan, hopefully, will allow us to 
address this, to observe the work that is done in the communities, and 
move forward.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) 
opposed to the amendment?
  Mr. NEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) is 
recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I voted for the Shays-Meehan 
bill. I did so because it goes a long way towards moving us in the 
direction of cleaning up our campaigns. But it really did not go far 
enough, and the level of confidence is so low that we need to go for 
the jugular. Tierney goes much further. In order to clean up, we need 
to seriously take some of the money out of politics, provide some 
public financing for all Federal campaigns, set a limit on Federal 
candidates' use of personal funds, provide voters with enough 
unfiltered information so that they can make rational decisions that 
are informed, shorten the election cycle, create a truly independent 
regulatory agency to monitor campaigns and elections, require paid 
lobbyists to publicly report who and when they lobby, create a 
universal voter registration system, and require full disclosure of all 
independent expenditures. As I indicated, I voted for Shays-Meehan but 
I think we need to go for the jugular and really clean up our 
elections. I support the Tierney substitute. It goes much further.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly agree that campaign finance 
reform must be passed by this House and this Congress and I remain 
committed to working with my colleagues to ensure swift passage of the 
Shays-Meehan bill. The present campaign finance system is a blot on our 
democracy. In fact, if it is not tamed, if we do not fix this broken 
system, future historians may write that American democracy had a good 
200-year run but then like Roman democracy it evolved into an 
oligarchy. We must fix this.
  The public already believes, partly correctly, that this House does 
the bidding mainly of the special interests and the big money people 
and that the little people, the ordinary people, cannot really affect 
what we do. There is more than an element of truth to that. The Shays-
Meehan bill is a great and essential step, but it is limited. It deals 
with the soft money plague, it deals with the sham issue ads that 
advocate for a candidate or against a candidate, but if we pass the 
Shays-Meehan bill, as I believe it is essential that we do, it will 
reform us all the way back to 1992 when I first came here and we were 
talking about the great need for campaign finance reform.
  Mr. Chairman, this substitute cleans up the system. It says for those 
who opt into it, we are not giving an advantage to candidates of great 
personal wealth or who sell themselves out to the special interests or 
to incumbents. We are going to level the playing field. Everyone will 
get a free frank and cheap TV ads and public financing; almost 
complete, limited amount but almost complete public financing for the 
campaign. That is the only way to change our system from what it is 
becoming, a system of one dollar, one vote, back to what it was 
supposed to be, a system of one person, one vote. We have to give 
challengers a real chance at incumbents. We have to make sure that we 
do not lock in incumbents, millionaires or celebrities. We have to 
restore democracy to this great country and preserve our democracy. I 
submit that ultimately we will have to do this. This is the best way to 
do it. I urge support for the clean money substitute which will also be 
on the ballot in New York this year. I assume that we will become the 
next city and State to advance this cause.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly commend the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) as a freshman member of this House for the 
wonderful work he has done in advancing the cause of cleaning up the 
campaign finance system. I want to call particular attention to his 
provisions that provide free television time for candidates. This is a 
cause that I have long championed. The gentleman from Massachusetts' 
provisions and my own bill start from a fundamental and well-
established premise that the Nation's airwaves belong to the American 
people. The measure would require broadcast stations as a condition of 
licensing to provide free television time in modest amounts for 
political candidates.

[[Page H7300]]

 The reasoning behind the free television time is simple. In the past 
election season, spending levels for Federal elections shattered all 
previous records, and broadcast advertising is the single most 
expensive factor in Federal elections. House candidates spend more than 
a quarter of their total campaign funds on broadcast advertising. The 
figure last year was closer to two-thirds.
  In 1972, political candidates spent $25 million on television 
commercials. In 1996, they spent $400 million, an astonishing increase. 
These dramatic increases in the price of advertising time are the major 
cause of the spiraling cost of running for office in our country and 
the ensuing money chase. Given the vast sums of money required to run 
for office, wealthy individuals have a significant advantage over the 
ordinary citizen candidate. That is hardly representative government. 
The cost of running for political office in America has simply become 
too high.
  The time for this legislation has come, Mr. Chairman. Last year 
broadcasters received a windfall in the form of a whole new spectrum of 
digital TV channels. In light of this gift and the huge new revenue 
sources it will open up, these stations can certainly afford to give a 
little back in the name of the public interest and in the public good. 
All we are really asking them to do is very little.
  I urge my colleagues' support for this measure.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, to my mind the real strength of this 
democracy lies in the fact that every citizen, regardless of their 
circumstances, has the opportunity to participate fully in the 
electoral process, including the opportunity to run for office. And 
that includes, of course, the Congress of the United States. 
Unfortunately that principle works more in theory than it does in 
practice under the present set of circumstances. That is why campaign 
finance reform is so critically important and that is why this 
particular approach to reforming the way we finance our campaigns, that 
which is offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, is so much to the 
point. Because it provides that opportunity for every citizen in a real 
sense. Under the provisions of this legislation, should it become law, 
people could run for the Congress regardless of how well or poorly 
connected they might be. Under the provisions of this bill, people do 
not have to have personal fortunes or be able to raise huge amounts of 
money in order to finance political campaigns. This legislation 
provides the financial wherewithal for even those of the most modest 
means who are capable and interested in participating in the public 
process to do so and to run for public office and to make a real, 
substantial contribution. It realizes fully and completely, more so 
perhaps than at any other time in our history the full potential of the 
democratic process, by making every citizen eligible. It frees 
candidates and elected officials alike of the drudgery and the 
demeaning process of having to raise enormous amounts of money in order 
to finance campaigns. This is real campaign finance reform. It is what 
we need to open up this process. Among other things, it requires that 
the public means of discourse in our country, principally radio and 
television, are made available to all candidates equitably and openly. 
I support this bill. I hope others will, too. It is real campaign 
finance reform. It will do the job in a meaningful and complete and 
comprehensive way.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller).
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Tierney amendment for clean campaigns. I want to commend the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) who is here on the floor this morning and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for all of their efforts 
to pass the Shays-Meehan bill. It is a historic step in campaign 
finance reform, it is a historic step for this House to pass it and 
hopefully in September the Senate will find the courage to do the same 
and the President will sign that bill. But even after the signing of 
that bill and that historic reform, we are still left with the system 
that requires the addiction of politicians to special interest money. 
We are still left with the system where Members of the House of 
Representatives and Members of the Senate are required every day to go 
to the Republican headquarters or to the Democratic headquarters and 
get on the phone and call people they do not know who represent special 
interests and ask them for $1,000 or $5,000 to fund their campaigns, 
then come back here when the bell sounds for a vote and vote for or 
against those very same parties. Nobody in America believes that that 
is a pure system. Nobody in America believes that that is a system 
without conflicts of interest. And nobody in America believes that that 
is a system that is not corroding and not corrupting the democratic 
principles of the House of Representatives and of the United States 
Senate of this country. That is why we have got to take the next step. 
We have got to take the next step toward clean money and clean 
campaigns. That is what the Tierney legislation does. That is what the 
people of Vermont and the people of Maine have said they want. They 
want to break this link between special interest contributions and the 
phone calls that their members in the State legislatures had to make 
and all of the visits and all of the parties to raise this special 
interest money. They said, ``We had rather put up our own money and 
make sure you're working for us as opposed to the special interests.'' 
That is what the Tierney legislation does. I want to commend the 
gentleman from Massachusetts for his effort on this legislation.
  People will tell you that you can never have public financing of 
campaigns, that the public will never go for it. What makes them think 
the public is going for the system we have today? Every campaign cycle, 
we raise more and more money from the special interests and every 
campaign cycle we spend more and more money on the elections, and every 
campaign cycle fewer and fewer Americans show up to vote, because they 
do not believe it is on the level. They do not believe that challengers 
have a chance. They do not believe that the incumbents are listening to 
them. They do not believe when people are elected to office that they 
represent them. They believe that they represent the $1,000 
contributor, the $5,000 contributor, the $100,000 contributor. They are 
not too far wrong. That is why we need the clean campaign, clean money 
bill. That is why we need to break this addiction to special interest 
money and that is why we need the Tierney bill. I want to commend the 
gentleman for having the courage to offer this legislation.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank my colleague from 
Massachusetts, another outstanding member of the freshman class 
dedicated to reform, for offering this alternative. In a perfect world, 
the Congress would pass a measure like the Tierney substitute. The 
Tierney proposal would provide full public subsidies as well as free 
broadcast time to Federal candidates. If you really look at our 
election system to the extent that we are able to reduce the amount of 
private money and remove private money from elections and instead have 
public funding, that is the cleanest way to have an election.
  The other thing that is critical with this proposal is the fact that 
it looks at broadcast time. If we look around the country, it is 
obvious to see that the reason congressional campaigns and Senate 
campaigns and presidential campaigns are increasing, the costs are 
increasing dramatically, it is because of television time. One of the 
things that my partner from Connecticut in working on our legislation, 
the Shays-Meehan bill, one of the things that we worked on with trying 
to get in our comprehensive bill was a way to get incentives for people 
to agree to spending caps and provide incentives by cutting the cost of 
television. So I think my colleague from Massachusetts gets directly at 
the heart of what is corrupting campaigns in America.
  I think in a more perfect Congress, all campaign finance proposals 
would include a public financing element, because only when we take 
this private

[[Page H7301]]

money out of the system will the ties between money and legislating be 
conclusively severed.
  My colleague's substitute is also important because I think it 
highlights the importance of the commission made in order by the Shays-
Meehan bill. There are a lot of great ideas in this House of 
Representatives for changes we ought to make in our campaign finance 
system. Added by an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell ), two 
other heroes of reform in this Congress, the commission provision of 
the Shays-Meehan bill will give the Congress an opportunity to consider 
other important reform proposals like the Tierney proposal for public 
financing, for free air time and for all of the proposals that we think 
may help to lessen the influence of special interests in congressional 
elections across this country.
  I know that my friend from Massachusetts has worked diligently within 
the freshman class on campaign finance reform. I want to say, there are 
so many freshman Members of this House, so many who have been so 
dedicated to campaign finance reform, I want to make it clear, we would 
not be where we are today, on the verge of passing historic campaign 
finance reform, if it were not for the efforts of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts and the other freshman Members from throughout this 
country who have stood with us, stood with us on reform, worked with us 
on proposals, supported the Shays-Meehan legislation and made it a 
priority.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his commitment on this issue.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to just associate myself with all the remarks of 
the colleagues who spoke previously on this issue. I want to say that 
this is what the clean-money, clean-election bill essentially does. It 
eliminates the perceived and the real conflicts of interest caused by 
the direct financing of campaigns with private interests. It limits 
campaign spending. It allows qualified individuals to run for office 
regardless of their own personal economic status or their access to 
large contributors. It frees candidates and elected officials from the 
burden of continuous fund-raising. And it shortens the effective length 
of the campaigns and deceases the cost of campaigns by forcing the 
broadcasters to step forward with their responsibility in return for 
the large amounts of spectrum they receive for very little contribution 
on their side. It rids of the system of the disfavored soft money. It 
is voluntary, giving incentives for people to get involved with the 
system and making sure that people find out the better alternative. It 
leaves no one unilaterally disarmed. It simply puts a fair playing out 
there, and the public gets back its elective process. The best 
organized candidates with the best messages win, and so do the voters.
  That said, Mr. Chairman, I understand, as the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) said, this is not a perfect world. In a 
perfect world this bill would come before this body, would be 
deliberated fully, would get the imprint of all the Members, would be 
perfected and would be passed, and it would become the law of this 
land. But right now we all saw the effort it took to get Shays-Meehan 
forward, and we will not in any way be seen as stepping in the path of 
that. We are going to make sure that Shays-Meehan goes through this 
House, that it gets brought over to the other body, that hopefully 
public opinion, individuals, as well as editorial boards, will hold 
them to the process of this year passing at least the Shays-Meehan ban 
on soft money and further disclosure for fair elections. That part will 
go, and then hopefully the commission under the Shays-Meehan bill will 
make sure that we get a chance to go where the public already is on 
this.
  Let me close, Mr. Chairman, if I would, with the words of the late 
senator from Arizona, Barry Goldwater. He said:

       The fact that liberty depended on honest elections was of 
     the utmost importance of the patriots who founded our Nation 
     and wrote the Constitution. They knew that corruption 
     destroyed the prime requisite of constitutional liberty, an 
     independent legislator free from any influence other than 
     that of the people. Applying these principles to modern times 
     we can make the following conclusions. To be successful 
     representative government assumes that the elections will be 
     controlled by the citizenry at large, not by those who give 
     the most money. Electors must believe their vote counts. 
     Elected officials must owe their allegiance to the people, 
     not to their own wealth or to the wealth of interest groups 
     who speak only for the selfish fringes of the whole 
     community.

  Mr. Chairman, we should all stand behind those words, we should all 
move Shays-Meehan forward, we should then have the commission look at 
other alternatives like this Canady substitute amendment. This body, 
which has such genius within it, should look those terms over, add its 
comments to it and improve this bill and perfect it so that we have a 
vehicle that reflects what the people in this country want, which is 
clean elections with clean money and not beholden to special interests.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the colleague from Ohio, and I thank all of my 
colleagues for speaking on this, and with the Chair's indulgence I look 
forward to passing Shays-Meehan through this House, through the Senate 
and having it become law, and in future years, Mr. Chairman, I look 
forward to us getting to where the public already is, clean money, 
clean elections.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Does the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) intend not to offer his amendment?
  Mr. TIERNEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman, for the reasons stated we will not be 
seen as interfering with the process of Shays-Meehan.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Amendment No. 15 not being offered, as 
announced by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), pursuant 
to the order of the House of the legislative day of Wednesday, August 
5, 1998, it is now in order to debate the subject matter of the 
amendment printed in the Congressional Record as No. 7.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 442 and that order, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr) and a Member opposed each will control 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise on my bill, which is the substitute bill. It is 
called the Farr bill, or better known around here as H.R. 600. This 
bill was introduced on February 5, 1997, a year and a half ago. It has 
106 cosponsors, all of them Democrats. It is a shame that we could not 
get bipartisan support on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a comprehensive campaign reform. Unlike the 
Shays-Meehan bill, it is a bill that still to this day in the stage it 
is on the floor is comprehensive. It is based on four principles of 
campaign reform, the principles of fairness; that is, the bill should 
not favor one party over another; the principle to reduce the influence 
of special interests. We have the bill that reforms PAC contributions, 
large donor contributions, bundling and soft money. Third, the 
principle of level playing field; that is, make campaigns competitive 
by enacting spending limits. And fourth, to assess to make the system 
accessible to nontraditional candidates, make it possible for 
minorities and for women to run for this House of Representatives. This 
House ought to reflect the composition of the people it governs in the 
United States, and, therefore, we need more people of color and more 
women in office.
  Mr. Chairman, how are we going do that under the tradition that we 
have established in America that just says, ``You can spend as much 
money as you can raise,'' and we go on, and on, and on.
  What this bill does is it sets spending limits, it sets new PAC 
limits, it sets new individual contributions limits, it eliminates 
bundling. We made an exception to those organization who do not come up 
here and lobby, that do not make efforts to campaign on the Hill to 
have connection between the money and their issue on the Hill. So, 
organizations like Emily's List or Wish List are still available under 
our bill. It eliminates soft money, but it does one thing different 
than the Shays-Meehan bill does: it still allows for States to do voter 
registration, voter build up, essentially allowing at the State level 
people to be encouraged to get into the public process of electing

[[Page H7302]]

their Members of Congress. It broadens the definition of express 
advocacy so that those third party, undisclosed, sort of hit pieces as 
we have come to know them, will no longer be allowed to be done without 
telling the people whose doing it, and it establishes a lower cost rate 
for those candidates that voluntarily pledge to limit their spending so 
that they will get cheaper rates at television and radio.
  That is essentially what the bill does.
  Now the history of those who have watched this debate, who have 
listened to debate and have written about campaign reform, they know 
that this has all been historically proposed by the Democrats. I hate 
to stand here in a partisan way in this Chamber, but we have to because 
the history of the effort is that the Republican party has opposed all 
efforts to do campaign reform. This bill is a good example. The bill 
came out of the bill that President Bush vetoed in 1992. If my 
colleagues look over the history, they will see that there is constant 
defeat of efforts of campaign reform spelled out in the congressional 
history.
  Mr. Chairman, in this decade alone a bill similar to the one that is 
on the floor right now passed this House in 1990. Another one passed 
when it came back from the Senate in 1991, and Bush vetoed it in 1992. 
In 1993 the Democrats passed out a comprehensive campaign reform bill, 
filibustered in the Senate in 1994. Then guess what happened? The 
Republicans took over this House, and we have seen not one, nada, 
nothing in campaign finance reform.
  Thank God for the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), two colleagues here who have 
put together an effort similar to mine, started at that same place, 
started at the same time. They negotiated like mad, and had they not 
had the courage and particularly the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) to stand up against his leadership and tell him that time was 
now to bring the bill to the floor we would not have had the debate nor 
the successful vote even though their bill is much watered down, much 
different than when it started out, much compromise, and, as the 
newspapers have said, the effort is not over yet.
  So this challenge, this bill, this moment, is whether we in Congress 
can stand up and really do comprehensive campaign reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Fazio).
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), for yielding me this time, 
and I rise to commend the hard work and dedication of my good friend.
  I have spent more than half of my 20 years in Congress trying to 
convince my colleagues of the need for comprehensive campaign finance 
reform. Throughout the years Republican opposition has prevented the 
enactment of meaningful campaign finance reform.
  For example, in 1987 our Senate colleagues showed an early 
willingness to pass campaign reform. However, it failed as a result of 
GOP opposition. In 1990 the House and Senate voted for campaign 
spending limits, but the Senate Republican leadership stalled on 
appointing conferees and, as a result, the differences were unsettled 
and the bill died. In 1991 the House and Senate passed a campaign 
finance reform bill, but President Bush vetoed that conference report 
in 1992. In 1993 both the House and the Senate again passed campaign 
reform bills, but in 1994 the Republicans blocked the appointment of 
conferees in the Senate. As a result another reform bill died. In 1996 
Republicans offered a sham campaign finance reform bill that was 
defeated when more than a hundred members of their own party joined all 
Democrats in opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, over the last decade Democrats have been leading the 
fight to fundamentally reform our campaign finance system. In 1996 my 
colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) offered a spending 
limit bill which would have fundamentally reformed the campaign system 
in this country. The Farr bill would level the playing field for 
candidates who agree to voluntarily limit their campaign spending. It 
would limit the influence of wealthy donors on our campaigns and 
encourages small local contributors. Like the Shays-Meehan bill, the 
Farr bill addresses the huge unreported spending of soft money and 
independent expenditures in a comprehensive manner.
  The Republican leadership of this House has done everything possible 
to prevent real campaign reform from coming to this floor. At best, if 
we stay together now, we will enact these two important reforms through 
the Shays-Meehan bill, but we will not have taken the need for 
comprehensive reform off the table. It remains a responsibility for 
future congresses.
  Mr. Chairman, this is my last term in Congress. During my tenure I 
have worked hard to achieve comprehensive campaign reform that would 
restore the trust and encourage greater public participation by the 
American people. I hope the Members of the 106th Congress will make 
this a priority and summon up the courage to pass a complete 
comprehensive reform bill like the Farr bill that has been blocked 
repeatedly by Republican leadership in this House and in the Senate.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) is recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield myself such time as I might consume, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to compliment the sincerity of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) in his work on campaign finance 
reform, and even though we might have some disagreements on the 
approach, certainly he has been a very active participant in this 
process, and I certainly extend my compliments to him for the work that 
he has done.
  And, as we worked on the Freshman Task Force, which I cochaired with 
the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) my Democrat colleague, we heard a 
lot of different ideas, and if I recall correctly, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr) came and gave testimony before the hearing of our 
task force which was very helpful. But we made a decision as we went 
through this that we wanted to seek campaign finance reform enacted 
into law, and so we evaluated many different ideas, one of them that 
was addressed by Mr. Farr that had some interesting ideas, but there 
was not any practical way it was going to go through this body or 
through the Senate, and it perhaps raises some constitutional 
questions.

                              {time}  1045

  So, for that reason, those ideas were not adopted by the freshman 
task force, and we came up with a broad-based bipartisan bill that will 
be offered later on the floor today that I believe has a real chance of 
passing the Senate, but also being signed into law and being upheld by 
the United States Supreme Court. I guess that is my greatest objection 
to the legislation being proposed by the gentleman from California. I 
believe that it has some constitutional problems.
  One of the things that is mentioned in his proposal is there is a 35 
percent tax on contributions of candidates who do not participate in 
the voluntary spending limits. I believe that that has some serious 
constitutional implications because, for the first time in our history, 
we would be imposing a revenue-generating source for the government on 
free speech. All of a sudden, the tax money is going to be coming in 
from candidates, and it would certainly increase the bureaucracy and 
power of the Federal Elections Commission. So that is an area that I 
think has some severe constitutional problems.
  Also, by the public benefits that flow in that direction with the 
reduced postal rates, the benefits that go of public money, public 
subsidized money to candidates, I think raises some questions and 
obviously some bureaucratic problems. It gives a preference clearly to 
mailing over television, which is interesting, because it requires 
reduced rates by television, and also increases the postal 
opportunities.
  But one thing I did want to compliment the gentleman on, and I wanted 
to yield to the gentleman for an answer to a question, if he might, I 
just wanted to be able to pose a question to the gentleman, and also to 
compliment the gentleman.
  I noticed that in the gentleman's proposal and in his speech he made 
reference to the fact that he bans soft

[[Page H7303]]

money to the Federal political parties. I think that that is the right 
approach. But then you made the point that you did not, if I understand 
correctly, ban soft money by the state parties. That way they could 
utilize that money for get-out-the-vote efforts. Am I understanding the 
bill correctly?
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, that is one thing the gentleman 
is correct on. But the gentleman is absolutely wrong on the fact there 
is any public money on this and it is unconstitutional, because it is 
totally voluntary on the part of the candidate.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
answer, but if I could focus on the similarity of the gentleman's bill 
with the freshmen's bill, you made a decision in your bill that you 
should ban soft money to the Federal political parties, but not ban it 
to the state parties. I think that is exactly the right approach, and 
if you could take that out of there and build a proposal around there, 
I think that is very helpful.
  That is quite in contrast to the Shays-Meehan approach that, in my 
judgment, would federalize the state election process by saying that 
the states could not utilize money that is lawful in that state for 
get-out-the-vote efforts for their legislative candidates or for their 
gubernatorial candidates. So I compliment the gentleman for recognizing 
that distinction and recognizing the role of the states. I think the 
gentleman has done a very, very effective job on that particular point.
  I mentioned the fact, and, again, this is a very well-intentioned 
proposal and I apologize if I misstated it in any fashion, and it is 
going to have a good vote today I would anticipate, but I think we have 
to look at what we are trying to accomplish, which is signing reform 
into law. We have to look at what the Senate is going to do and whether 
they are going to enact anything during this session.
  I noticed in one of the Washington publications there was an 
interview with some of the Senators over there as to what they are 
going to accept. They pointed out that on the Shays-Meehan proposal, 
which is really I think is more moderate perhaps than the proposal by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), but they said ``been there, 
done that; dead on arrival.''
  I think the reform people have got to be concerned about what is new 
over there, and they could possibly have an opportunity of generating 
more support and more votes. So I think we need to take that approach, 
and that is why I think the freshman bill, in contrast to some of the 
other proposals, really elevates the potential for enacting campaign 
finance reform legislation this year.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the kind remarks 
by the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Gejdenson), a person who led this effort before I ever got elected 
here. I am sort of the ``Son of Sam'' on this issue to Sam Gejdenson 
from Connecticut, who has been a great leader and historian on campaign 
finance reform.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr) for his continued efforts.
  Frankly, I come to the floor somewhat frustrated today. Instead of 
being involved in a process whose intent is to come out with the kind 
of positive legislation that the American people seek, to lessen the 
importance of money and the time spent raising money, we are in a game. 
This is worse than the Iron Man or the Iditarod.
  The Republican leadership of the Congress has us in an endless race, 
with ambushes at every step of the way. We cannot have an honest 
discussion about the proposal of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Farr) because we have a process that has been so rigged and so 
extended, there is really only one shot to move forward. So we come 
here today not so much in debate, but in trying to bring one of the 
most tortured processes that I have seen in the Congress to its 
conclusion.
  The American people are not going to be thrilled with what happens 
here. We will hopefully get out a bill that makes some major reforms. 
It will then clearly be killed by the Republican leadership in the 
Senate. It has taken us long enough to get here, and it is going to be 
awfully hard to break that hold. That has been the record of not just 
the leadership of this Republican Congress, but of the Republican 
Congress over the last 30 years, first the overriding efforts of 
Richard Nixon's veto to establish a commission simply to record and 
keep track of contributions. The major campaign finance reform in the 
mid-seventies, gutted by the Supreme Court in Buckley versus Valeo, 
moved us a step forward.
  The American people are speaking with their feet. The old right wing 
in America, when talking about communism and its failure, rightly noted 
that communist citizens were not allowed to vote in their countries, so 
they voted with their feet. They fled the process.
  As we have seen an increase of funding, we have found that voter 
participation has gone down and down. The more we talk about large 
contributions, big money and television advertising, the average 
citizen feels less important to this process.
  This is not simply a matter for partisan advantage. We are driving a 
dagger in the heart of this democratic system. A system like ours, 
where there is opportunity and freedom, and less than half the public 
chooses to exercise the most minimal participation in its democratic 
institutions, is a democracy in danger. It affects policy, it affects 
perception, and, in a democracy, perception soon becomes reality.
  Most Members of Congress spend all too much time raising money. The 
American public is confused by a Congress unable to deal with some of 
the most critical issues before it. Reform is necessary now, and from 
here I hope we go to a real debate to extend a more comprehensive 
reform like that of the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr). I commend 
him for his effort.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield three minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition, 
particularly to key parts of the Farr substitute as cited earlier by 
the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  I rise in opposition to the government mandates in the Farr 
substitute for the reduced air time on broadcast television, and I 
speak today as someone who has had more than 30 years of experience in 
the broadcast media before I began in elected office. So I come to this 
debate today with what I think is a unique perspective on the news 
gathering side of broadcast media, but also an appreciation for all of 
the TV ads that we see on TV every day.
  What the Farr substitute will do by mandating even further reduced TV 
ads will not reduce the amount of TV ads, but proliferate them. People 
are angry enough about the tone and the amount of negative advertising. 
This will only increase it.
  I have to be clear though that I strongly support changing the way 
that campaigns are paid for, and that is why I voted for the Shays-
Meehan bill earlier this week, and that is why I am also an original 
cosponsor of the bipartisan freshman campaign finance reform bill. We 
would not have gotten this far if it had not have been for the efforts 
of everyone who has spoken today. But we have to go after the important 
items, soft money and the anonymous faceless outside interest groups 
that now do not have to disclose who gives them their money. They 
increase voter access to information.
  One issue though in this Farr substitute before us has little to do 
with how campaigns in fact are paid for. Mandating TV stations to 
reduce already reduced campaign advertising rates, which already have 
to be paid at the lowest rate available, the only change we will see is 
the candidate will be able to purchase double the ads. Are the American 
people clamoring for more TV political advertising, more negative 
advertising? Voters want, I think, more credible information, and not 
more ads.
  There was a survey in July of 1977 that found that voters rated 
debates in forums sponsored by TV and radio as well as broadcast news 
coverage as the

[[Page H7304]]

two most helpful sources of political information. That is because, for 
the most part, people get their source of information from TV and then 
from radio. They rated ads by candidates as the least helpful.
  There are forums provided. Let me remind you, the broadcast medium 
has provided for $148 million in free air time given in election years 
through debates, forums, election specials, where free and open debate 
is held and people can make judgments.
  We need to encourage a positive environment in the broadcast media, 
not create a new burden on TV and radio. Eliminating soft money is 
going to close the loopholes that have created the flood of negative TV 
ads in recent years by national parties. That will give the American 
people the forum they want and require better identification from 
anonymous outside interest groups, giving voters more information on 
how to make their decision. That will give the American people the 
reform they are seeking. But having the government force only the 
broadcast media to slash their ad rates is wrong, and I oppose the Farr 
substitute.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield four minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), a cosponsor of the bill and 
one of the persons that has been working hard and diligently to bring 
us campaign finance reform.
  In the process of yielding, I would like to respond that the reduced 
limits in this bill and originally in the Shays-Meehan bill do not cost 
the taxpayers anything. They are under existing business rates, rates 
that are given to nonprofits. They still have to pay for it, but it is 
a reduced rate that is in the public interest. It says the candidates 
ought to be treated just like we treat nonprofit entities for mailing 
and for buying public service announcements. They have to pay for 
those, but they pay at the lowest rate. That is what this bill does.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) is 
recognized for four minutes.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, let me first of all say to my colleague 
from California (Mr. Farr), it seems like it was not that long ago when 
you and I came to this House, and one of the first things that we did 
was sat down and worked on campaign finance reform. And if one looks at 
over a period of the last few years, we have spent literally hours upon 
hours, days upon days, that have become weeks upon weeks, months upon 
months, trying to work out a bill that we would be able to get a 
majority for. I just want to compliment the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Farr) for his commitment on this issue, his unwavering commitment. 
I know that as we are on the verge, I hope today, of passing campaign 
finance reform with the Shays-Meehan bill, I want to make it clear we 
would not be here at this point in time if it were not for the 
commitment that the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) has had to 
campaign finance reform.
  The legislation that I cosponsored, I voted for, I believe my 
colleague from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has voted for this legislation 
on occasion, is an important comprehensive piece of legislation. Many 
of the provisions that are in the bill are provisions that were in the 
Meehan-Shays, Shays-Meehan comprehensive bill, when we talk about 
trying to find incentives, voluntary spending limits, to keep the cost 
of Congressional elections down. The way that this bill would do it 
would be to provide incentives through low cost television 
advertisement and provide low cost mailings.

                              {time}  1100

  The money for the low-cost mailings would come from franking, not 
allowing franking during election years. The money we would save there 
would help pay for congressional campaign mailings to go out.
  This is a good bill and it is a strong bill. It is a bill that I have 
always supported. It is a bill that has been an integral part of all of 
the conversations and dialogue that we have had over the last few years 
about campaign finance reform.
  The great thing about the Shays-Meehan legislation is that the 
commission bill that has been added to the Shays-Meehan bill is a great 
vehicle for us to push forward with many of the comprehensive ideas for 
reform that we have.
  Specifically, when are we going to do something about the high cost 
of running congressional campaigns in this country? This is a great 
opportunity for us to do that. We cannot deal with the expensive cost 
of running for political office if we do not deal with the cost of 
television.
  We have passed telecommunications legislation, we have passed a 
number of bills that will mean big money for television networks, and 
they use the public airways. There is no reason why we cannot come to 
an agreement of a system to provide low-cost television for those 
candidates who are willing to agree to spending limits.
  I think that is what the American people are looking for, I think 
that is what most of the public interest groups that have been fighting 
for campaign finance reform believe in, and ultimately, I believe that 
this is the type of system that we are headed to.
  I believe that the support of the gentleman from California (Mr. Sam 
Farr) and others have us at a point in time where we are on the verge 
of making a historic vote today, a vote that could result in the 
passage of campaign finance reform. However, I also think it is 
important that we have this discussion and dialogue today, because when 
it comes time to make the further improvements that we need to make in 
our election system, we have to look to this legislation and its 
provisions on capping, voluntarily capping the amount of money that is 
spent for limiting political action committees. I think this goes a 
long way towards where we need to move as a country.
  Again, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Sam Farr) 
for all of his commitment to campaign finance reform. Some people will 
never know how much time has been put into this effort.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Tom Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I commend my colleague and friend, the gentleman from California, for 
his bill. On the substance, there is one point of disagreement. I am 
troubled by the spending limit, because when the candidates are 
relatively obscure, as most of us in the House are, a spending limit 
probably created an advantage to the incumbent. We have spending limits 
at the presidential level, but those candidates are not obscure.
  However, beyond this substantive point my fundamental reason for 
rising is to note that I have given up my own alternative. That 
alternative was, ``if you cannot vote for me, you cannot give to me.'' 
It is a very fundamental and deep reform about which I felt strongly. I 
gave it up because only Shays-Meehan has a chance this session of 
Congress.
  My good friend, the gentleman from California, deserves great credit 
for being thoughtful and persistent in this field, but I would urge him 
also to give up his substitute, because only Shays-Meehan has 57 votes 
in the Senate. If the proposal is not Shays-Meehan, the Senate will not 
even take it up; at least, I fear that.
  In the interests of getting campaign finance reform, I urge that this 
not be the alternative, that Shays-Meehan be the alternative.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I just want to make a comment in response to my good friend, the 
gentleman from California, on what has the best chance over in the 
Senate. I suppose at some levels that is a little bit speculative, but 
words mean something in this business. We have to rely upon what 
happens over there, what they say.
  When we look at the Senate, they have spent a considerable amount of 
time debating campaign finance reform, the McCain-Feingold bill, which 
is the Senate version of Shays-Meehan. After considerable debate and 
lobbying and pressure, they got I believe it was 57 votes, which is 
short of what is needed to break filibuster in order to pass it. It 
takes 60 votes over there.
  So they have a very difficult schedule, because they are behind on 
their

[[Page H7305]]

appropriation bills. They have to move forward with other legislation. 
If they consider coming back to campaign finance reform, they have to 
come back to something that has a chance of getting more than 57.
  We can debate this all day long, but what they say is that it would 
be a waste of time to bring up Shays-Meehan over in the Senate. That is 
true because they cannot get anymore votes. But if we give them another 
vehicle with the potential of getting more votes, then it increases the 
pressure on them. I think that is a real possibility. I respect the 
differences of opinion on that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. John Doolittle).
  (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rarely agree with my hometown 
newspaper. It is one of the most partisan Democrat newspapers in the 
United States, known as the Sacramento Bee. But they did write an 
editorial which had many points of agreement. I have put it out in a 
Dear Colleague. The editorial was yesterday. It is entitled ``Wrong-
headed Reform: Passage of Bad Campaign Regulations Is No Victory.''
  I just thought I would share this with the Members. This is not 
coming from the Republican side or the conservative side, but this is 
coming from a very liberal Democrat-oriented newspaper. I think they 
make some very, very valid points. The points they make, I believe, are 
as valid against the substitute of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Farr) as they are against the Shays-Meehan bill and other bills of that 
type.
  They are speaking of the Shays-Meehan bill. They say, ``It centers on 
two big wrong-headed reforms: Prohibiting national political parties 
from collecting or using soft money contributions, and outlawing 
independent political advertising that identifies candidates within 60 
days of a Federal election. That means the law would prohibit issue 
campaigning at precisely the time when voters are finally interested in 
listening, hardly consistent with free speech.
  ``Since that kind of restriction is likely to be tossed by the courts 
as a violation of constitutional free speech guarantees, the net effect 
of the changes will be to weaken political parties while making less 
accountable independent expenditure groups, kings of the campaign 
landscape.'' It was a great editorial. I will not take the time to read 
it all here now.
  The point is this, that even they, even from the other side, they 
recognize how disastrous these approaches are. This is the same 
approach that the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) is going to 
take.
  I say to the gentleman from California, he and I have talked about 
whether we are going to request a vote. I am going to request a vote on 
mine. I hope the gentleman requests a vote on his. I hope the gentleman 
will put it up there and let people register or be publicly recorded on 
how they stand on the approach being taken in the gentleman's bill. I 
think it would be beneficial for the process.
  I would like to just to now make a couple of points about some of the 
problems with the present system, and some of the problems with the 
proffered solutions. I believe that today's campaign finance system 
requires current and prospective officeholders to spend too much time 
raising money and not enough time governing and debating issues.
  Lamar Alexander may have had a very interesting statement. He was one 
of the gentlemen who ran for the Republican nomination for President in 
the last cycle. This is what he said. I will not read the whole quote, 
but he said, ``When I ran for President in 1996, contribution and 
spending limits forced me to spend 70 percent of my time raising money 
in amounts no greater than $1,000.'' If Members ask any congressional 
candidate, any nonincumbent, especially, what percentage of time they 
spend raising money, it will be just about the same. This is a 
disaster. It has to be corrected.
  Now, in addition to this problem of too much time raising money, 
today's system has failed to make elections more competitive. We have 
had big government campaign reform. It was enacted by Congress in 1974. 
Shays-Meehan and the Farr substitute are just reiterations of that same 
philosophy.
  We need to make these elections more competitive by allowing 
challengers to be unleashed, and to go out and raise money wherever 
they can and in any amount, only with the proviso that there has to be 
full and timely disclosure.
  Mr. Chairman, we know this system works. We have it in the 
Commonwealth of Virginia across the river over here, and we have it in 
the State of California and in a number of other States. The system 
works, only we need better disclosure than we presently have in the 
Federal system. We need to adjust those limits.
  Even David Broder, from the Washington Post, not known as a 
Republican, let alone a conservative, had this to say. Excuse me, this 
is in the Washingtonian, August, 1996. He said, ``Raise the current 
$1,000 limit on personal campaign contributions to $50,000, or maybe 
even go to $100,000. Today's limits are ridiculous, given television 
and campaigning costs. Raise that limit with full disclosure, which 
would enable some people to make really significant contributions to 
help a candidate.''
  I would submit, Mr. Chairman, this is the direction we should move 
in, not in the direction of the amendment of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr), not in the direction of the Shays-Meehan 
amendment, but in this direction. This is the way that will actually 
produce some real reform and some real results. I ask for opposition to 
the Farr substitute.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to compliment my 
colleague, the gentleman from California, because he does have a true 
reform bill. He has been at the forefront of this.
  I would also like to compliment my colleague, the gentleman from 
Connecticut, who brought forward legislation which I supported and 
which was vetoed by my own Republican President.
  That notwithstanding, we are talking about Queen of the Hill and 
which bill will get the most votes. I urge members to support the 
Shays-Meehan proposal, which bans soft money on both the Federal and 
State levels, just like the proposal of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Farr), and misstated, unfortunately, by my colleague, the 
gentleman from Arizona.
  The bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) bans soft money 
on both the Federal and State levels for Federal elections, as it has 
to, and unfortunately, as the freshman bill does not. Our bill also 
recognizes sham issue ads for what they truly are, campaign ads; 
improves FEC disclosure and enforcement; and establishes a commission 
to deal with those issues that have not been dealt with in our 
legislation.
  In regard to whether the Senate will act or not act, all I know is 
that 45 Democrats came to the forefront and supported the McCain-
Feingold bill. This is what Mr. Daschle said. He said, ``The Republican 
leadership continues to employ a strategy designed to confuse the 
public and complicate the prospects for true reform. The one way to cut 
through all of that is for the House to pass Shays-Meehan, and send it 
to the Senate.''
  Then he said, ``Passage of any other measure in the House, no matter 
how well-intended, would only have the effect of offering political 
cover for the opponents of reform to kill the bill in the Senate.'' Mr. 
Daschle is urging support of the McCain-Feingold, and says any other 
proposal is likely dead.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), following the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has been a leader in understanding 
the problems of too much money in campaigns.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to commend the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays), and all of my colleagues who in fact never lost faith in 
achieving

[[Page H7306]]

comprehensive campaign finance reform. Most of all, I commend the 
citizens of this country, who have demanded meaningful changes to clean 
up our national campaign system.
  Americans want fundamental change across the country. They want 
meaningful limits on out-of-control money in politics, and they want 
those changes now.

                              {time}  1115

  For years, the Republican leadership stalled and they still are. It 
is hard for me to listen to the words of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Doolittle) who just spoke a few minutes ago, who says there is 
nothing wrong with the system, that the system is working, truly mind 
boggling.
  But the Republican leadership has stalled, made phony deals and 
promises, strong-armed real reformers in their own party off of a 
discharge petition. They introduced a hodgepodge of bills that the 
House had rejected. They brought to the floor an amendment that they 
did not believe in and even its sponsor voted against. They snowballed 
us with amendments in debate in the wee hours of the night.
  But we were never discouraged. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) were never 
discouraged. The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) was never 
discouraged. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) was never 
discouraged. We fought for real reform. We kept the Republican 
leadership's feet to the fire. We forced them to listen to the voices 
of the American public, not powerful special interests and their large 
campaign contributions.
  With the help of people across this country who called for real 
reform of our campaign system, we prevailed. Republican tactics failed 
to kill campaign finance reform and on Monday, we passed Meehan-Shays, 
we passed genuine reform. It banned soft money. It reins in 
exploitation of issue ads and brings elections back home to the 
American people.
  This vote is a victory for campaign finance reform. It is a victory 
for the American people.
  I want to pay particular thanks to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Farr) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) for their 
groundbreaking efforts on this issue. They fought this battle long and 
hard. To all we say thank you.
  But we have to remain vigilant. We must, in the long run, support 
Shays-Meehan for real campaign finance reform.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hutchinson). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Stearns) is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Connecticut and the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut continue to talk about the Shays-Meehan 
bill. I respect they won the battle on the floor, yet they come down 
and take the time on another completely different bill and start 
talking about their bill. It is not even relevant to the Farr 
amendment.
  I think it is important we go back and talk about what we are talking 
about. After you listen to the two Members from Connecticut, you would 
think we were talking about the Shays-Meehan amendment when we are 
talking about the Farr substitute.
  The Farr substitute would reduce the advertising rate by 50 percent 
below the lowest unit charge rate that broadcasters now are already 
forced to charge political candidates and would give free time to 
candidates to respond to other ads.
  When I looked at this, I went back and reminded myself of an article 
that was in the Hill magazine newspaper on June 10, 1998. This Hill 
magazine really shows what is going to happen if the Farr substitute is 
passed.
  Federal political candidates, because they would have absolutely 
minimal rates to pay, will gobble up all the available ad space and 
squeeze out all local State candidates as well as probably squeeze out 
all the third-party candidates who have the fundamental and 
constitutional right to express their free speech, who want to inform 
the public on specific issues. These are people that are not 
Republicans, they are not Democrats. Libertarians, Independents and 
others will not even be able to get on the TV screen. This has been 
documented in that article.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Farr amendment. This is socializing 
the political campaigns. I urge its defeat.
  Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, sometimes we do not fully recognize the 
law of unintended consequences here in Congress.
  Many Members of Congress, in their zeal to regulate American society, 
believe they know what is good for all Americans, but they do not take 
into account how their liberal do-goodism negatively affects the 
industry in which they are trying to regulate.
  The debate that Washington should force television and radio 
broadcasters to bend to its will and provide federal political 
candidates with free broadcast time for political advertisements is 
fraught with problems.
  The idea to regulate political speech has been ruled unconstitutional 
over and over again by the Supreme Court.
  The Farr substitute will have the unintended consequences of: 
severely harming broadcasters financially; damage state and local party 
candidates; insulate incumbents and the two main parties from 
challengers and from third parties; and in the end, harm our democracy 
and our notions of freedom.
  As an example of my argument, The Hill newspaper reported on June 10, 
1998, ``TV stations ration campaign advertising, citing high demand.''
  The article states that in this year's primary campaign in 
California, the requests for political advertising were so overly 
demanding that complying with every request to purchase advertising 
space for political ads would have placed television stations in an 
economic bind.
  The stations, in response to such high demands, were forced to 
restrict local and state candidates, besides those running for 
Governor, from airing political ads.
  The Hill reported that stations ``KCBS and KPIX refused to take ads 
from campaigns other than federal campaigns and the governor's race, 
infuriating candidates for other offices.''
  Well, what do the Members think will happen if we follow the Farr 
Substitute, which would reduce the advertising rate by 50% below the 
lowest unit charge rate that broadcasters now are already forced to 
charge political candidates and would give free time to candidates to 
respond to other ads?
  This story in The Hill indicates what will happen. Federal political 
candidates, because they would have absolutely minimal rates to pay, 
will gobble up all the available ad space and squeeze out all local and 
state candidates, as well as probably squeeze out all other third party 
groups, who have the fundamental and constitutional right to express 
their free speech, who want to inform the public on specific issues or 
candidates.
  For an example, Ron Gonzales, Democratic candidate for Mayor of San 
Jose, CA, could not even purchase any time for political ads and was 
put into a competitive disadvantage that forced him into a runoff. But 
instead of making sure that all candidates and all groups have an 
equitable opportunity to acquire time to inform the public of their 
candidacies or the issues important to them, the proponents of free air 
time want to make the system as unequitable as possible and give just 
federal candidates priority.
  The other dramatic and unintended consequence of such free time 
proposals would be the devastating economic impact it would have on 
broadcasters. In the Farr Substitute, all primary candidates would have 
an automatic rate 50% below the lowest rate broadcasters already 
charge. There are no limits in this Substitute about how many adds 
could be aired or how much time would be given to candidates.
  Broadcasters already have a significant financial commitment to make 
in transitioning to digital television. Broadcasters will have to spend 
tens of millions of dollars in order to transition to digital 
television in the next few years. With federal elections every two 
years, free air time proposals threaten conversion to HDTV.
  Imposing free-time requirements on broadcast licensees would be the 
equivalent of telling lawyers, doctors, or home builders, who all have 
to be licensed in some capacity, what kind of law that they would have 
to practice, what type of information they could give to patients, or 
what type of homes to build.
  Once Washington starts trying to control how much, when, and what 
rates political candidates must pay, I fear it will snowball to the 
point where people in Washington, with good intentions, will try to 
tell political candidates what they can say.
  I think these free time precedents are a danger to our democracy as a 
whole because they defend just the narrow interests of a few, federal 
candidates.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.

[[Page H7307]]

  I appreciate the opposition, because it shows how little they really 
understand the bill. First of all, there is no free time in this bill. 
There is no free lunch. All candidates pay. They just pay the lowest 
unit rate only if they volunteer to limit what they are going to spend 
in campaigns.
  This is about campaign expenditure limits. You, as a candidate, say, 
I will limit myself to $600,000. That is all I am going to spend to get 
elected to the House of Representatives. Why do we have to do this? 
Because, Mr. Chairman, it is getting obscene how much money we are 
spending.
  Do Members realize, 10 years ago, the Senate and the House, total 
expenditures to get elected spent $58 million. This year, in 1998, 
disbursements, money that has already gone out is $112 million in the 
Senate and the House. In 10 years we have more than doubled what we are 
spending in this House. We have got to put a limit on that.
  I do not think we are going to get enough votes to be the bill that 
will top the Shays-Meehan. We are going to have to be back here next 
year. I hope that in all this debate we are listening to each other so 
that we can come up with a comprehensive campaign reform bill. We are 
not doing it this session.
  In fact, I really appeal to my Republican colleagues, because 
throughout history you have not been there. You have not been helping. 
In 1990, only 15 Republicans voted for a bill that got out of the House 
with 255 votes. In 1991, only 21 Republicans voted for a bill that got 
out of the House with 273 votes. In 1992, only 19 Republicans voted for 
a bill that got out of the House with 259 votes. And George Bush vetoed 
the bill, the bill that I am talking about right now.
  We need campaign reform. We need it now.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Amendment No. 7 not being offered, as announced by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr), pursuant to the order of the House of the 
legislative day of Wednesday, August 5, 1998, it is now in order to 
debate the subject matter of the amendment printed in the Congressional 
Record as No. 5.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 442 and that order, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle) and a Member opposed will each control 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
  (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue on with my analysis of what is 
wrong with the present system. There is something definitely wrong with 
it, but there is great disagreement as to what that is, I think, 
between me and the other side.
  Point number 3, we talked about how the campaign finance system 
requires current and prospective office holders to spend too much time 
raising money and not enough time governing, debating issues.
  Secondly, today's system has failed to make elections more 
competitive. We had huge domination of Congress by incumbents for 
decades. Finally dramatic change occurred in the 1994 elections. I 
believe that was directly attributable to the 1974 law enacted 20 years 
earlier.
  Thirdly, this is very important, I think, for us to understand, as 
the public, as Members of the House. Today's system allows millionaires 
to pursue congressional seats and inhibits the ability of challengers 
to raise the funds necessary to be competitive. The millionaire is the 
only one who can write whatever amount he or she wants to his election 
campaign. Everyone else is forced to live within the same hard dollar 
limits that were put in place in 1974 and have never been adjusted for 
inflation.
  All of the moaning about soft money and these terrible issue advocacy 
ads that are, as they say, are sham campaign ads, I do not agree with 
that, but that is what they say, those are the result of never lifting 
those hard dollar limits.
  Sometimes it is important to understand, all the time it is important 
to understand causes and effects. We do not get that as a majority body 
in either House of Congress. We seem not to understand that the effect 
of issue advocacy ads or the effect of soft money or the effect of 
independent expenditures is directly caused by the hard and unadjusted 
limits on hard campaign dollars contributed directly to candidates.
  Inflation has risen by two-thirds. Can Members imagine having to live 
on the same salary, just to put this in perspective, pay all your food 
bills, your rents, your utilities, clothing, et cetera, gasoline with 
the same amount of money you earned in 1974, and have to live with that 
same amount of money today and meet all your bills? They could not do 
it because the prices have risen.
  In the campaign context when that happens, we start then pushing out 
into the less explored areas of the law. PACs became very big, which 
were really pretty much a creation of the 1974 big government reform 
that we have now. And those were heavily attacked by the left as 
recently as 2 years ago.
  Now we have gotten off PACs; now we are on to that hated soft money. 
Soft money is nothing more than unregulated money. It falls in two 
categories. Soft money that goes for political parties to do get out 
the vote and voter registration, voter identification, that type of 
thing, and then there is soft money, unregulated money that groups, 
independent groups will spend to communicate their views on an issue.
  That is what so upset incumbents, because those groups start using 
the name of the incumbent, start criticizing his voting record. They do 
not break the law; they live within the law. They do not make express 
advocacy. But that is very upsetting to incumbents, and they are not 
going to take it anymore, and that is why we have Shays-Meehan and 
these other bills, because they are not going to allow that sort of 
insolence to be displayed toward the incumbents. They are going to have 
more regulation. They are going to make it harder for the challenger.
  If I wanted to be guaranteed election for life in my congressional 
district, I would join on with Shays-Meehan, because that is the effect 
it will have. It will make it even harder for challengers who do not 
have the advantages of incumbency, who do not have the name ID in the 
district, who do not have the district offices, who do not have the 
ability to reach out and communicate with the voters, who do not have 
the ability to call a press conference and have anybody show up, when 
you restrict these things, you are helping the incumbent because he or 
she has all those advantages. You are hurting the challenger.
  I do not mind saying the Emperor has no clothes. I hope all the rest 
of my colleagues will feel free to join me today in making that 
important declaration, because that is really what this is all about.
  The founders of Shays-Meehan may have won the battle today, but I 
predict they will lose the war. The bill will not be enacted into law 
this year, will never clear the Senate. Let us just remember this, you 
are going to have a less sympathetic House to big government campaign 
reform after this, the coming 1998 elections this year. You will have a 
House that is less receptive to that when we convene in the next 
Congress in January.
  Your Senate, which now has at most 57 votes for the big government 
Shays-Meehan approach, will have, after these 1998 elections, at most, 
54 votes, maybe 53 votes. So bask in the glory today and enjoy it. You 
are entitled to your temporary victory.
  I would just say to my colleagues that, please, feel free, even those 
of you who voted for Shays-Meehan, even those of you who will vote for 
the freshman bill, please step forward today and vote for a new 
approach. We know this bill is not going to pass today, my bill, but it 
is important to lay the foundation so that we can build upon that next 
year.
  Yes, I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), this will 
be back next year.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. A serious concern I have is, if your opponent does not 
have any money, how can your opponent make public, make widely known 
the

[[Page H7308]]

list of donors that you have? My biggest concern is that, that if your 
opponent does not have money, all the disclosure in the world will not 
help. This is a sincere question.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Reclaiming my time, I will answer that question.
  The point is, when you are a challenger and you do not have any money 
and you are not a millionaire, you can go ask somebody else that has 
money to give you their money. You can read the quotes of Eugene 
McCarthy, which, in effect, is what happened, helped get Lyndon Johnson 
not to run for President again in 1968. McCarthy has said that if he 
had not been able to raise large amounts of money from a relative 
handful of individuals, he never could have run the race. That is the 
situation we are in today.
  Let me continue describing the problems that we face.

                              {time}  1130

  Today's system hurts taxpayers by taking nearly $900 million 
collected in Federal taxes and subsidizing the presidential campaigns 
of all sorts of characters, including convicted felons and 
billionaires. That needs to be changed.
  Lastly, today's system hurts voters in our Republic by forcing more 
contributors and political activists to operate outside of the system 
where they are unaccountable and consequently more irresponsible.
  That is what the Sacramento Bee was talking about in its editorial. 
That will surely be the effect if we enact the reforms in Shays-Meehan. 
It is already the effect under the present big-government reform which 
we have had for 24 years and which has spawned all of these things the 
opposition claims to deplore: PACs, soft money, hard money, issue 
advocacy, independent expenditures, all of those things.
  And yet, instead of stepping back, rediagnosing the problem and doing 
something that matters, they just offer all the same tried and failed 
solutions of before, and we just cannot have any more of that. The 
present system does not work. It will get worse under their approach. 
We need to take a different approach.
  All right, let me suggest some goals that a genuine campaign reform 
ought to have. One, we ought to encourage political speech rather than 
limit it. All these other approaches seek to limit it despite the fact 
that Constitution is quite clear when it says, ``Congress shall make no 
law abridging the freedom of speech.''
  My colleagues on Shays-Meehan and the others are cheerfully trying to 
find a way to abridge the freedom of speech while claiming they are not 
abridging it. But, in fact, they are abridging it. And those provisions 
will eventually be struck down, just as many of them contained in the 
present law we have were struck down in the famous Buckley v. Valeo 
case and reaffirmed dozens of times since then.
  Secondly, we ought to promote competition, freedom, and a more 
informed electorate. We ought to enable any American citizen to run for 
office. We ought to increase the amount of time candidates spend with 
constituents in debating issues rather than raising money. And we ought 
to make candidates accountable to their constituents for the money they 
accept. Those, I would submit, are the goals of true campaign finance 
reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) is recognized 
for 20 minutes.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) one of the 
newest Members of Congress.
  (Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Doolittle substitute.
  This morning we have heard a review of the history of campaign 
finance reform in this body, and it is an important perspective to keep 
in mind. But within this very session, a few weeks ago campaign finance 
reform was declared dead. I could not believe it, having just arrived, 
filled with the frustration of the citizens in my district following a 
special election in which so much outside interest and huge amounts of 
unregulated monies were involved.
  But within this present session, two groups of Members never gave up. 
They demonstrated the diversity and strength of the reform coalition. 
The Blue Dogs, conservative Democrats led by the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Baesler) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), 
kept pushing the discharge petition and ultimately convinced 204 
Members from both parties to sign it.
  And the incredibly hard work of the freshmen, led by the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Allen) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson), finally paid off. This work began at the very beginning of 
the 105th. They defied the odds, hung together, produced a solid 
bipartisan bill, and persistently kept this issue alive.
  The freshman bill is good legislation. My husband Walter was a 
cosponsor. It makes important reforms. I will vote ``present'' on the 
freshman bill. I do so only to make sure an even more comprehensive 
bill is passed.
  Mr. Chairman, later today we will finally pass the bipartisan Shays-
Meehan bill. This is truly cause for celebration. This is the bill that 
also has a majority of support in the Senate.
  Today I am proud to be a freshman and I am proud to serve in this 
House. Most important, the American people can be proud that we are 
taking an extraordinary step to clean up our political system and to 
restore faith in our democracy.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) who has been here day 
and night, has been the voice of advocacy for campaign reform, and who 
has a strong statement in opposition to this bill.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, here is what the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Doolittle) is proposing: Open the floodgates; if the swimmer is 
drowning, pour on more water; let money flow without any limit. Oh, but 
disclose; as the swimmer is drowning, tell him who is responsible for 
it. Too much, too late.
  Look, if Shays-Meehan were so helpful to the incumbent, why is the 
majority leadership fighting this bill so hard? It does not make any 
sense. Raising the limits, when you are running against a millionaire 
who has $10 million, they can raise the limits to $2,000 or $4,000 that 
someone can contribute to a poor challenger, and it won't help.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) seems to have a crystal 
ball and he knows what the election results will be this year. But 
look, we have a chance in the Senate. When we pass Shays-Meehan, the 
spotlight will be on the other body to show up and to put it on the 
calendar and let the majority rule. If the majority can rule in the 
Senate as it does in the House, Shays-Meehan goes to the White House 
for signature. That is what they really are afraid of.
  And do not raise this big-government argument to try to hide the 
dangers of big money. We do not want big government in this. We want 
the little person, the average person's voice not to be drowned out by 
big money in America.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) says give more money, 
open the floodgates, no holds barred for the rich, and everybody else 
loses. Vote against Doolittle.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to just observe 
that the swimmer is drowning and they are killing him, and they are 
killing him with these types of so-called reforms which in fact are 
going to make it more difficult for that swimmer to survive.
  By the way, right now, under their big-government reform that we 
presently have, the millionaires are free to spend whatever they like. 
Under my bill, that person of average means will also be able to go out 
and raise the money that he or she needs in order to compete with the 
millionaire.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. 
Chenoweth).
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Doolittle) for yielding.
  I rise today in strong support of the Doolittle substitute. It is the 
only proposal being considered in the House

[[Page H7309]]

that does not interfere with free speech and the only proposal that is 
constitutionally sound.
  When it comes to campaign finance reform, our goal should be to 
ensure free speech and full participation in the electoral process. But 
we are on the wrong track in this Congress. We focus our efforts on 
finding ways to limit the rights of individuals and candidates.
  Instead, this Congress should be working to level the playing field 
for incumbents and challengers, for all people to be able to enter into 
this arena and express their points of view, whether we agree with them 
or not.
  I can tell my colleagues, in the last campaign I probably had more 
targeted outside interest issue ads waged against me than almost any 
other Member in the Congress. And I stand here protecting the right of 
those people to express their points of view. But when full disclosure 
is involved, then the voters are able then to determine who is spending 
all the money through the outside interests to try to influence 
elections in their district.
  One of my constituents, Kris Provencio of Boise, Idaho, a fine bright 
young man, should be able to have the ability to get into this 
political process and be able to speak freely without huge, heavy 
regulations from the Federal Government.
  The Doolittle substitute will require full and immediate on-line 
disclosure of contributions and contributors by both incumbents and 
challengers.
  The Washington Times said it best in its June 5 editorial when it 
said, ``If Congress wants to clean up the mess of money in politics, it 
should do so by encouraging free speech, free discussion, and free 
debate.''
  I have faith in my fellow colleagues and in the citizens of this 
great Nation, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the Doolittle 
substitute. This substitute will allow full disclosure and the people 
then to be able to see who actually is contributing to the free speech. 
They will be the ultimate arbiters in the political process.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a great voice on 
campaign reform.
  (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I come with a little different angle to the floor today, Mr. 
Chairman, to say that when I made the decision this spring to join the 
discharge petition and bring this issue back to the floor of the House 
against the wishes of even my own party, the majority party, I said to 
the Speaker of the House, ``Mr. Speaker, we should not defend the 
status quo. We should not defend this current system. We should not be 
caught dead defending this system. As a matter of fact, we did not 
create this system.''
  And I said it has been around since Watergate and it created some 
things that are now coming back to haunt us, I think. I said we need to 
do one of two things: either make the intellectual argument that we 
should do away with this system and go back to the way things were, 
which the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) does very 
intellectually in my opinion, or do the best we can to fix the current 
system.
  I do not believe the majority of American people want us to go back 
to the way things were before Watergate. So I joined the Shays-Meehan 
effort, did my best to improve it, take out things that I thought were 
not acceptable and make it as perfect as possible, which it is not 
perfect, but it is as perfect as possible to build a majority 
consensus.
  I think we must try to fix this system. And Shays-Meehan is the best 
effort in the last 4 years to do that, and that is why we got 237 
votes. I think we need to try to fix this current system.
  My colleagues can make an intellectual argument, as the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Doolittle) did, that PACs have created a problem 
and they kind of got washed out by the proliferation of soft money. 
But, frankly, all of that is part of this system.
  So intellectually I am not going to disagree with him. But 
practically and pragmatically, we need to do the best we can to fix 
this current system. That is what Shays-Meehan represents. That is 
where the momentum is. That is where a majority is. And I am proud that 
today the House will, I believe, pass as the king Shays-Meehan and 
encourage the Senate to do likewise.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) 
has 14 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell) has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) who has been leading in the freshman 
effort.
  (Mr. ALLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This is about whose voices will be heard in this system. It is about 
voices. It is about speech, who speaks up in this system and who is 
heard.
  The other day the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) the majority whip, 
who has been the prime opponent of campaign reform, said that money is 
the lifeblood of politics. Money is the lifeblood of politics. If that 
is true, the people lose.
  The Constitution begins, ``We the people of these United States.'' It 
does not say, we the big contributors to politicians in Washington. It 
says, ``We the people.'' It means the citizens. It means the voters.
  The Doolittle proposal is anti-reform. This is a suggestion not to 
contain the influence of money but to expand it. Under the Doolittle 
proposal, it is okay for someone to give a candidate for Congress 
$500,000. Now an individual is limited to giving $1,000.
  But $500,000, $300,000, any amount we want, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle) says is okay. That is the influence of big 
money in politics. We have to contain it. Disclosure is not enough. The 
Doolittle proposal is going in the wrong direction.
  What is going on here? What is going on here has been a strategy from 
March to May to June to July and now to August, and here is what it is.

                              {time}  1145

  The leadership strategy of the GOP as set out by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay) again in a moment of great candor. ``The timing kills 
them,'' said the gentleman from Texas. ``The DeLay strategy worked. 
Delay, delay, delay.''
  The fact is the time for reform is long past. We need to pass out of 
this House today the Shays-Meehan bill or the Hutchinson-Allen bill. We 
have to send major campaign finance reform to the Senate in order to 
restore the voice of the ordinary citizens, the ordinary people in this 
country who are being overwhelmed and outshouted by big money.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, just to observe 
that even a very prominent, respected liberal Democrat Thurgood 
Marshall on the Supreme Court made this point, speaking for the 
unanimous court, quote, one of the points in which all members of the 
court agree is that money is essential for effective communication in a 
political campaign. That is why Justice Marshall and all other members 
of the court ruled that expenditure limits were unconstitutional, 
because money is the means of making the speech. Today only the 
millionaire has unlimited free speech. I seek to give this to the 
average citizen as well running as a candidate. For that reason I have 
offered my bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the author of 
this legislation because I think he comes forward in an earnest manner 
for something he believes in. I also think it is dead wrong. And when 
you take a look at where we are today as a society, we have developed 
along a path that has really redefined representation. Early on it was 
felt that representation was representing landed individuals with 
wealth. We then for a while represented geographic areas. Then finally 
the Supreme Court said, ``No, you don't represent the land, what you 
represent is the people. One

[[Page H7310]]

man, one vote.'' The debate here is essentially whether Congress will 
be dominated by wealth and money or by representing their constituents 
and the best needs of this country. It is very clear that the present 
system has gone to an incredible excess of representing wealth in 
America and leaving behind every other value we treasure as a society. 
Yes, we are a capitalist system. We are a free market system. But our 
government is not simply there for the highest bidder or for the 
wealthiest individual. If we want to see American participation 
increase, we have to make sure that every citizen, not just the 
powerful and wealthy, feel like they can contribute to this democracy. 
There is nothing worse in destroying the earnest attempt at maintaining 
a vibrant democracy than telling people that only wealthy people have 
access to television. If the standard for democratic participation is 
that you have to have the bankroll that Ross Perot had or the 
millionaires that now spot the Senate and the House who finance their 
own campaigns or sufficient millionaire friends to get you here, that 
is a democracy that is dying. Democracy is not about the economic 
system. It is about the political system. The political system in this 
country cannot be based on how much money you can put together and how 
quickly from how many people to get you elected. If we do what my 
friend across the aisle suggests, this will be a country for only 
wealthy Americans and the rest will be left behind.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank my colleague and friend for yielding me this 
time. Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court has upheld expenditure 
restrictions. In Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce in 1990, 
the Supreme Court said it was constitutional to limit the campaign 
expenditures of corporations to--zero! The Supreme Court has upheld 
contribution restrictions. In Buckley v. Valeo the Supreme Court said 
that the $1,000 maximum for individuals to contribute was 
constitutional. And again in 1981 in California Medical Association v. 
FEC the Supreme Court said that it was constitutional to limit campaign 
contributions, in this case to PACs.
  So it is really quite wrong to say that the first amendment, at least 
as interpreted by the Supreme Court, prohibits limitations on 
contributions or limitations on expenditures. What, rather, is accurate 
to say is that the Supreme Court has interpreted the first amendment to 
say that restrictions reasonably related to the purpose of 
communicating speech effectively and honestly are permitted and that 
undue restrictions are not. And hence we need to reach a balance.
  The approach of my good friend and colleague from California is 
commendable in many ways. I do admire his consistency. His position is 
that we should have no restraints at all. Within his own point of view, 
he may be completely legitimate on the merits. I do not think so, but 
he is entitled to believe he is. What I do not believe is that he is 
entitled to claim the Constitution compels his result. The Constitution 
has been interpreted consistently to allow restrictions for the purpose 
of allowing fair and honest communication in the following manner: The 
first amendment has not been held to ban restrictions on slander; 
commercial speech; antitrust violations (where one company will 
communicate to another, in free speech, what prices it wishes to 
charge); obscenity according to community standards; group libel; 
symbolic speech; or speech which leads to a clear or present danger. 
And I have not exhausted the field.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a more difficult job because we are, 
constitutionally, permitted to regulate in the interest of allowing 
freer and more honest expression. And that is what we are about today 
in Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  It is very interesting to watch what is going on here. The gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell) talked, a Republican from California, a 
colleague of mine, also served in the California State legislature 
where I served as a member of the Assembly, he served as a member of 
the Senate and we are both opposed, Democrat and Republican, to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) who also served with us. It 
is obvious that there are just two vast differences of opinion here. 
Every bill about campaign finance reform, about the system we have in 
America, wants to change the way money is contributed to campaigns with 
the exception of one, Mr. Doolittle. He wants to open up thinking that 
the way to get elected to Congress is to just add more money, throw 
more money on the problem.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1998 the Senate and the House have already spent 
$112 million and we have not even had a general election. Is the 
problem there is not enough money? I do not think so.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, obviously I rise in support of the Doolittle 
substitute. The question today is really simple. Should we trust the 
American people and support the first amendment, or should we trust the 
government and gut the first amendment? The Doolittle bill puts its 
trust in the American people. It opens up the system, allowing more 
participation by more people. The Shays-Meehan approach puts its trust 
in the government. It rachets down political expression, making the 
system more complicated and more dangerous for the average American. It 
does not sound like reform to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the people should not have to consult their lawyers 
before they contribute to a political campaign. The Doolittle 
substitute represents the only true and honest effort to reform our 
campaign system.
  I am amused by all the contortions of some of my colleagues who 
complain about the evils of soft money on one hand and who work very 
hard to raise that same soft money on the other. For example, just a 
few nights ago, the House minority leader worked overtime to pass the 
Shays-Meehan substitute. He spoke of the menacing nature of soft money, 
how it corrupted the political process. But on that same day, the 
minority leader personally worked the phones raising millions of 
dollars in soft money for his party, the money that he has repeatedly 
condemned and voted to ban.
  Now, this is a case of one hand not caring what the other hand is 
doing. If the minority is so concerned about soft money, it should put 
its mouth where its money is. Mr. Chairman, money will always be spent 
in support of campaigns and candidates and causes. The Shays-Meehan 
bill will drive that money underground. The Doolittle bill will require 
the light of day to shine upon it.
  The Doolittle bill makes a number of improvements to the current 
system of disclosing contributions. First, the bill requires electronic 
filing of campaign reports, instant filing, including 24-hour filings 
during the last three months of the campaign. It is time for Congress 
to recognize and to utilize the advances in technology that have 
enabled campaigns to communicate information to the Federal Election 
Commission much more efficiently than in the past. The Doolittle bill 
is needed to make elections more competitive. The Doolittle bill is 
needed to level the playing field so that millionaires are not given 
free rein to purchase congressional seats. And the Doolittle bill is 
needed to give working Americans a chance to participate in our 
democracy.
  Every other reform proposal is based on the faulty premise that we 
can limit spending and limit speech. These big government reformers 
propose more government regulations and more government power, more big 
brother in order to stifle debate and suppress speech. The effect of 
all this Federal regulation is to chill free speech and political 
participation. This new government power will make people think twice 
before they participate in this process. But the Doolittle bill will 
encourage political participation in our democracy. The Doolittle bill 
will encourage more speech in our political system. The Doolittle bill 
upholds our Constitution.
  Let us really reform the system. Let us pass the Doolittle 
substitute.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
  (Mr. DAVIS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)

[[Page H7311]]

  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today lifts 
limits on campaign giving. What an outrage. What is at stake here are 
the rights of citizens at home who simply sent us up here to do our 
job. Why should they have to compete with all the people who choose to 
actively participate by giving unlimited sums of money in the campaign 
system today? If the public knew more about what we know, about the 
level of giving, the amount of unlimited contributions that are going 
into the campaigns of both parties, they would be outraged, they would 
be sickened, they would ultimately be saddened. The public expects less 
money going into campaigns today, not more. The strategy on campaign 
finance reform, which will fail here today on the floor of the House, 
has first been to do nothing, then to do little, then to delay. Today 
here is the ultimate tactic. It is a surrender. It is a surrender to 
the growing cancer in this city and across the country of the 
disproportionate amount of money that is flowing into campaigns and is 
swamping and competing with those people who simply want us to do our 
jobs, they want to speak with us, they want to lobby us on issues and 
they want to vote. They should not have to compete with the growing and 
inordinate sums of money that are getting into our campaign system.

                              {time}  1200

  The Doolittle bill is a surrender to this problem. We need to defeat 
this bill, we need to get to meaningful campaign finance reform, we 
need to pass it today on the floor of the House.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman also from California (Mr. Fazio), my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I just could not resist 
getting involved with my California friends in the debate in this 
measure, which I would like to tombstone as the Richard Mellon Scaife 
Empowerment Act of 1998. This gentleman from the well-known banking 
family of course has inordinate influence in our political system, 
giving through nonprofit entities, certainly through think tanks, 
contributing soft dollars through organizations that he has little 
influence or interest in other than his desire to be helpful to his 
friends in the Republican party.
  This bill, of course, would give him the same kind of unlimited 
influence in Federal elections directly by taking all the caps off on 
what people are allowed to contribute to PACs, to candidates, to the 
national parties, to the State parties. So the Cook brothers from 
Kansas, for example, who have made a career out of pushing term limits 
around the country or Libertarian causes and Republicans who support 
them would have an unlimited amount of ability to be involved in each 
and every congressional race, races for the Senate.
  Mr. Chairman, this is really an amendment that offers the concept of 
free speech as defined by the size of wallets, and that really is my 
response to the comments the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has made, 
and others, about empowering people and giving them their First 
Amendment rights. If people are only heard in our society by their 
ability to buy media, to pay for mail, to contact the voters directly 
through the very expensive vehicles that are available to them, if that 
is the only way they can be heard in this society, there is then no 
real equivalent ability to campaign on the basis of their ideas, on the 
basis of their platform, what they believe in, who they are. It becomes 
just a question of who has the biggest megaphone and who can be heard 
the loudest.
  This amendment is really nothing more than an effort to empower the 
wealthiest people in our society to have even more dominant influence 
on our elections than they already do.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) the leader of the 
Shays-Meehan bill.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this substitute because the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) would allow candidates to 
raise unlimited sums from individuals. Right now the limit is $1,000; 
from PACs it is $5,000. He would have an unlimited amount. The national 
parties are limited to $20,000; he would have an unlimited amount. The 
State parties have $5,000. Under our bill they can do $10,000, but he 
has an unlimited amount. He has an unlimited amount to the aggregate 
that can be contributed in all campaigns.
  But in addition he does not even have full disclosure, particularly 
as it relates to third party proposals. When third parties come in, all 
they have to disclose is the name of their organization. It is a very 
clever thing. He calls it disclosure, but we do not know who that 
organization is. They can just have a sham name: The Committee for 
Better Government. We do not know who is part of that, we do not know 
who contributed, we do not know if there were five people, a hundred, a 
thousand. We do not know if a individual contributed $1 million, $2 
million, $10 million, a dollar.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Respecting that the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) has a 
right to close, I just want to reiterate what we are closing on. We are 
closing on a bill that changes the law, proposes to change the law.
  Under existing law, if someone wants to contribute to a candidate, it 
is a $1,000 limit for each cycle, for a primary campaign and for a 
general election. Under Mr. Doolittle's it is unlimited, unlimited 
amount of money.
  Right now under current law it is $5,000 a cycle, $5,000 in the 
primary, $5,000 in the general maximum for PACs, political action 
committees, and that is authorized by law, and that does not change, 
the limits are not changed, in the Shays-Meehan bill. But they sure are 
changed in the Doolittle bill because it goes to unlimited amounts.
  Under current law the national parties can receive $20,000. Under the 
Doolittle bill, unlimited amount of money, unlimited.
  State parties under existing law can receive $5,000. The Shays-Meehan 
goes to $10,000 for the reasons that were talked about. But Doolittle, 
unlimited, unlimited amount of money. In all of the above in aggregate 
it is about $25,000. Under the Doolittle bill it is unlimited.
  Mr. Chairman, the Doolittle bill is going in the wrong direction. It 
is doing the wrong thing, giving the wrong message.
  This country is about ``We the people.'' In order to get people 
involved in politics we have got to make it accessible, affordable, not 
owned by millionaires, not owned by campaigns where we do not even see 
who is contributing.
  Defeat this measure. It is probably one that should receive the 
biggest defeat of all of the bills that are trying to hurt the attempt 
to get Shays-Meehan to the Senate and to the President's desk.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, to those who support big 
government and more regulation my bill is going in the wrong direction. 
But to those of us who believe that here the problem is the regulation 
which has directly spawned PACs, soft money, issue advocacy, 
independent expenditures, et cetera, then we are going to offer a new 
direction.
  And, as I said before, there is no way this bill, Shays-Meehan, is 
ever going to become law of this Congress, so we are really laying the 
foundation now for next Congress, and I invite all the people sincerely 
concerned about campaign reform to cast a ``aye'' vote on mine, even if 
they voted for the Shays-Meehan bill or the Farr or will vote for the 
freshman bill coming up.
  Mr. Chairman, we are taking a new approach.
  As my colleagues know, I have to smile when I hear the rhetoric of my 
opponents about this. One would think I was proposing something that 
was out in Mars or out in left field, but of course it could not be 
``left'' field because that is the big government approach.
  Let me just make this observation:
  The largest State in the union, California, has had this system for 
decades. The Commonwealth of Virginia has had this system for decades. 
We do not hear in Virginia any problems over the election they just 
went through. I think

[[Page H7312]]

the current governor is the son of a butcher. The former governor, his 
immediate predecessor, was the son of a football coach.
  So the issue of millionaires, that is a red herring, it is a false 
issue the other side brings up. We are the ones who are against the 
present situation where are only millionaires can spend whatever they 
like. I would like to have the average citizen running for office to be 
free to compete against the millionaire, which today he cannot do. Why? 
Because of the strict contribution limits that are in place.
  I believe, Mr. Chairman, this philosophy of deregulation is important 
to support. I believe it will clean up our system. We have very strict 
disclosure. And let me say to the gentleman, ``You won't need all this 
soft money. It will largely wither away once you allow the natural flow 
of money from contributor to candidate with full disclosure, and then 
let the voter decide.''
  Take the governmental czar out of the equation. I ask my colleagues 
to support my substitute.


 Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 5 Offered by Mr. Doolittle

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 5 offered by 
     Mr. Doolittle:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Citizen Legislature and 
     Political Freedom Act''.

     SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF LIMITATIONS ON FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 315(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(9) The limitations established under this subsection 
     shall not apply to contributions made during calendar years 
     beginning after 1998.''

     SEC. 3. TERMINATION OF TAXPAYER FINANCING OF PRESIDENTIAL 
                   ELECTION CAMPAIGNS.

       (a) Termination of Designation of Income Tax Payments.--
     Section 6096 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Termination.--This section shall not apply to taxable 
     years beginning after December 31, 1997.''
       (b) Termination of Fund and Account.--
       (1) Termination of presidential election campaign fund.--
       (A) In general.--Chapter 95 of subtitle H of such Code is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 9014. TERMINATION.

       ``The provisions of this chapter shall not apply with 
     respect to any presidential election (or any presidential 
     nominating convention) after December 31, 1998, or to any 
     candidate in such an election.''
       (B) Transfer of excess funds to general fund.--Section 9006 
     of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(d) Transfer of Funds Remaining After 1998.--The 
     Secretary shall transfer all amounts in the fund after 
     December 31, 1998, to the general fund of the Treasury.''
       (2) Termination of account.--Chapter 96 of subtitle H of 
     such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 9043. TERMINATION.

       ``The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any 
     candidate with respect to any presidential election after 
     December 31, 1998.''
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) The table of sections for chapter 95 of subtitle H of 
     such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     item:

``Sec. 9014. Termination.''

       (2) The table of sections for chapter 96 of subtitle H of 
     such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     item:

``Sec. 9043. Termination.''

     SEC. 4. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN SOFT MONEY 
                   EXPENDITURES OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

       (a) Transfers of Funds by National Political Parties.--
     Section 304(b)(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(b)(4)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (H);
       (2) by adding ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (I); and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(J) in the case of a political committee of a national 
     political party, all funds transferred to any political 
     committee of a State or local political party, without regard 
     to whether or not the funds are otherwise treated as 
     contributions or expenditures under this title;''.
       (b) Disclosure by State and Local Political Parties of 
     Information Reported Under State Law.--Section 304 of such 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 434) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(d) If a political committee of a State or local 
     political party is required under a State or local law, rule, 
     or regulation to submit a report on its disbursements to an 
     entity of the State or local government, the committee shall 
     file a copy of the report with the Commission at the time it 
     submits the report to such an entity.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to elections occurring after January 
     1999.

     SEC. 5. PROMOTING EXPEDITED AVAILABILITY OF FEC REPORTS.

       (a) Mandatory Electronic Filing.--Section 304(a)(11)(A) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     434(a)(11)(A)) is amended by striking ``permit reports 
     required by'' and inserting ``require reports under''.
       (b) Requiring Reports for All Contributions Made to Any 
     Political Committee Within 90 Days of Election; Requiring 
     Reports To Be Made Within 24 Hours.--Section 304(a)(6) of 
     such Act (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(6)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(6)(A) Each political committee shall notify the 
     Secretary or the Commission, and the Secretary of State, as 
     appropriate, in writing, of any contribution received by the 
     committee during the period which begins on the 90th day 
     before an election and ends at the time the polls close for 
     such election. This notification shall be made within 24 
     hours (or, if earlier, by midnight of the day on which the 
     contribution is deposited) after the receipt of such 
     contribution and shall include the name of the candidate 
     involved (as appropriate) and the office sought by the 
     candidate, the indentification of the contributor, and the 
     date of receipt and amount of the contribution.
       ``(B) The notification required under this paragraph shall 
     be in addition to all other reporting requirements under this 
     Act.''.
       (c) Increasing Electronic Disclosure.--Section 304 of such 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 434(a)), as amended by section 4(b), is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e)(1) The Commission shall make the information 
     contained in the reports submitted under this section 
     available on the Internet and publicly available at the 
     offices of the Commission as soon as practicable (but in no 
     case later than 24 hours) after the information is received 
     by the Commission.
       ``(2) In this subsection, the term `Internet' means the 
     international computer network of both Federal and non-
     Federal interoperable packet-switched data networks.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to reports for periods beginning on 
     or after January 1, 1999.

     SEC. 6. WAIVER OF ``BEST EFFORTS'' EXCEPTION FOR INFORMATION 
                   ON IDENTIFICATION OF CONTRIBUTORS.

       (a) In General.--Section 302(i) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 432(i)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(i) When the treasurer'' and inserting 
     ``(i)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), when the 
     treasurer''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to 
     information regarding the identification of any person who 
     makes a contribution or contributions aggregating more than 
     $200 during a calendar year (as required to be provided under 
     subsection (c)(3)).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to persons making contributions for 
     elections occurring after January 1999.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is not further debatable.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 131, 
noes 299, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 403]

                               AYES--131

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Everett
     Fawell
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas

[[Page H7313]]


     Martinez
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (OR)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--299

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Castle
     Cunningham
     Gonzalez
     Inglis

                              {time}  1230

  Ms. LEE and Messrs. BURR of North Carolina, SMITH of Texas, McCOLLUM, 
HUTCHINSON, and MORAN of Kansas changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mrs. BONO and Messrs. CAMP, REDMOND and GOODLATTE changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of the legislative day of Wednesday, August 5, 1998, it is now in 
order to debate the subject matter of the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the Congressional Record as No. 4.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 442 and that order, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to ask for a vote on the proposal that 
I am offering, but I have some things that I have wanted to say for a 
long time and now is the best time to say them.
  The general public knows, and any politician with a conscience ought 
to know, that our existing campaign finance system is a disgrace. What 
people do not know is that we are not operating under the laws written 
by Congress. We are operating under what was left of reforms passed by 
the Congress after the Court shredded those reforms in a series of 
misguided decisions.
  Under the Buckley v. Valeo decision, the Court equated dollars with 
speech, and in the process prevented the establishment of real limits 
on campaign spending. Through so-called independent expenditure and 
advocacy ads, they have allowed the cynical manipulation of campaign 
laws by special interests with the deepest pockets in this country.
  In trying to come up with an honest solution to the problem of 
campaign finance, we need first to understand what the basic problems 
are. The biggest problem is the lack of public participation. At least 
50 percent of Americans do not vote. That means the question of who 
runs the country is decided in most elections by a majority of the 
minority.
  Ninety-four percent of Americans never contribute to a political 
campaign. They believe in political campaigns through immaculate 
conception. They do not want to contribute, and they do not like it 
when anybody else does, either. Many of them do not contribute because 
they cannot afford it. Some do not care. Some do not know how. Some do 
not believe that their contributions would make a difference. Some do 
not contribute simply because they have never been asked.
  That means that in terms of financing campaigns, politics for most 
people has become a sideline sport. That is unhealthy. Only one-third 
of 1 percent of all Americans make contributions of $200 or more, and 
that constitutes over half of all of the money given by individuals in 
campaigns. That is one reason that 75 percent of the public says, in 
the Yankelovich poll, that our system of government is democratic in 
name only and that special interests run things.
  When Congress passed campaign finance reform after Watergate, and I 
was here when we did, we thought we had created a system under which no 
individual could give more than $1,000, and no organization could give 
more than $5,000. Today corporate and party attorneys have expanded 
loopholes which enable corporations and high rollers individually to 
routinely give $200,000 contributions to both parties. The system is 
bad for both parties, because it makes the public gag when they think 
about politics. That is not the way it is supposed to be in this 
country.
  I will vote for the Shays-Meehan bill today because I think it does 
some good, but I think it does some very modest good. It does not go 
nearly far enough, in my view, and will be ineffective, if passed, on 
the question of independent expenditures and issue advocacy, because, 
like almost all other proposals, it is forced to dance around the court 
decisions such as Buckley v. Valeo and the Colorado case.
  It seems to me that as long as we accept Buckley v. Valeo, that what 
we are doing is pretending that we can get meaningful reform without 
modification of Buckley v. Valeo.
  There is a group of legal scholars in this country, exemplified by 
Joshua Rosencrantz from New York University School of Law, who believes 
that if the Congress passes legislation containing a congressional 
finding that the existing system has become so fundamentally corrupting 
of America's faith in our institutions that it is necessary to limit 
campaign activities by candidates and special interests, that the

[[Page H7314]]

court might modify its original decision in light of those changing 
circumstances.
  I would like to think that is true, but I am dubious. But I am 
willing to try it, because it offers one of only two meaningful ways to 
get out of our dilemma. That is why I am offering the proposal that I 
am offering today.
  This proposal contains a congressional finding that America's faith 
in our election system has been fundamentally corrupted by big money, 
especially soft money, and cynical, manipulative expenditures by 
outside interest groups.
  This bill would establish a voluntary system of 100 percent public 
financing for candidates who agree to take no private money whatsoever 
from any private source in general elections. It provides that 
candidates who receive public financing would agree to reasonable 
spending limits to finance congressional campaigns. The bill creates a 
grass roots citizenship fund into which individual public-spirited 
Americans may contribute on a voluntary basis.
  The Federal Elections Commission would be authorized to conduct a 
major advertising campaign each year alerting the public to the 
existence of that fund, and explaining that they can help take back 
their government from special interest domination by voluntarily 
contributing virtually any amount they want. That is accomplished in 
the form of a dollar check up, not a check-off on their Federal tax 
return. So this is not mandated public financing, and it has not one 
dime of impact on the deficit.
  In addition to that, we would supplement that by a one-tenth of 1 
percent fee charged to all corporations whose profits are above $10 
million. That is not going to break any of them.
  The bill ends the scam of corporations and unions and special 
interest groups spending money to influence elections, all the while 
pretending that they are not doing what they in fact are doing. It 
would simply say that for a short 90-day period before the election, no 
independent expenditures and no issue advocacy ads would be allowed, 
period, if they could reasonably be determined to be aimed at 
influencing the outcome of the election.
  If the court overturns those limitations, then this bill contains a 
requirement for an expedited procedure for the Congress to consider a 
narrow constitutional amendment only for the purpose of limiting such 
expenditures for that narrow 90-day period before the election.
  Under normal circumstances, I frankly detest the idea of a 
constitutional amendment, because, with all due respect, when I look 
around this House floor, I see as many Daffy Ducks as I do James 
Madisons. But I would make an exception to my general resistance to a 
constitutional amendment, because this issue involves the very survival 
of our democratic form of government.
  Today our system is grotesquely warped to respond to those in this 
society with money. The court did not know it at the time, but the 
result of the Buckley v. Valeo case has been to subvert the court one 
man-one vote decision on a reapportionment. We really do not have a 
meaningful one man-one vote system at the ballot box, when one man's 
vote can be magnified by $1 million times if he has $1 million bucks. 
It turns ``One-man One-vote'' into ``Big Bucks, Big Megaphone'' and 
that is a lousy way to run what is supposed to be the greatest 
democratic system in the world.

  I have served in this institution for quite a while. I love what it 
is supposed to be. I cannot walk by the Capitol building at night 
without continuing to be thrilled about what our form of government is 
supposed to mean for every man, woman, and child in this country. But I 
have been profoundly angered by what the dominance of the economic 
elite in this country has done to public policy in this country, and to 
the process by which that policy is determined.
  I have read a lot of things in public opinion polls that mystify me. 
I read some that profoundly disturb me. The most disturbing is that 2 
years ago, one pollster asked the public, ``Who does the Republican 
Party best represent, the rich, the middle class, or the poor?'' The 
response overwhelmingly came back, ``The rich!'' When the same question 
was asked about the Democratic Party, and who it represented, the rich, 
the middle class, or the poor, the response again came back: ``The 
Rich!''
  The public, it is clear, thinks that both parties are far too 
influenced by people who have the most money; and do you know what? 
They are absolutely dead right. The only way we can restore public 
confidence in this election system, and the very democratic processes 
enshrined in the Constitution, is to take private money totally out of 
general elections by providing 100 percent public financing.
  Elections are supposed to be public events, not private events. They 
are not supposed to be auctions. They are supposed to be competing 
between ideas, not bank accounts.
  In the middle of the 19th century, my district was represented in 
Congress by Congressman Cadwallader Washburn.

                              {time}  1245

  He also had two brothers serving in the Congress at the same time. 
One of the brothers represented the timber companies, a second 
represented the railroads, and the third represented the mining 
companies. They had all the big bases covered.
  Times have changed since then. But unless we make dramatic changes to 
campaign finance, this Congress is slowly but surely reverting to a 
situation in which individual Members are being seen as tools or 
mouthpieces of major economic interests in this country.
  Our principal responsibility as Members of this sacred body is to see 
to it that that does not happen. That is why I have tried to raise this 
issue today, and that is why, while I will support Shays-Meehan and I 
will oppose the freshman bill, I honestly believe that after the court 
gets done mucking up again honest efforts at reform, we will have to, 
in all honesty, turn to the recognition that we are going to have to 
look at a narrow constitutional amendment, if we are to save this 
Republic from the clutches of the wealthy elite which would turn ``One-
man One-vote'' into ``Every man for the elite!''
  That is not the way this country is supposed to be shaped, but our 
election politics right now guarantees that is the way it is going, 
without fundamental reform.
  I congratulate the supporters of Shays-Meehan. They are trying to do 
the best they can under ridiculous court decisions, but they cannot go 
very far under those ridiculous decisions.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Does any Member rise in 
opposition to the amendment?
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) is recognized for 20 
minutes.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I respect the honesty of the gentleman. I completely disagree on the 
solution, but I think some of the problems he has identified are real 
problems.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, all that demonstrates is what Will Rogers 
meant when he said, when two people agree on everything, one of them is 
unnecessary.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, I assure the gentleman, there is lots of room 
for debate in this.
  The Buckley case, of course, is completely consistent with prior 
cases on the First Amendment and has been upheld repeatedly, dozens of 
decisions since then, so it is not an exception to the Supreme Court's 
rulings in this area. It is not an aberration. It is completely 
consistent with mainstream constitutional law. It was correctly decided 
for the most part, I have quibbles with parts of it, but in general the 
idea that you cannot place expenditure limits on people who are running 
for office is desirable and constitutionally correct.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) really, in his substitute, 
does what I think most of the sponsors of Shays-Meehan really want, and 
that is to get the public financing. That is highly unpopular, and I 
wish the gentleman would bring it up for a vote. I have taken a 
radically different course

[[Page H7315]]

than most of the other bills with my full disclosure and deregulation. 
I would like to see the complete antithesis--offered by Mr. Obey--voted 
on in this House as well. Perhaps the gentleman will change his mind at 
the end and perhaps not.
  Anyway, I guess I would just like to quote, again the Sacramento Bee, 
virtually the Washington Post of the West Coast, when it editorialized 
yesterday against Shays-Meehan, but the two criticisms, I think, go 
right to the heart of the bill of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) as well.
  And it says in the editorial page, ``it centers on two big, wrong-
headed reforms: Prohibiting national political parties from collecting 
or using soft money contributions and outlawing independent political 
advertising that identifies candidates within 60 days of a Federal 
election.'' I think in this case the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) may have said his was 90 days.
  The editorial continues: ``That means the law would prohibit issue 
campaigning at precisely the time when voters are finally interested in 
listening, hardly consistent with free speech. Since that kind of 
restriction is likely to be tossed by the courts as a violation of 
constitutional free speech guarantees, the net effect of the changes 
will be to weaken political parties while making the less accountable 
`independent expenditure groups' kings of the campaign landscape.
  So, indeed, we see that far from bringing control from the elite back 
to the average person, the bill of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), according to the Sacramento Bee, and I believe this as well, 
would go exactly in the opposite direction and further strengthen the 
hand of the elite, just as Shays-Meehan would do along with the other 
big government types of reforms.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think we need to understand what issue advocacy campaigns are and 
what independent expenditures are.
  What happens is, if a corporation or a union or any other private 
interest gets mad at any Member of this Congress, they can run an 
unlimited amount of ads savaging their reputation without ever telling 
who they are, where they get their money or what their real agenda is. 
They pretend that these are not campaign ads when they are, to the 
core, efforts to influence campaigns. They are public lies that slip by 
because nobody on the Supreme Court ever ran for sheriff.
  If any member of the Supreme Court had ever run for public office, 
they would understand what an idiocy they have performed when they 
produced Buckley v. Valeo. They would understand the scams that 
routinely go on to pretend that you are not involved in a campaign when 
you are going hell-bent to savage the reputation of one of the 
candidates in a campaign.
  So what I believe is that if any money is going to be contributed to 
affect the campaign, it ought to be contributed on top of the table, 
not under the table. My first preference is to have no private money at 
all, because that is the only way that you truly do assure one-man one-
vote.
  Shays-Meehan cannot do that because they are trying to be very 
careful, so they produce something which lives within the constraints 
of Buckley v. Valeo and the other decisions. I respect them for their 
efforts, and I applaud them. But somebody in this Congress has to speak 
forthrightly about the stupidity of those court decisions and how the 
big money interests of this country have been able to manipulate those 
decisions through the years. And that situation is getting worse, it is 
not getting better.
  I would hope that passage of Shays-Meehan will lead to creating more 
pressure and more awareness in the public of the need to have 
fundamental reform. If it were accepted by the other body, it would be 
a welcome first step forward.
  Let us not kid ourselves, it is a modest, modest approach in 
comparison to what really needs to be done if this country is going to 
some day, some day, for at least a moment or two in our history, have 
truly equal access to government on the part of every American, 
regardless of connections, regardless of economic circumstances, 
regardless of who you know.
  Your ability to influence government ought to be based on what you 
know, not who you know and what you have in your bank account. Right 
now, the system is just reversed, and that is why it is so sick.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, just to observe, the system is sick and the system rewards the 
elites, particularly the media elite. Overwhelmingly the liberal media 
elite in this country is going to get even stronger under the bill of 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the Shays-Meehan bill and 
under these other big government types of reforms.
  That is why, if we really want to do something for the average 
person, we will go in the opposite direction and deregulate, not 
further encumber the system with even more regulation.
  By the way, just as a point of note, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 
just to name one, was, I believe, an elected Republican leader in the 
Arizona legislature, so she certainly was familiar with elections. 
While it is true that she was not on the court when Buckley was 
decided, she has certainly been participating in all the various 
decisions which without fail have continued to sustain and uphold the 
rationale in Buckley ever since it was rendered in 1976.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) is 
really doing is defending the status quo. I respect his right to do 
that. But what he is defending is a system which says on the books that 
individuals can only contribute $1,000 to a candidate in a general 
election, and political action committees can only contribute $5,000 in 
a general election, but if some rich guy gets his nose out of joint, he 
can spend a million dollars affecting the outcome of a political 
campaign.
  Now, that, on its face, is ludicrous. You talk about guaranteeing the 
supremacy of elites, you have got to be kidding if you do not think 
that that guarantees the supremacy of economic elites in this country.
  All you have to have in order to destroy a decent balance in politics 
in this country is a big ego and a big bank account and a big grudge 
against somebody who is trying to behave in the public interest. That 
is why I think we need the fundamental reform I am talking about.
  Mr. Chairman, absent any speakers on my side, if the gentleman is 
willing to yield back, I am willing to yield back.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me say, at the end of my brief remarks, I am prepared to yield 
back. We have no more speakers.
  I would just like to observe that I am really not defending the 
status quo. I loathe this present system as much as anybody. But it is 
the big government types who gave us the present system. The present 
system has created this absurd situation which you identified where a 
millionaire can do anything he likes for his own election, but he can 
only give $1,000 to somebody else's.
  The converse of that is that the individual, as a candidate who is 
not a millionaire, who has no money, so to speak, of average means and 
has to get it from others, he has to go grub for money and spend 70 
percent of his time, like Lamar Alexander was quoted as doing, because 
the present system limits him what we can do.
  So the millionaire, under the big government elite system, the sky is 
the limit to the billionaire, he can spend whatever he likes, and that 
is okay. But the average person is limited in what he can raise in 
order to be able to spend it in his campaign.
  It is just not fair. It is not right. The gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) and I have different solutions for this.
  I just want to make clear, I think in many ways, in fact, I do not 
think, I know my proposal is clearly the most dramatic in terms of the 
change that it would make, because it totally overthrows the existing 
order and does not leave even a vestige of it. We institute instead 
thereof full disclosure.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H7316]]

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, the system the gentleman is 
proposing as an alternative would simply say that the way you solve the 
problem is by letting the big guys contribute more than they contribute 
today. I do not find that to be much of a solution at all.
  I would also point out, again, the system the gentleman is defending 
by way of independent expenditures allows people to affect the outcome 
of elections secretly rather than having their contributions on top of 
the table.
  The best way to relieve politicians from the need to go after those 
thousand dollar contributions is to simply take away their ability to 
take any money, period. Elections are supposed to be public events. 
They are not supposed to be a competition between private interests. 
They are supposed to serve the public interest, not the private 
interests with money. That is why we will never truly have a government 
``of, by and for the people'' until there is no private money at all 
allowed in campaigns and we have 100 percent public financing.
  That may not be stylish, but that happens to be what I believe. I 
believe it with all the fiber of my being. I am not going to be like 
the country preacher that Mo Udall cited once, who says, ``Well, folks, 
thems my views, and if you don't like them, well, then I will change 
them.''
  I am not going to change my views. I believe this is the only way to 
truly give us a truly Democratic system.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The amendment No. 4 not being offered, pursuant to the order of the 
House of the legislative day of Wednesday, August 5, 1998, it is now in 
order to debate the subject matter of the amendment printed in the 
Congressional Record as No. 8.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 442 and that order, the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and a Member opposed, each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes of my time to the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), and I ask unanimous consent that he 
be able to yield blocks of time as he deems necessary.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arkansas?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As we have learned in this debate, campaign finance reform can 
certainly be a complex and confusing issue, but the public always has a 
way of making common sense out of nonsense. To the public, this issue 
boils down to the meaning of democracy. Democracy in our country, in 
Washington, is being changed from ``the people rule'' to ``big money 
governs'', and that is what must be reversed.
  In order for democracy to be strengthened, we have to empower the 
individual. The Hutchinson-Allen freshman bill does exactly this. The 
freshman bill empowers individuals so that their voices can be heard in 
Washington, even above the clamor of special interests.
  The freshman bill, most importantly, protects the Constitution and 
free speech, but it also gives the American people a greater voice in 
our political process. It does this in three ways.
  First of all, it restrains the uncontrolled excesses of big monied 
special interests and labor unions by banning soft money, the millions 
of dollars these groups pump into our national political parties in a 
similar fashion as the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) indicated 
this morning that his legislation did, banning it to the Federal 
parties but not restricting the States.
  It strengthens the individual voices by increasing the amount 
individuals and political action committees can give by indexing their 
contribution limits to match inflation. The freshman bill is the only 
proposal that strengthens the individual contributions in this way.
  Thirdly, it provides information to the public, and it strengthens 
individuals in that way, by giving them and the media information about 
who is spending money to influence campaigns. Knowledge is power and we 
empower individuals.
  Mr. Chairman, the freshman bill has been criticized by extremists on 
both sides of this debate. On the one hand there are those who would 
claim this bill goes too far and should not ban soft money. On the 
other hand, there are those who claim this bill does not go far enough 
and is not real reform. I am not sure we could have asked for a better 
compliment. The opposition from both extremes suggests the freshman 
task force has succeeded in producing a balanced and fair bill that 
does not tip the scales in favor of one faction or another.
  And so the freshman bill is simple, but in this town being simple and 
straightforward confuses a lot of people. But because it is bipartisan, 
because it is simple, it has the best opportunity of going through the 
Senate, being passed and becoming law.
  I am delighted with my fellow freshmen who have worked so hard on 
this and I will look forward to hearing them in this debate. Our goal 
is the best route for reform, and that is the freshman bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Is there a Member who stands in 
opposition?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson) is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this process is clearly at a point where we are going 
to make a choice, and the choice is relatively simple. We will either 
move forward with the Shays-Meehan legislation, that has some chance, 
although a difficult hurdle with the parliamentary ability of Senators 
to stop legislation, and move forward with campaign finance reform.
  I happen to think it is also a preferable piece of legislation, in 
that it has stricter controls on soft money and issue advocacy ads. It 
does a better job in a number of areas. It does not increase 
expenditure limits as large as this bill does. Under this particular 
piece of legislation an individual's ability to give, per election 
cycle, goes from $25,000 to $50,000. I am against increasing any of 
these contribution limits.
  The average American must be sitting home and scratching their heads 
when they look at legislation that increases how much an individual can 
give in each election cycle from $25,000 to $50,000. That is not the 
challenge to entering the political process for most families who make 
less than $50,000 a year. The only reason to increase the amount of 
money that people can contribute to campaigns is if we think wealthy 
people do not have enough access to the political process. That is 
clearly not the problem.
  I would hope we would defeat this bill. It has been a noble effort. 
They have clearly wanted reform. We have a better vehicle before us. We 
have a vehicle that has a chance of becoming law and we ought to take 
that. Defeat this particular piece of legislation and let us pass 
Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I was really pleased that the gentleman 
was able to cosponsor the freshman bill.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I will reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman, because I have 
very little, and say I did so to try to move this process forward.
  I cosponsored almost every piece of real reform legislation at the 
beginning of this Congress to see which one we could get to the 
forefront. I had my own. This is not about ego or authorship. This is 
about what we can get done, and what we can get done today is Shays-
Meehan.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis), who has been a real leader in the effort on 
campaign finance reform.

[[Page H7317]]

  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as soon as the 42 Democratic 
freshmen arrived in Washington we chose as our highest priority to 
reform the campaign finance system in this country. And we knew there 
were two things that had to be done to accomplish that: First, the bill 
had to be bipartisan; and, second, it had to be incremental.
  So the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Tom Allen) is the leader on our 
side, working hand-in-hand with the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Asa 
Hutchinson), and a few other Republican freshmen who wrote a bill 
attacking two of the most gaping loopholes in our campaign finance 
system: Soft money, unlimited contributions given to political parties, 
not for good government, I would submit in many cases. And anonymous, 
and often misleading and inflammatory political ads run by third-party 
groups from outside the congressional districts, in most cases, where 
the ads were being run.
  And that bill was opposed. Matter of fact, at least one group said 
that the courts had upheld their rights to run political advertising. 
In fact, they went on to admit that if they were forced by our bill to 
put their names on their political ads, they would not run the ads.
  That is exactly why we were doing the bill. If somebody is not 
willing to put their name on a political ad, they are not willing to 
stand behind the representations they are making to voters in 
attempting to influence the outcome of an election.
  Now, many of us who supported this bill have voted for Shays-Meehan, 
and we will continue to do so. And we will continue to adopt as our 
highest priority to reform this excessive and out-of-control campaign 
finance system.
  I want to say one thing about the freshmen who did this. We did so 
not because we were concerned about the risk as to who was going to 
benefit, Democrats or Republicans; we were concerned about the risks of 
continuing with a system out of control. We will continue to push, when 
this bill passes the House today, for meaningful campaign finance 
reform.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Rick Hill), who has been an outstanding leader on this 
freshman task force's efforts for reform.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Many people refer to the freshman bill as the Shays-Meehan light 
bill. Frankly, that is not fair to the Shays-Meehan bill or to the 
freshman bill, because these two bills have a different underlying 
philosophy to them. They do have one thing in common. They both seek to 
ban soft money.
  But the real question is, how and why are we trying to reform 
campaign finance? Again, we agree that we should ban soft money and the 
soft money abuses of labor unions and corporations. And the argument 
for the Shays bill is that we should ``level the playing field,'' that 
is, level the playing field between incumbents and outside groups.
  They would limit these outside groups by determining how they get 
money and how they spend it and when they spend it. Is that 
constitutional? Probably not. Even the advocates for Shays-Meehan 
believe it may not meet constitutional muster. More important, is it a 
good thing to do? I do not think it is. I think it is a bad idea.
  Shays basically says incumbents should control, that others should 
play on the same playing field as incumbents, and so they seek to limit 
these outside groups. I do not think we should level the playing field 
by limiting the political speech. And so the freshman took a fresh 
approach. Probably because we were not incumbents allowed us to take 
that fresh approach.
  We said that we should level the playing field, but the playing field 
ought to be level between incumbents and challengers. The result of the 
Shays bill is that it is going to protect incumbents and it is going to 
restrict the opportunities for challengers. The freshman bill seeks to 
expand the opportunities for challengers.
  How does it do that? It takes the shackles off political parties and 
their ability to help challengers. Challengers lose because they cannot 
get the resources. Our bill says let parties help challengers and, in 
the process, let us make campaigns competitive, and we think that is 
good.
  The Shays bill weakens parties. It forecloses the ability of parties 
to help their candidates. It will pit parties against their own 
candidates to raise money.
  When the Court declares Shays unconstitutional, which it will, 
incumbents are virtually guaranteed reelection. They are the only ones 
that will get the resources. They will be completely free of criticism 
from outside groups. And the problem is that challengers are going to 
be further locked out of the political process. Incumbents have all the 
power today. And what the freshmen bill says is that let us let 
challengers, let us let outsiders get access to the resources.
  I would ask my colleagues today to support the freshman bill.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) be allowed to take 10 minutes of 
my time and distribute it as he sees fit.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this year's freshman 
class, the Democratic freshman class, and I compliment them on their 
commitment to passing campaign finance reform.
  Here we are on the verge of this historic vote, and as I look over, I 
see the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Jim Davis), and the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Tom Allen), and the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Bob 
Weygand), and the freshmen Members who have worked so hard on this bill 
for so long. I think of the hours that we put in debating the pros and 
cons of different provisions in our legislation. It is really a warm 
feeling to think that here we are, we are going to pass a bill.
  Now, I hope it is the Shays-Meehan bill, but I want to compliment the 
ability of the freshman class to work in a bipartisan way, the ability 
of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hal Ford), and the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Vic Snyder), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Allen 
Boyd), and so many of the Democratic freshmen to work hard, diligently, 
to get us to a point in time where not only we are finally getting a 
debate and a vote on campaign finance reform, but we are going to make 
a real difference by advocating tirelessly for reform. The result is 
going to be that we are going to send a bill over to the other body, 
and the freshmen Democrats ought to be recognized for their outstanding 
efforts.
  I also rise today in opposition to the Hutchinson-Allen legislation, 
because I think we have a unique opportunity to pass a stronger bill, 
the Shays-Meehan substitute. And due to the structure of the debate, a 
vote for the Hutchinson-Allen bill would be a vote against the Shays-
Meehan bill.
  We have a bill that would definitely end the million dollar 
contributions that have funneled through the parties. It would also end 
the sham issue ads that influence Federal elections. Why? Because our 
legislation would not allow States to funnel unlimited money into 
Federal races. Moreover, the Shays-Meehan bill reins in those sham 
issue ads that ought to qualify as campaign ads.
  Another major loophole is this whole issue of undisclosed corporate 
money. We can do better. The Shays-Meehan legislation will do that. Mr. 
Chairman, I can honestly tell my colleagues that the Shays-Meehan 
legislation will cut the ties between unlimited contributions and the 
legislative process. I cannot draw the same conclusion about the 
Hutchinson substitute. Therefore, I cannot, in good conscience, endorse 
the freshman bill.
  But I think it is important, as we reach this critical hour, that we 
recognize the Members of the Democratic freshman class who signed the 
discharge petition to enable us to have this debate and this vote; who 
stood tall with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Chris Shays), 
myself, and the other Democratic Members, who got an outstanding 237 
majority in this House on Monday evening, and those Members who, I 
believe, will stand tall in sending the Shays-Meehan bill over to the 
other body so that we can get real campaign finance reform.
  I congratulate Members of the freshman class and look forward to 
having

[[Page H7318]]

them join with me at the end of this debate in making sure we send to 
the Senate the Shays-Meehan legislation.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to say that, first, 
I thank my colleague the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) for 
yielding me the 10 minutes, and to acknowledge the fact that he has 
been an extraordinary leader on campaign finance reform and succeeded 
in drafting legislation that got to the President's desk, and excellent 
legislation as well.
  I also want to stand to congratulate both the gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and all the 
freshmen for what they have done.
  The difficult thing is, we have worked well to bring this legislation 
forward. We tried not to, as reformers, to attack each other and to 
present a clear case. But today is the day in which we have to 
distinguish the differences.
  I would just say that I think in order to have a ban on soft money, 
we have to ban it not on just the Federal level but on the State level 
for Federal elections. And I think we cannot leave the current loophole 
of sham issue ads being allowed to continue when they are truly 
campaign ads. We need to make them campaign ads. They need to follow 
the campaign rules in order to eliminate that extraordinary loophole. 
We do have to continue to move forward with reform.
  So I thank my colleagues, and I look forward to this debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hutchinson 
amendment, the substitute, and, as it is known, the freshman 
substitute. Of all the choices out there, I think it deserves support.
  Mr. Chairman, if this were a perfect world lifting present 
restrictions on campaign financing and substituting only one 
requirement of immediate and full disclosure--with transparency--would 
be a perfect solution. This would allow a candidate to run his or her 
campaign in their own way in a free country while giving the voters 
immediate access to who is funding the candidates campaign. An informed 
electorate could then fully participate freely knowledgeably casting 
their ballots. But it's not a perfect world and we need to look at 
other choices.
  I have heard from many individuals, special interest groups, 
newspaper editorial boards regarding which bill is the correct and only 
solution to the problem. There's no such choice, and if we are honest 
with ourselves--we all know it.
  I happen to favor the Hutchinson substitute for a few very good 
reasons. Unlike the Shays/Meehan proposal, the freshman bill does not 
limit issue advocacy. Instead, it requires organizations to disclose 
any advertisement expenditures over a certain limit.
  The freshman bill bans national parties from raising soft money, and 
also prohibits Federal office holders and candidates from raising soft 
money for State parties. But, unlike the Shays/Meehan bill, the 
Hutchinson substitute does not impose Washington's views and 
regulations on the State parties. As someone who believes strongly in 
States' rights, I believe this is an important distinction.
  It's important to remember that the GOP majority in Congress has 
brought forward this open and extensive debate. The Democratic Party 
after 40 years in power in Congress never did do campaign reform and 
left us in the mess we are today. I commend Mr. Hutchinson for his 
leadership on this issue and I urge adoption of the freshman 
substitute. All rhetoric aside, it's the most workable choice and 
though I'm not a freshman I think their bill deserves strong support.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support. I was one of the Republican 
Members that signed the discharge petition to get this process moving, 
and one of the reasons I did it is because soft money is beginning to 
and may have already corrupted the political process and will continue.
  One of my major reasons for supporting this proposal is that both 
political parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, are 
taking money from the gambling interests, record money.
  Look at today's Washington Post: ``Survivor of Father's Shooting 
Dies.'' Dad was $10 million in debt, gambling and other debt ``totaling 
more than $10 million, some of it from gambling losses at Atlantic 
City.''

                [From the Washington Post, Aug. 6, 1998]

                Lone Survivor of Father's Shootings Dies

                (By Wendy Melillo and Brooke A. Masters)

       An 11-year old Herndon girl died yesterday after initially 
     surviving the slayings of her mother and brother and the 
     suicide of her father, Who authorities now say had defrauded 
     area banks of nearly $2 million and had $10 million in 
     gambling and other debts.
       Reha Ramachandran was grazed by a bullet that struck the 
     back of her head as her father, Natarajan Ramachandran, 
     killed his wife and 7-year old son Sunday night. Reha died 
     yesterday afternoon at Inova Fairfax Hospital after her brain 
     swelled as a result of the injury.
       Sources familiar with the investigation said that before 
     his death, Ramachandran had written nearly $2 million in bad 
     checks in an attempt to cover mounting debt totaling more 
     than $10 million, some of it from gambling losses at Atlantic 
     City casinos. He had been under investigation by the FBI and 
     had been interviewed several times by agents who were 
     building a case against him, a source said.
       ``It is sad day when the love of money and the fear of 
     failure drives a man to destroy his entire family,'' said Lt. 
     Bruce Guth, a Fairfax County police homicide investigator.
       Ramachandran was writing checks on several bank accounts, 
     all with insufficient funds, authorities said. The time it 
     took for checks to clear between accounts in the different 
     banks allowed Ramachandran to stay one step ahead of being 
     caught, authorities said.
       ``Our case concluded at the time he killed himself and will 
     subsequently be closed,'' John L. Barrett Jr., special agent 
     in charge of the criminal division in the FBI's Washington 
     field office.
       Authorities said Ramachandran's business partner, Nagaraja 
     Thyagarajan, became aware of the financial problems and went 
     to Ramachandran's home in the 12300 block of Clareth Drive at 
     12:45 p.m. Monday to discuss the matter. When Thyagarajan 
     knocked at the door, Reha, shaken, disoriented and bleeding 
     from a bullet wound, answered the door.
       She was admitted to Inova Fairfax Hospital and her 
     condition improved somewhat Tuesday--she even spoke with 
     police--before she died of complications yesterday.
       Fairfax County police said Reha told them that after being 
     shot, she somehow thought it was all ``just a bad dream.'' 
     She said she stumbled from the master bedroom, where 
     Ramachandran had gathered the family, into another room and 
     fell asleep until she was aroused by Thyagarajan's knock at 
     the door.
       Autopsies performed yesterday on Ramachandran; his wife, 
     Kalpara, 36; and son, Raj, determined that they died of 
     gunshot wounds to their upper bodies.
       Sources said Ramachandran left a note detailing his 
     financial problems. They said his wife was not aware of his 
     financial difficulties.
       Records from New Jersey Superior Court show three judgments 
     for an Atlantic City hotel and casino against Ramachandran, 
     who apparently also used the name Nat Ram there. The 
     judgments, in 1991 and 1992, totaled $2,240.
       Ramachandran worked for Universal Finance Solutions, a 
     Vienna investment firm that he founded with Thyagarajan. 
     Ramachandran and Thyagarajan paid $252,000 in cash for the 
     office condominium in a low-rise building on Gallows Road, 
     according to land records and the previous owner of the 
     property.
       Thyagarajan has declined to comment on the case.
       Ramachandran and his wife bought their Herndon home, with 
     four bedrooms, and 4\1/2\ bathrooms, for $585,000 in April 
     1997, with a mortgage of $438,000. The house sits on an acre 
     amid only 10 other homes in a subdivision called Crossfields.
       The family had not sold its previous home in Prince William 
     County. It was purchased in July 1989 for $170,400. County 
     land records show the couple had a $153,350 mortgage on that 
     property, and an additional loan in October for $15,700.

  Mr. WOLF. Why would the Democratic Party, why would the Republican 
Party want to take money from the gambling industry that brings about 
corruption and addiction?
  I also saw a study that came out the other day from Vermont where it 
says, the medical journal Pediatrics, ``High school students who gamble 
are more likely to engage in other health-risk behaviors.''
  The study surveyed 21,000 8th through 12th graders in Vermont, median 
age 15. More than half of these young people reported they gambled in

[[Page H7319]]

the last 12 months. Those who gambled in the last 12 months had a 
number of things in common: Male; frequent illegal drug use; not using 
seat belts, and driving after drinking alcohol.
  I sent a letter to both the Democratic national chairman and the 
Republican national chairman asking them to stop taking soft money, and 
neither have agreed.
  I think this bill is the best bill, the most balanced bill, the one 
that can pass, and the one that can be signed into law. For those 
reasons, I urge that no one vote ``present'' on this one. I urge 
everybody on both sides, whether they voted for Shays-Meehan or voted 
against Shays-Meehan, here is an opportunity. Support the Hutchinson-
Allen bill, which will do away with soft money once and for all, so the 
gambling interests and other special interests can no longer corrupt 
the political process.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the point of view of my 
colleague on the gambling interests. I think he is courageous. I am 
only concerned about the State soft money not being closed in this 
bill, which it is closed in Shays-Meehan; and I wonder if the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) had a comment on that.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would favor closing it. 
The concern I have with Shays-Meehan is it prohibits people from 
expressing themselves, and I am concerned it is an incumbent protection 
bill.
  I think anybody in the country ought to have the right to criticize 
us any way they want to in any kind of ad. And, for that reason, I am a 
little concerned. But on soft money for the states, I totally agree 
with the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. If the gentleman would yield further, to me it is a 
difficult balance, but that would be a flaw in the freshman bill, that 
we would still have soft money which is potentially corruptible and 
involves gambling interests going to the State.
  My State of California, look at the race for attorney general, last 
time Democrat and Republican. We are going to see gambling money on 
both sides. For what? For the attorney general, who is obviously making 
decisions on that.
  Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, I agree with the gentleman. I urge 
strong support for the Hutchinson-Allen bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Bipartisan Campaign Integrity 
Act (H.R. 2183), also known as the ``Freshman bill.''
  I think this is a balanced bill, and one that can pass. One of my 
main concerns has been the need for a total ban on soft money to the 
major national political parties. It was because of this that I was one 
of those who signed the discharge petition to keep the campaign finance 
reform process alive. I wanted to do everything I could to help to 
bring about a total ban on soft money to the national political 
parties.
  There are a lot of reasons why we need to take this step. I am deeply 
concerned about the obscene amounts of soft money going to the 
Republican and Democrat parties, especially from the gambling 
interests. As the author of legislation to create a commission to study 
the impact of the growth of gambling in America, I have seen firsthand 
the willingness of the gambling lobby to throw around vast sums of 
money to protect their own self-interests and preservation--at the 
expense of the average citizen. And do they have the money to do it. 
The gambling industry rakes in $50 billion in profits each year.
  We might not think of gambling as something that hurts anyone. But 
study after study shows thats just not true.
  We've been hearing a lot about gambling addiction among you people, 
and now another study has come out confirming those earlier findings.
  A recently published article in the medical journal Pediatrics showed 
that high school students who gamble are more likely to engaged in 
other health risk behaviors as well. The study surveyed more than 
21,000 eighth- through 12th-graders in Vermont schools. The median age 
of the students surveyed was 15 years old. More than half of these 
young people reported that they had gambled in the past 12 months. 
Those who had gambled in the past 12 months had a number of things in 
common: being male; frequent illegal drug use; not using seatbelts; 
driving after drinking alcohol; carrying a weapon; being involved in a 
fight; and years of sexual activity.
  Teen gambling addiction is just one example of this industry's ill 
effects. There are many others. I've been concerned by data like this, 
so I sent a letter to the chairmen of both major political parties, 
which I will include for the Record, asking them to take the first step 
in campaign finance reform by refusing to take soft money campaign 
contributions from the gambling industry. Unfortunately, they're still 
taking that money.
  Earlier this year, the New York Times reported that the gambling 
interests have ``more than quadrupled their contributions to federal 
candidates and political parties since 1991.''
  According to Common Cause, the national Republican and Democratic 
party committees have raised a record high of $90 million in soft money 
during the first 15 months of the 1998 election cycle. This is more 
than double what the parties raised during the first 15 months of the 
1994 cycle. In the first three months of 1998 alone, the parties raised 
almost $23 million.
  The Freshman bill protects free speech. It provides a level playing 
field for all federal candidates. It bans soft money on the federal 
level, and prohibits funny business between state and federal parties 
by eliminating loopholes. The Freshman bill stops state parties from 
laundering soft money for federal candidates.
  Soft money to the national political parties is the 900-pound gorilla 
of campaign finance reform. It's time to ban it. The Freshman bill does 
it. That's why I'm going to vote for it. I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, April 3, 1998.
     Mr. Jim Nicholson,
     Chairman, Republican National Committee, Washington, DC.
     Mr. Roy Romer,
     General Chairman, Democratic National Committee, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Romer: With today's gridlock on 
     campaign finance reform--which many of us believe is 
     essential to this country, and must have, at its core, a ban 
     on soft money--I would like to offer a suggestion to get the 
     process started. There is something that can be done to help 
     with this problem right now. A good first step toward 
     meaningful reform could happen today if both major political 
     parties would refuse to accept one more dollar from the 
     gambling industry.
       We couldn't even watch the NCAA basketball championship 
     without thinking of the recent headlines about the gambling 
     scandal involving two former basketball players from 
     Northwestern University who were just indicted for shaving 
     points in three games during the 1994-95 season. Although 
     betting on college sports is illegal, The Washington Post 
     reports that $80 million was wagered on this year's NCAA 
     tournament. (See attached.)
       But there is something else we need to think about as 
     political leaders. There is a definite link between gambling 
     and political corruption. Pro-gambling forces are well-funded 
     and lobby hard--at federal, state and local levels. In the 
     1995-96 election cycle alone, the casino interest poured $7 
     million into campaign coffers, according to a study conducted 
     by the Campaign Study Group for The New York Times. I don't 
     know if you saw the article that details this, but I'm 
     enclosing it for you. It says that these political 
     contributions have quadrupled since 1991 and that money has 
     been given both to federal candidates and to political 
     parties. This sends the wrong message about what kind of 
     government we have.
       Is it not hypocritical to call for campaign finance reform 
     while simultaneously receiving large sums of soft money from 
     gambling interests? I urge you today to jointly call a halt 
     to taking this money. With both major parties taking this 
     action, neither party would have an advantage over the other. 
     The winners in this would be the American Family--to moms, 
     dads and kids everywhere.
       All across the country, the nation's newspapers are filled 
     with stories of corruption related to gambling. Sometimes the 
     parties involved are the gambling operators themselves, as 
     was the case recently when the manager of a Virginia 
     charitable gambling operation pleaded guilty to nine counts 
     of embezzlement, The Virginia Pilot reported in January. 
     Earlier, four officials pleaded guilty and two workers are 
     under indictment in bingo corruption cases in a neighboring 
     Virginia town.
       But many times the corruption related to gambling has 
     political overtones. Recent land-grabbing cases by the city 
     led George magazine to list Las Vegas in its ``Ten Most 
     Corrupt Cities'' in the March 1998 issues. A former city 
     councilman told the magazine, ``This is government for the 
     casinos, of the casinos, and by the casinos.'' A former 
     deputy attorney general said, ``The city takes the money that 
     would have gone back into the community--schools, hospitals, 
     police--and instead they have given it to the casinos for 
     their development.''
       A federal investigation into charges of illicit gambling-
     related deals led Missouri's House Speaker, who had held the 
     office for 15 years, to resign, the Kansas City Star reported 
     in October 1996.

[[Page H7320]]

       Several years earlier, 19 Arizona legislators and lobbyists 
     were paid off after promising to see legalized gambling come 
     to the state, USA Today reported. That incident has been 
     caught on videotape and became known as ``AzScam.''
       Corruption charges have brought down four of the last seven 
     Atlantic City mayors, the New York Times reported.
       In Indiana, the former chairman of the state's House Ways 
     and Means Committee was indicted on charges of bribery, 
     perjury and filing false financial reports involving a 
     proposed riverboat casino.
       NBC recently aired a movie called, ``Playing to Win,'' 
     which was about teen addiction to gambling. The movie ended 
     by citing a new Harvard study which says two million 
     teenagers in America are struggling with gambling addiction. 
     A telephone number for the National Council on Compulsive 
     Gambling was flashed on the screen. According to the NCCG's 
     executive director, their phones have been ringing off the 
     hook, almost around the clock, since the airing of the movie. 
     People are looking for help--for themselves, for their 
     loved ones--because of gambling addiction.
       What is it that convinced NBC to air this movie? What was 
     it that motivated the citizens of Oklahoma, their state 
     legislators and their governor to reject gambling casinos by 
     more than a 2-to-1 margin earlier this year?
       They know the other side of the story. They knew that 
     gambling is no game. It leaves in it path the wreckage of 
     human misery. Addiction, crime, corruption, loss of revenue 
     to local business, bankruptcy, and even suicide--these are 
     the fruits of this industry which is sweeping America.
       That's why I'm writing you this letter. Although gambling 
     proponents make promises of increased jobs and revenue to 
     communities, gambling is no risk-free game. There is another 
     side of the story. It's time for the leaders and policymakers 
     of this country to face the evidence that gambling is bad for 
     families, bad for business and bad for communities. It's time 
     to say ``no'' to the money lure the gambling industry has 
     cast.


                     Gambling is Bad for Families.

       Many families cross the country have been ruined by 
     gambling. This is a problem that affects everybody--high 
     school students, retired persons, blue-collar workers, and 
     some of our nation's leaders.
       Across the country, social service agencies report the 
     incredibly negative impact that gambling is having on 
     American families. The Mississippi State Health Department 
     reported in 1994 that one of its state's localities, Harrison 
     County, has averaged 500 more divorces per year since casinos 
     appeared.
       In Illinois, a 1995 survey of compulsive gamblers showed 
     that for 25 percent of the respondents, gambling led to 
     divorce or separation.
       In Maryland, a 1995 report found that domestic violence and 
     child abuse skyrocket when gambling arrives into a community.
       The executive director of the Gulf Coast Women's Center in 
     Biloxi, Mississippi, reported that since gambling came to the 
     area, the center is averaging 400 more crises calls per 
     month. In Central City, Colorado, child protection cases rose 
     six-fold the year after casinos arrived, a 1994 study found.
       The fastest-growing teenage addiction today is gambling, 
     according to Howard J. Shaffer, director of Harvard Medical 
     School's Center for Addiction Studies. Shaffer found that the 
     rate of pathological gambling among high school and college-
     age people is twice that of adults.
       The gambling industry is not doing enough to prevent these 
     problems. For example, although the minimum legal age for 
     casino patrons in Louisiana is 21, six underage young people 
     boarded all three New Orleans-area riverboats in January and 
     gambled freely, the Associated Press reported. A local 
     television station used a hidden camera to tape the youths 
     gambling, cashing winnings and being offered alcoholic 
     beverages by cocktail waitresses on the boats.
       Bakruptcy, too, is skyrocketing in America, crippling 
     American families. Obviously, sometimes businesses fail and 
     investment go sour. But too often personal bankruptcies 
     happen as a result of spiraling gambling debt. When that's 
     the case, not only is the gambler affected, but so is his or 
     her entire family.
       There is a link between gambling and personal bankruptcies. 
     The U.S. Treasury Department is in the process of conducting 
     a study to examine this link. According to the American 
     Bankruptcy Institute, Nevada had the fourth-highest 
     bankruptcy rate in America in 1996. Mississippi ranked fifth 
     in the country in per-capita bankruptcy filings. It is also 
     the state with the second-highest level of gambling per 
     capita.
       Last year, bankruptcies in South Mississippi were up nearly 
     18 percent, according to the Gulfport Sun Herald. The 
     president-elect of the Mississippi Bankruptcy Conference said 
     that gambling is a major cause of this increase. (See 
     attached news clip.)
       A recent SMR Research Corporation study on bankruptcy 
     states, ``It now appears that gambling may be the fastest-
     growing driver of bankruptcy.'' The report also points out 
     that the bankruptcy rate was 18 percent higher in counties 
     with one or more gambling facilities, and 35 percent higher 
     in counties with five or more gambling establishments. All 
     one needs to do is to look at a map to see the link between 
     gambling and bankruptcy, the report says. One example: 
     Atlantic City, N.J., has the highest bankruptcy rate in the 
     state. (A portion of this study is attached.)
       Sometimes the pressure of trying to deal with one's 
     gambling debts proves too much. One of the most tragic of 
     gambling's ill effects on the family is when the gambling 
     family member sees no other way out and ends his or her life. 
     In the latest report in Suicide and Life-Threatening 
     Behavior, the officials journal of the American Association 
     of Suicidology, the study, ``Elevated Suicide Levels 
     Associated with Legalized Gambling,'' showed that there is a 
     link between gambling and increased levels of suicide. Dr. 
     David Phillips of the University of California at San Diego 
     wrote, ``Our findings raise the possibility that the 
     recent expansion of legalized gambling and the consequent 
     increase in gambling settings may be accompanied by an 
     increase in U.S. suicides.''
       The study said that it was not just visitors who have 
     higher levels of suicide in major gambling communities, but 
     residents, too. Las Vegas has the highest levels of suicide 
     in the nation, both for residents and visitors.
       What is the gambling industry's response? They claim this 
     phenomenon is due to geography--that people in the Southwest 
     tend to be more isolated, remote and more prone to suicide. 
     And yet, it is not merely a Southwestern phenomenon. Atlantic 
     City has ``abnormally high suicide levels'' for visitors and 
     residents, but that only appeared after gambling casinos were 
     opened, the study said. The high levels of suicide in these 
     two cities are not merely the result of a high number of 
     visitors nor due to suicidal individuals being attracted to 
     these cities, the study showed. Surely there can be nothing 
     more tragic for a family than to lose a family member to 
     suicide, and the fact is, many times gambling is behind this 
     tragic loss.


                      gambling is bad for business

       In addition to claiming to bring a mere form of 
     entertainment, the gambling industry often claims it will 
     bring jobs and increased revenue to local economies through 
     tourism. But when a casino wins, legitimate local businesses 
     lose. Gambling consumes income that would have been spent on 
     local tourism, services, movies, recreation and clothing.
       As legalized gambling has spread throughout the United 
     States in recent years, these activities have been subsidized 
     by the taxpayers--directly and indirectly. A 1992 Better 
     Government Association study and 1994 Florida Budget Office 
     report both indicated that for every dollar that legalized 
     gambling contributes to taxes, it costs the taxpayer at least 
     three dollars. There are higher infrastructure, regulatory, 
     criminal justice system and social welfare costs when 
     legalized gambling enters a community.
       Although gambling interests claim their entry into a 
     community will bring economic growth, many would disagree. 
     One corporate president and CEO in Mississippi recently said 
     he's been having difficulty in recruiting employees to his 
     company due to the state's reputation as ``the gambling state 
     of America,'' according to the Jackson, Mississippi, Clarion-
     Ledger. The CEO said that Mississippi ``has the second 
     largest amount of square footage of gambling of any state in 
     the nation.''
       Researchers from Iowa State University conducted a 1996 
     study of one Iowa city to see how a new riverboat casino 
     affected the local economy. They found that 29 percent of 
     local business owners reported decreased activity. Local 
     economies in the state of Minnesota have also been hurt by 
     gambling. One statewide survey found that 38 percent of 
     local restaurant owners said they had lost business to 
     gambling.
       Sometimes the damage to local economies comes simply 
     because of too many gambling casinos. When one Illinois 
     city's casino revenues dropped due to competition from 
     casinos in a neighboring state, the city had to rebate almost 
     $1 million in gambling taxes.
       The state of Louisiana made an ambitious tax deal with one 
     casino builder in hopes of bringing the world's largest 
     casino to New Orleans. But the deal proved too costly to 
     Harrah's Jazz Co., which went bankrupt, Time magazine 
     reported in April 1996. The sight of a half-built, rusting 
     casino on the edge of the French Quarter converted the 
     state's governor into an anti-gambling advocate, according to 
     Time. Louisiana voters agree with him, according to a Baton 
     Rouge newspaper's year-end poll, reported earlier this year. 
     The Advocate found that only 16 percent of voters said 
     legalized gambling has had a good impact on the state. Almost 
     two-thirds of respondents said gambling is a serious or 
     extremely serious problem in Louisiana.


                    gambling is bad for communities

       Many communities have been misled and duped into accepting 
     gambling. The gambling industry--with about $50 billion in 
     yearly profits--is well-financed, and conducts an incredibly 
     smooth public relations campaign. Government is supposed to 
     be the protector of societies. But many local governments 
     have turned predatory in an effort to raise revenues for 
     their communities. The gambling industry entices cash-hungry 
     communities with their slick promises of quick revenues.
       But here are the facts. Although pro-gambling forces 
     vehemently deny it, criminal activity does indeed increase in 
     communities to which gambling has been introduced.
       Crime has shot up 43 percent in the Mississippi Gulf Coast 
     area in the four years

[[Page H7321]]

     after casinos were introduced, according to the state's crime 
     commission report, published in May 1997. Connecticut's 
     Foxwoods Casino is one of the largest and most prosperous in 
     the country. But the mayor of one nearby town reports that 
     its police department's annual number of calls skyrocketed 
     from 4,000 to 16,700 within five years after the casino 
     opened. After casinos came to Deadwood, South Dakota, the 
     annual number of felony cases increased by 69 percent, the 
     Eight Circuit Court reported in November 1997.
       An FBI agent recently pleaded guilty to stealing more than 
     $400,000 from the agency to pay off his gambling debts. For 
     five years the agent embezzled money, wrote bogus memos and 
     falsified expense reports to raise money so he could gamble, 
     The Washington Post reported. He was supposed to be 
     investigating an organized crime squad, but ended up 
     entangled in their activities himself after placing big 
     bets on sporting events with them. ``My client has a 
     gambling problem'' his attorney told the Las Vegas Sun.
       In California, prosecutors have charged four men with 
     murder or attempted murder for following, robbing and 
     shooting women after they were gambling at a Hollywood 
     casino, the Los Angeles Times recently reported.
       Sometimes increased crime shows itself not only outside the 
     casinos, but inside as well. Federal banking regulators 
     nailed the Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort with a $477,000 fine 
     for money laundering--the biggest such fine ever, the 
     Philadelphia Inquirer reported recently. Authorities said 
     that drug traffickers, counterfeiters and others are known to 
     use casinos as places to launder money. They do this by 
     finding people to buy chips in denominations just under 
     $10,000, gamble a little bit of it, then cash in the chips 
     for ``clean'' money.
       A 78-year-old man allegedly shot and wounded five people in 
     a casino in Reno, Nevada, according to an Associated Press 
     story earlier this year. He was caught when he tried to 
     shuffle away using his walker. The man was booked for 
     investigation of two counts of attempted murder and three 
     counts of battery with a deadly weapon. Two of the wounded 
     people refused to go to the hospital and remained at the 
     casino to gamble, according to a casino spokesman.
       America deserves to know the whole story behind gambling: 
     The good, the bad and the ugly. As more and more families are 
     struggling to make ends meet, the idea of making easy, quick 
     money can be an attractive lure. But there is a dark side to 
     gambling. Its ill effects are taking their toll on too many 
     under our care. Families are being ruined, businesses are 
     being hurt, and communities are suffering.
       What a message it would send to America's families for both 
     party leaders to end political contributions from gambling. 
     What a dramatic step it would be to begin cleaning up the 
     political process and the fund-raising mess that exists 
     today. The time has come to ``just say no'' to gambling 
     money. I urge you to take that step today.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank R. Wolf,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) who has been a member of the Freshman Task Force 
that produced the freshman bill, a strong advocate of campaign finance 
reform.
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to first commend the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) for the fine leadership that 
they have performed during this very tough and rigorous process.
  I am a proud member of the Freshman Task Force that worked on finance 
reform. I am very proud of the work product that we have produced 
during the course of the year and a half that we have been working 
together. I am very proud of the Task Force members with whom I have 
had the privilege of associating myself.
  I am especially proud of the freshman class that really stood up and 
took on this issue early last year at the beginning of this 105th 
session of Congress, when it looked as if the issue was dead in the 
water. Perhaps it does take a new perspective and fresh energy to come 
to this body, to add some life to an issue that is incredibly important 
to people back in my district in Wisconsin and throughout the entire 
country.
  What united us freshmen was a common experience that we all shared in 
1996 in winning our first election to the United States Congress. Those 
were typically very negative campaigns that was unbelievably costly, 
and we all realized that the system had run amuck and we need to do 
something about it.
  Those who have supported Shays-Meehan, and I was a sponsor and 
supporter of Shays-Meehan, and those who are going to support the 
freshman bill can all be proud of the label that we all share. 
Reformers, because there has been a great philosophical divide on this 
issue.
  Some in this body believe that the problem with the political system 
is not that there is too much money in it but that there is not enough 
money. That is not what motivated us freshmen. We believe we need to 
get the big money out of the political process and hopefully, 
therefore, the influence of money out of the political process, so we 
can restore some integrity and some credibility to this body again.
  I would encourage my colleagues to support finance reform, and ask 
the Senate to pass it this year.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, we are at the moment of a major victory, not 
final, but major. And the freshmen have helped us move to this moment, 
but their proposal is seriously flawed. Let me mention a few of the 
provisions.
  It has a loophole for soft money relating to State parties. And that 
is not the question of the role of State parties, it is leaving a 
loophole for soft money.
  Secondly, it would increase the contribution maximums from $25,000 to 
$50,000. That means a couple over 2 years could contribute $200,000 
overall. I think that is unnecessary and too high.
  But, thirdly, let me talk about issue ads. It is not a matter of 
curtailing free speech. It is whether speech that is really a campaign 
ad should be within the purview of our regulatory system.
  The Supreme Court said this in Buckley: ``To the extent that large 
contributions are given to secure political quid pro quo's from current 
and potential office holders, the integrity of our system of 
representative democracy is undermined. Of almost equal as the danger 
of actual quid pro quo arrangements is the impact of the appearance of 
corruption stemming from public awareness of the opportunities for 
abuse inherent in a regime of large individual financial 
contributions.''
  The Court in Furgatch said, Ten years later, as these ads began to 
proliferate, ``we begin with the proposition that `express advocacy' is 
not strictly limited to communications using certain key phrases.'' And 
it goes on to say . . . `` `independent' campaign spenders working on 
behalf of candidates could remain just beyond the reach of the act by 
avoiding certain key words while conveying a message that is 
unmistakably directed to the election or defeat of a named candidate.''
  Shays-Meehan brings campaign ads within present campaign regulations. 
Democracy needs it. Vote for Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I just want to respond to the comments from the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) concerning what they call the loophole about State 
soft money. We approached it in different way. We do not believe that 
the Federal Government ought to be mandating to the State governments 
and the political parties as to what they should do. Thirteen states, I 
believe it is, have already banned soft money to them.
  What we do is take away the Federal candidates and office holders 
from raising soft money for the States and leave the rest of the 
regulation to them.
  I do not think we ought to prohibit a State party from getting out 
the vote efforts for a legislative candidate just because a Federal 
candidate is on the ballot. And so that is the distinction, and I think 
it is the right approach to campaign finance reform.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to say this is 
well-intended but it is also a gigantic loophole. In order to prevent 
the abuse of soft money, we have to ban it on the Federal level and the 
State level for Federal elections. We do not ban soft money for State 
elections.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire 
(Mr. Bass) from the great state of ``Live free or die.''
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Connecticut for 
yielding.
  I rise in opposition to the freshman substitute, not to denigrate in 
any way

[[Page H7322]]

the fine efforts of this team and the time that they have dedicated to 
developing a solution to the problem of reforming our campaign 
financial system, but to suggest that Shays-Meehan is a better product, 
wire-brushed by the public, if you will, over the last year or so, 
debated for countless hours in this body, perfected through the 
adoption of amendments offered, and worthy of our acceptance as the 
only product that has a reasonable chance of being enacted into law, 
which should be the ultimate goal for those of us who truly believe 
that the time is ripe for reform.
  Now, I would point out, as has been discussed a minute ago, that the 
freshman substitute does not end the corrupt soft money system. And we 
can debate whether the States can do it or not, but the fact is we can 
still raise soft money for financing campaigns. And of particular 
interest to me, it leaves in place the current loophole through which 
unlimited corporate and union treasury funds are funneled into 
elections and there is no accountability.
  Now, Shays-Meehan is not a perfect product. There are many provisions 
that I would like to see added. But this is not the day to demand a 
wish list. There is a commission established in this bill that will 
deal with all these other issues at another day. This is the day, my 
colleagues, to prove the cynics wrong and send Shays-Meehan to the 
Senate.
  Now, over the last month or two, many amendments have been offered to 
Shays-Meehan, some with good intent, some to stymie the process. As 
painful as it may be to admit, the freshman bill now has become 
Custer's last stand for those who oppose reform. I would suggest to my 
colleagues that we make no mistake about it.
  For better or for worse, a vote for the pending motion is a vote 
against moving forward with meaningful reform. I urge opposition to the 
pending motion.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Granger), a great freshman and a great Member of this 
body.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
campaign finance reform of the freshman class. I am proud to be a part 
of that class. It is a class that vowed to work in a bipartisan way 
toward real solutions to problems.
  Now, while all the campaign finance proposals we are debating have 
the best of intentions, I am afraid some of them have not produced the 
best results. The freshman bill will have the most positive effect on 
campaign finance because it addresses the most profound problems. Not 
one of them, not just some of them, but all of them. It covers soft 
money. It covers issue advocacy. And it covers the rights of union 
workers.
  Mr. Chairman, if we truly are going to treat the patient, should we 
not treat all the symptoms, not just some? For this reason, I am proud 
to be a part of the freshmen bill and I certainly support it.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, it is a great privilege for me to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the whip for the 
minority.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding the time.
  Mr. Chairman, for a very long time many of us have worked hard to 
pass campaign finance reform and give America's electoral system back 
to the people that it belongs to, the voters of this country. And for 
more than a year a group of freshmen Members have worked very, very 
hard to make this happen. They have been pushing, cajoling, arguing, 
they have been at the forefront of this debate when people were absent 
and were not there.

                              {time}  1330

  They came here with a commitment to reform the way our electoral 
system works, and they have shown, I think, an incredible energy and 
determination in getting this body to take up this issue. I speak of 
Members on both sides of the aisle in the freshman class. We would not 
be at this point in passing the first real campaign finance reform 
legislation without their commitment and their passion and their drive. 
I want to congratulate them on their work.
  Having said that, I also believe that the Shays-Meehan bill is 
America's best hope for real campaign finance reform. I think our unity 
now and in the future is dependent upon how we react to this proposal 
that is before us and how we vote on final passage which is just a few 
minutes away. We need to stick with the Shays-Meehan bill. We must 
resist the temptation to vote for any alternative that would block 
Meehan-Shays no matter how appealing it may seem.
  In conclusion, I just want to again commend the freshman colleagues 
for their work, for their commitment to change, and I think the best 
way to meet that commitment to change, the best vehicle to move to the 
other body so we can have a really important debate on the final 
outcome of this drama is to pass Meehan-Shays today.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford), one of the class officers who has worked on this 
issue throughout the course of the past two years.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to search 
their conscience and to support a campaign finance bill that will truly 
restore some confidence to our political system. I worked with both the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) who have earned the respect and admiration and praise that 
we have showered upon them today, but I will reluctantly not support 
the bill in order to advance the Shays-Meehan effort. I do this because 
I refuse to be a party to those who are sponsoring and leading an 
effort to use the freshman bill to kill reform.
  I urge a ``present'' vote on the freshman bill not because it 
represents artificial reform as some on both sides of the aisle have 
argued but because it has now become a tool for those in this body who 
want to kill reform once and for all.
  I say to my freshman colleagues, let us not forget how we arrived at 
this moment. For authorship does not translate into ownership or 
leadership, it merely represents a component. For we helped this body, 
we helped Democrats, our leadership and their leadership arrive at this 
moment and we should take credit, if not all, certainly partial credit 
for that effort. For we helped inject the energy and a new product into 
this debate. For that we ought to be proud.
  It is because we want, as others have so eloquently stated, to 
restore integrity and confidence to the policymaking process, because 
we want to see money limited in terms of its pervasive influence in 
this process that we worked so diligently. For Shays-Meehan includes 
everything we saw in the freshman bill and more.
  For the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), for the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), for 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), for the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Lampson), who all who worked on this bill, you ought to 
stand tall and stand proud, for American history is about to be made 
and we in the freshman class will help usher it in. I thank the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for his leadership. I thank the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) for his leadership.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``present'' on the freshman bill.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand) who has done such a fine job here as a 
freshman Member.
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague and neighbor 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) for yielding me this 
time. I rise in support of the freshman bill today, Mr. Chairman, not 
in hostility or disappointment with the Meehan-Shays bill but clearly 
to identify what we think is most important, and, that is, the 
atmosphere of unity that we have here today. The issue that we are 
debating, campaign finance reform, was embraced wholly by both the 
Democrat and Republican freshmen as we came into office this year. We 
came upon this issue and we agreed as a unified body that we would not 
include poison pills that would damage the potential of passage not 
only here in this House Chamber but also in the Senate. The unity that 
we are talking about and the many Members that are here talking about 
true campaign finance

[[Page H7323]]

reform, from our task force, to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan), to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), to everyone who is here, we must 
recognize that one of the most dangerous parts of what we are talking 
about is not in this Chamber, it is in the other Chamber.
  If you read the paper this morning, the comments by the majority in 
the other Chamber is that this bill, meaning Shays-Meehan, is dead on 
arrival. ``Been there, done that, forget about it.''
  That kind of leadership over there is what we should be unified 
against. The importance of the freshman bill was that we stripped away 
all the poison pills that we thought would have a detrimental impact on 
their side and our side. I love the idea of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts' bill with regard to issue advocacy being curtailed. The 
other side loves the idea of labor advocates being curtailed. We pulled 
those out because we wanted a bill to pass. What we are having here 
today is a unity rally amongst all of us. The problem is on the other 
side, who will kill every bill that we put before them because they do 
not agree with campaign finance reform.
  I hope that we will be unified once we pass one of these bills as we 
are at this moment, to rally against what they intend to do and to 
rally for true campaign finance reform in the spirit of what we began 
here two years ago.
  I want to compliment the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) for the excellent leadership and the participation in this 
process.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Cook) my good friend and task force member.
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Arkansas for yielding 
me this time. As a supporter and someone who voted for Shays-Meehan, I 
nevertheless rise in support of the freshman bipartisan campaign 
finance reform bill. I reject the notion that a vote for this bill is a 
vote against Shays-Meehan. I believe in Shays-Meehan. I believe in 
limits on soft money. I think we are all joined in that, and clearly a 
majority of the Members of the House believe there ought to be limits 
on soft money. Let us be brutally honest. Shays-Meehan curbs it more 
directly and more severely. But what the freshman bill does have going 
for it is a better chance at constitutionality and getting passage in 
the Senate, and that is why I think we ought to quit arguing among each 
other and realize that either one of these versions will be a great 
victory for the American people. We should all be free, those of us 
that want to limit soft money, of voting for both if we want as a way 
to check out which one the majority of our Members thinks might have 
the best chance at final success.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, not because it 
is bad but because we have an alternative that is significantly better. 
Our new Members who are here offering this amendment, I believe, have 
provided essential momentum in the course of this long reform process. 
Indeed, I do not believe that it is an overstatement to say we might 
well not be at the point we find ourselves this morning had not we had 
leadership from our newest Members in this Congress, on both sides of 
the aisle, coming together, trying to overcome differences and working 
together to move this process which faced so many roadblocks in the 
way, to move it forward. I applaud them as I have previously, as I have 
both Republican and Democratic Members of the freshman class previously 
on this floor for the role that they have played. I believe they 
deserve our sincere commendation, but I do not believe that this 
proposal deserves our vote.
  None of the proposals, to be very clear, that are offered today by 
anyone on this floor is perfect. None of them accomplishes all of the 
reform and cleaning up the campaign mess that I would like to see 
happen. But I believe that we need to move forward doing as much as we 
can when we can do it, and the strongest proposal that we have, as even 
the last speaker candidly conceded, is the Shays-Meehan proposal. That 
is why I believe we need to continue working together to try to get 
this approved during this very year.
  The amount of soft money that is being raised by both political 
parties is just going off the charts. From 1984 to 1996, the amount of 
soft money raised by the two political parties from corporations, 
unions and other interests went up 20 times, twentyfold, from $12 
million to $262 million. That issue is dealt with by simply banning 
soft money.
  In short, we say today our opponents have used every other tactic to 
try to block Shays-Meehan in the books. Let us not let the good be used 
to get in the way of the better. Today let us vote down this amendment 
and move on to have the most campaign reform we can have. Clean up this 
special interest money. Approve Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to recognize the 
freshmen on both sides of the aisle but particularly to salute seven 
GOP freshmen, Republican freshmen, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) has been recognized and deserves to be, the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Hill), the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook), the gentleman 
from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Hulshof). I recognize them because we would not be here today if 
it was not for them.
  The Speaker of the House said that he was willing to bring this bill 
forward because admittedly of the petition drive and agree that it 
would be a bipartisan bill, and we only had that bipartisan freshman 
bill that he would have accepted. I am extraordinarily grateful to 
them.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), an early supporter of campaign finance 
reform.
  (Mrs. Roukema asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
and urge my colleagues by all means to stand firm in support of Shays-
Meehan. The freshman bill at one time was a respectable fallback 
position. But we are now on the brink of a historic moment, historic 
legislation. This is not the time to fall back. It is the time to leap 
forward with Shays-Meehan in this historic debate. I recognize that 
there are some elements of reform in the freshman bill, but it has 
loopholes that have been more than adequately substantiated here in 
this debate. It makes the bill substantially weaker than Shays-Meehan. 
The freshmen have an opportunity here today to be a breath of fresh air 
here in Washington and help restore the faith of the American people in 
our democracy. The cynicism, I do not have to tell my colleagues about. 
Help us restore faith in our democracy. And then these freshmen will be 
able to stand tall in November as we all face the voters and show that 
we have been part of a historic moment in time to restore faith in 
democracy and bring back our people to the democracy where every vote 
counts.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hutchison-Allen amendment 
and urge my Colleagues to stand firm in their support for Shays-Meehan. 
Mr. Chairman, the freshman bill at one time was a respectable ``fall 
back'' position. But we are now on the brink of an historic leap 
forward--namely passing Shays-Meehan.
  I want to commend the authors of this amendment, the gentleman from 
Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, and the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Allen. 
Throughout their relatively short Congressional careers, they have 
proven themselves to be active and creative reformers. Indeed, we have 
found ourselves arguing from the same side of the table more often than 
not. However, while it has some element of reform--it has loopholes and 
is substantially weaker than Shays-Meehan.
  The American people have become hardened cynics when it comes to our 
electoral process. They believe--with some justification--that 
elections are bought by the interest group with the fattest wallet.
  The freshmen have the opportunity to be a breath of fresh air and 
help restore the faith of the American people in our democracy. And

[[Page H7324]]

these freshmen will stand tall before their voters as part of this 
historic legislation.
  Perhaps the most corrosive development in modern American campaigns 
has been the explosion of so-called ``soft money''--donations from 
wealthy corporations, individuals, labor organizations and other groups 
to the major parties.
  These funds are raised and spent outside the reach of federal 
election law and are directly connected to many of the scandalous 
practices now the focus of numerous investigations in both parties--
White House coffees, overnights in the Lincoln bedroom, alleged 
contributions from the Chinese military to the DNC, and more.
  Therefore, to be effective, any reform bill must deal with soft 
money. Unfortunately, the amendment we have before us only goes 
halfway. It contains a loophole large enough to drive an armored care 
stuffed with campaign cash through. This bill shuts down the federal 
soft money faucet, but allows these funds to be funneled through the 
various state parties. That's no reform at all.
  My Colleagues, if we do nothing else--let's ban soft money. My 
Colleagues--soft money is at the heart of each and every one of these 
scandals we see in the headlines today.
  Let's restore the integrity of the American political process.
  The Shays-Meehan bill is the only substitute amendment that contains 
a hard ban on soft money.
  Reject the Hutchinson substitute. Support Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady) who has been extraordinarily instrumental and 
supportive of this battle for reform.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for the 
leadership they have had on this issue. I think we do have to agree 
that we need to enforce the laws on campaign finance in America, 
whether they are existing laws or the new laws we are talking about, 
because without enforcement they are meaningless, what we are talking 
about is meaningless.
  Let me tell my colleagues this. I am proud to be in support of the 
freshman bill because my concern is that every election year we seem to 
drift farther and farther away from a citizen Congress, one made up of 
people from all walks of life. Today an open seat in Congress costs 
about a million dollars to win. A lot of people do not have a million 
dollars, they do not know where they would get a million dollars.
  And that is means that some day, and it is doubling every four years, 
by the way, so some day we are going to wake up and find out only the 
very wealthy people can serve in Congress. And I know a lot of people 
who may not be rich, but they are wealthy in common sense, they are 
prosperous in their principles, they have tremendous values, and while 
they may not live in the biggest house on the hill in my town, they 
would do America proud serving this House on this Hill, and I think the 
freshman bill moves us back toward a citizen Congress.
  Now let me tell my colleagues what the freshman bill is not. It is 
not a gutting bill on campaign finance reform. We have heard that 
mindless empty mantra so long that when applied to this bill it simply 
does not fit, because I have watched how hard our freshmen from both 
sides of the aisle have thoughtfully worked to push and move this bill 
forward, that it simply is silly, and we deserve better. And those 
leaders, freshmen leaders, deserve better.
  And finally, Mr. Chairman, I was disappointed to see today that our 
colleagues were urged to vote ``no'' or ``present'' on the freshman 
substitute. Let me just urge everyone to take a stand on this bill. 
There is a reason the present light is yellow. It is reserved for those 
timid and meek souls who refuse to take a stand on the issue and whose 
legacy in the debate on campaign finance is: Want to be recorded as 
being in the room.
  Vote ``yes'' or vote ``no'', but take a stand on the principles 
against or for banning soft money, preserving free speech, preserving 
States' rights, encouraging people to raise money in their district, 
and let us move forward, yes or no, but record and take a stand and, I 
hope, in support of the freshman bill.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who has been an outstanding member of the 
Freshman Task Force.
  (Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, first to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Allen) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), who have 
helped, each of them, to begin to reestablish the integrity of this 
body. If I did not mean it, I would not say it. When our institutions 
are under attack, they choose not to be timid. They choose not to be 
the yellow light. They choose to come forward. Every one of the folks 
on each side stated what they wanted to state in all honesty. We were 
very frank with one another.
  This is about restoring integrity to the Congress of the United 
States of America. We propelled the discussions. Who would have thought 
we would be here today in February of 1997? It was our wildest 
imagination. I want to thank each of them. I am honored to have served 
with them and the members of the committee.
  This is not a day of proponents or opponents. This is a day for this 
body to come together, to be very clear where we stand on campaign 
finance reform. Good luck to the gentleman from Connecticut; good luck 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. McCarthy), a staunch advocate of campaign finance reform.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, again, when we all came 
together as a freshman class, one of the first things that we said, 
what was the most horrible thing about going through our campaign? And 
we were all tired, and we were all sick of the things that happened to 
us, and that is when this idea came together. Our freshman class has 
nothing to be embarrassed about. We worked together, we stood together, 
and because we did that, that is why we are going to see campaign 
finance reform.
  Before we go home we will have campaign finance reform, and do my 
colleagues know what? The people outside this Beltway, and a lot of us 
are new to that, can hold our heads up high. We will fight for the 
people back home.
  I do not want to spend 20 to 30 hours a week raising money, and I 
have not done that. None of us want to do that. But until we have 
campaign finance reform, and I am sorry, I do not want someone to say, 
``Let me donate to you, but I want your vote.'' We have to get rid of 
that.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), the president of the freshman class at the time 
this task force was created and who has been a tremendous inspiration 
for our class in leading this effort.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, the headlines on Tuesday morning's paper 
in the city proclaimed: House Votes to Ban Soft Money and Increase 
Disclosure Requirements for Candidates. Guess what? If my colleagues 
vote for the freshman bill, they will get those same kudos tomorrow 
morning from the press because our freshman bill does just that.
  And let me say that I applaud and appreciate all the positive 
comments that our more senior Members have said here today, somewhat 
patronizing, I say, but I do appreciate those comments. And to the 
gentleman from California who talked about the problems in California, 
I respectfully believe that the freshman bill is a better bill than 
Shays-Meehan for a couple of reasons:
  We ban soft money. We prohibit the gentleman from California or any 
Member of Congress or any candidate for Federal office from raising 
soft money. We ban the State of California from allowing contributions 
of soft money to go to them. And yet is it up to us in this body to 
tell California what it should do? Is it up to those of us in this body 
to say what the election laws in Maine or Arkansas or in the State of 
Missouri should be?
  And for that reason I respectfully say that the Shays-Meehan bill is 
overreaching. It is fatally flawed in that effort because State parties 
might want to have and raise resources for get-out-the-vote efforts or 
for educating voters in the respective States on party platforms.

  Now secondly, I believe, respectfully again, I say to the gentleman 
from

[[Page H7325]]

Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan), that their bill is flawed because of this arbitrary 60-day 
bright line, before-election line that they put in the sand. Members 
know, as they have been coming over for these votes for various days, 
there is an ardent reform group that has been parked on the street 
corner with a ticking clock saying that we need to enact reform because 
the clock is ticking, and they have been handing out literature 
propaganda like this that says: Urge a vote against the freshman bill.
  It is interesting, I see the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill) here 
who had a recent election in the State of Montana, a primary election. 
This same zealous group was trying to defeat him in his election with 
this same type of information, and the ultimate irony of this is if 
Shays-Meehan were law, if Shays-Meehan were the law of the land, this 
group would be lawbreakers because of the distribution of this 
information. Shays-Meehan is flawed in that regard.
  Not to mention all of the dispute that we have had about the 
constitutionality. Even the liberal-leaning St. Louis Post Dispatch 
editorial board says that there are constitutional problems with Shays-
Meehan. And as the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) talked about 
the other day, that if Shays-Meehan is declared null and void by the 
Supreme Court of this land, that they will then be writing law. At 
least the freshman bill would come back to this body.
  As a final point, I am a bit disappointed that some Members have come 
here, especially my freshman Members, who said we urge a ``present'' 
vote. I want to talk about integrity. This bipartisan bill has 77 
cosponsors, 77 cosponsors, 21 Republicans and the remaining Democrat 
Members. To this Member, as a brand new Member of Congress, when we 
cosponsor a piece of legislation what we are saying is that we are 
willing to put our names on the line because we support what is in the 
bill.
  This is called, the freshman bill is called, the Bipartisan Campaign 
Integrity Act. It is time for the integrity of the elections process to 
begin today. So to the 77 cosponsors of our bill, I say it is time to 
put their vote where their name was on this bill. Instead of the 
Hutchinson-Allen bill, this bill could be called the Gejdenson-Wamp 
bill. It could be called the Campbell-DeLauro bill.
  So I urge the cosponsors of the freshman bill, do not take a pass. It 
is time for the integrity to begin today, because I believe, as the 
other freshman Members believe, we have the better bill, and I urge a 
``yes'' vote.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise first to correct the gentleman. No sheet like 
the gentleman from Missouri showed would have been outlawed. The 60-day 
test relates to radio and TV and not a handout.
  Secondly, I just would suggest to the gentleman that cosponsoring a 
bill means we support the bill, but when we have a Queen of the Hill 
situation we can support two bills, and then we have to choose which is 
the better of two bills we sponsor or even cosponsor.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Johnson), my colleague, a gentle and very strong lady, and very 
courageous.
  (Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the Hutchinson bill, but do commend the freshmen for their bipartisan 
effort and their dedication to moving the issue of campaign finance 
forward.
  We all believe we need to restore confidence and accountability to 
our Federal election system. I believe the Shays-Meehan bill is the 
best way to achieve our goals. We must give the American public what 
they are demanding, an open and fair system of elections.
  The Hutchinson bill fails to address one of the most serious 
loopholes in our campaign finance law, the so-called sham issue ads. In 
recent elections we have watched special interest money exploit this 
loophole by pouring millions of dollars into campaign ads in elections 
all over the country. No one knows how much money these special 
interest groups are spending or where that money is coming from, 
because these groups do not have to disclose that information.
  Shays-Meehan clamps down on this loophole by requiring these outside 
groups to play by the same rules as everyone else. It restores 
accountability to the political process by requiring these groups to 
disclose who they are and where their money is coming from.
  Shays-Meehan in no way takes away the right of these groups to 
participate in the political process. It does not limit their freedom 
of speech, as some of my colleagues have suggested. Rather, it 
increases public awareness about where the special interest money is 
coming from, and that is something the American people are demanding 
and deserve to know.
  Today is our chance to tell the American public that we are committed 
to a system of clean and fair elections. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against the Hutchinson bill and pass the Shays-Meehan bill.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley), who has been one of our class officers in the 
freshman class and a staunch supporter of the Freshman Task Force 
process.

                              {time}  1400

  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to 
congratulate the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for the work they have done, and the 
entire task force.
  Let me talk a little bit about how this came about. When we came here 
as freshmen, we said one of the things we wanted to do, let us look for 
some commonality amongst our freshman class. All of us were elected in 
a year after the 104th Congress. We said there was too much finger 
pointing, too much bickering. Let us find our commonality and our 
common goals. We said campaign finance reform, we are coming in with 
new eyes as freshmen, let us deal with campaign finance reform, and let 
us deal with it in a bipartisan way.
  So we had a task force literally from the first month we were in 
session begin to work on campaign finance reform, and they worked and 
worked and had hearings and had hearings, and when the leadership said, 
well, we are not too excited about campaign finance reform, the 
freshmen pushed and the freshmen pushed and the freshmen pushed.
  I have to say congratulations to all of the task force for the work 
that they have done. We would not be here today without the freshmen 
and the work that they have done. It is time to give elections back to 
the people.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), my close partner in this 
effort.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 2\1/4\ 
minutes.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my dear friend, I have the 
highest admiration for all that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) has done for the cause of campaign finance reform. It has been 
an honor to work with the gentleman on this.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not the most partisan member of this body, but 
there is a huge point that just has not been said bluntly enough, so 
here it is. With regard to soft money, more or less, generally 
speaking, Republicans have an advantage. With regard to issue ads in 
the last 60 days, more or less, Democrats have an advantage. We saw 
this in New England. In the last 60 days, the AFL-CIO puts tons of 
money out of union treasuries into supposedly issue ads, slamming 
Republican candidates, and with devastating effect.
  To my fellow Republicans, if you vote for the freshmen bill, you are 
signing on to the part of a compromise that deals effectively with soft 
money, but you do nothing about those ads in the last 60 days that 
mention the name of the candidate--the tactic that was so devastating 
to Republican candidates in New England.
  A compromise is a balance; both sides give, both sides get, both 
sides give a little back. If we go ahead with the freshman bill, we 
have done nothing against the most abusive practice that was used 
against Republicans in the last election cycle, ads that

[[Page H7326]]

claimed to be discussion of issues, but were slams on candidates in the 
last 60 days, using their names.
  I cannot support the freshman bill. It is not balanced.
  And even for what it does on soft money, the freshman bill only 
solves a bit of the problem, because as long as there is a single state 
candidate on the ballot, you can shuffle all the money in and say it is 
soft money for the state candidates' benefit.
  As to constitutionality, I can say that if the soft money issue is in 
trouble, it is in trouble with the freshman bill as much as with Shays-
Meehan. If the 60 day issue is in trouble, we have a severability 
clause so the Supreme Court can decide and uphold that which is 
constitutional.
  But let us at least try. Let us try to get a balance that helps the 
honest voter get a true statement of who is behind the ads, instead of 
having the kind of unfair attacks in the last 60 days, where you do not 
know who is putting the money behind them.
  I do not know what more I can do. I know this: I have given up my own 
alternative, I voted against amendments that I wished, and I have done 
it consistently, because only one bill has a chance in the Senate, and 
that is not a bill that has never had hearings in the Senate, it is not 
a bill the Senate has never voted on. It is not the freshman bill. It 
is Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds for the 
purpose of asking the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) a 
question.
  I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), first of 
all, I appreciate you cosponsoring the freshman bill, and I know that 
you are a supporter of Shays-Meehan. But would the gentleman 
acknowledge today, so we have a clear understanding, that Shays-Meehan 
as currently drafted would violate the Supreme Court decision of 
Buckley v. Valeo, and it is the gentleman's hope that the Supreme Court 
will change their mind?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. No, sir. I think that may be the accurate description 
of some. It is not mine. Here is why. Shays-Meehan does not violate 
Buckley v. Valeo's prohibition on expenditure. Buckley v. Valeo allowed 
limits on contributions.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will cover that 
later.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the people of this country watching this debate, as few 
or many as they are, obviously feel some confusion. Everyone gets up 
and claims that they have the product that personifies reform, and, as 
you look through history, leaders good and bad, propositions decent and 
evil, all claim to be reform. It is a hard cut. I think Lenin, Stalin 
and Brezhnev all claimed that they brought reform to the Russian 
people.
  I can tell you what will create the most change, what will take power 
away from those that have too much and will give some power back to the 
people, and that is Shays-Meehan.
  The discussion of integrity in the process, and I forget which 
gentleman raised the issue, and I am sure he is earnest, oversimplifies 
the situation. Many of us in this Chamber cosponsored and introduced a 
number of bills. The Farr bill is a bill that I have worked on for 
almost 10 years now. I did not vote for it; I would not have voted for 
it if it came up for a vote, because we are in the process that the 
Republican leadership of the House has set up intentionally to make it 
very difficult to get a bill that has any chance in the other body of 
succeeding. The only way to do that is to vote down the freshman bill, 
do not vote for any of the other bills, as we have not, and then pass 
Shays-Meehan.
  Lastly, I would say to the American people that this debate would be 
awfully discouraging. Many of the Members in this Chamber admit the 
influence of large contributions and the chase for cash on their time 
and possibly even some Members' commitments.
  I can tell you this: Nothing a Member in this Chamber says will 
change the outcome in the Senate. But the average citizens of this 
country can change the outcome in the Senate. If, when this bill 
passes, when Shays-Meehan passes this House, the citizens of this 
country write and call their Senators and tell them they demand to see 
this very small and incremental step be taken, they can change the 
outcome of this process.
  We Members of Congress are far more limited. We can hopefully today 
get Shays-Meehan over to the other body, to the Senate. But it is the 
people of this country that have within their capability, within their 
power, to affect this system and then send a signal for future reforms 
as well.
  I have been here all too many times when big shots were on a stage 
clamoring for position in front of the cameras, where the real 
spokesmen and strength came from 100,000 or 200,000 people on the mall. 
As important as the Members of Congress and others who came to the mall 
and stood there for freedom were, for Soviet Jews, for human rights and 
for so many other issues, it was that there were tens and hundreds of 
thousands of American citizens who came to this town to speak that 
changed civil rights laws, that changed Soviet policy, that taught us 
and led us in the area of human rights.
  I believe if the American citizens speak out with a loud and clear 
voice, the Senate will get its additional votes, and we will have the 
beginning of campaign finance reform.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the freshman task force process began because we were 
veterans of the 1996 elections. We came to this House, and we knew we 
wanted to do something about what had happened to us in the 1996 
elections. We had survived that process because we were here. But we 
were not happy with the process. We were not happy with the amount of 
soft money that had been poured into campaigns, on both the Republican 
side and the Democratic side. We were not happy with the amount of 
issue advocacy money that had been poured into campaigns from groups on 
the left and groups on the right.
  We created a freshman task force, which I was proud to cochair with 
the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), and, over the past year 
and a half, we have worked on this issue diligently. We have never 
given up.
  There have been those reformist groups on the outside who have said 
we have not gone far enough. There have been groups on the outside who 
have said we are doing too much. We have kept our course, we have stood 
by the product, and we have stood by the process.
  I have to say that my cochair, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson), has, throughout this process, demonstrated the kind of 
courage and commitment that you need to survive in this place and get 
anything done, and it has been. I am proud to have served with him.
  Mr. Chairman, let me address just a couple of issues about the 
freshman bill. There are those who say there is a loophole, and it will 
allow state money to be raised at the state level. Well, let us face 
it: Minor differences become major differences when you get to the 
final point between two bills that in fact are very close together.
  What do we do? We take Federal elected officials, we take Federal 
candidates, we take national parties, national party committees and 
their agents, and we take them out of the business of raising soft 
money. That is real reform. That is a real soft money ban. It is a soft 
money ban that works.
  We do not go as far on issue advocacy as Shays-Meehan does in many 
respects, but if you listen to the diversity of opinion in this 
Chamber, you understand that this is the most complicated issue we have 
to deal with. It is personal to every Member. We are all experts.
  What we have done is created a good, solid campaign reform bill. I am 
going to be proud to vote for it today. I voted for Shays-Meehan, but I 
will vote for this freshman task force substitute. I am proud of the 
committee, and I am proud of what we have done. It is good, solid 
substantial reform.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield the balance 
of my time to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Baesler), who has led 
the effort on campaign finance reform, not in this Congress but several 
previous

[[Page H7327]]

Congresses, and led the effort on the discharge petition that actually 
got us here today.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 3\1/4\ 
minutes.
  (Mr. BAESLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BAESLER. Mr. Chairman, this is it. They said we never would get 
here, they said it could not be done, the anti-reformers, the pundits 
and the cynics, but here we are. We proved them all dead wrong.
  They all said there was no chance, no chance, that bipartisan 
campaign finance reform would pass the House. They said the public did 
not care. They said that Members would never vote to change a system 
that got them elected. They said Republicans and Democrats would never 
be able to work together on reform.
  In January 1997, when Shays-Meehan was introduced, they said it was 
dead on arrival. In February 1997, when the freshman task force was 
launched, they said it was futile. Last October, when McCain-Feingold 
was filibustered, they said campaign support was dead for this 
Congress. Last February, when the Senate reformers resurrected it, they 
filibustered it again. Then they said it was really, really dead for 
Congress.
  Last fall, when we introduced the Blue Dog discharge petition, they 
said it would not go anywhere. They said no Republican would ever sign 
it. They said that the petition would never, ever get 200 signatures.
  In March, when they used sham suspension votes to try to kill it, 
they said ``Now campaign finance reform is really, really dead.'' In 
April, when the Blue Dog discharge petition was going to win, they 
finally promised a bill. Still they said ``We will kill your bill with 
poison pill amendments.''
  Still, Mr. Speaker, there were some things they forgot and some 
things they did not count on. They did not count on a bipartisan 
majority coming together because they believe passing bipartisan 
campaign reform is the right thing to do. They did not count on the 
absolute faith of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) in the 
justice of his cause, or the hard work of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan). They did not count on the freshman task 
force's extraordinary courage, leadership, and perseverance.
  They did not count on the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) rallying to the cause of 
reform. They did not count on business leaders like Warren Buffet and 
Jerry Kohlberg supporting a soft money ban. They did not count on a 
dozen brave Republicans, like the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), 
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
(Mrs. Roukema), and others, signing the Blue Dog discharge petition, 
and they did not count on 237 Members of the House putting aside 
partisan politics and once, just once, doing the right thing.
  Now, some still say none of this matters, that the Senate will not 
even vote on this bill, that we will see Elvis before this bill is 
passed. But those are the same people that said the House will never 
pass it.
  So I urge Members of Congress, I urge all Americans, remember this 
day and take heed. Against all odds, the 105th Congress will pass 
bipartisan campaign reform, and soon, next month, maybe later, 
bipartisan campaign reform will be signed into law and this government 
will be given back to the people.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Shays-Meehan bill.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is the final hour in this debate on campaign finance 
reform. In life, if you are in the final hour you are all of a sudden 
seeing the big picture, what is important in life versus what is 
trivial. In this House, it is the final hour on reform, and we need to 
take the long look at life, the long look at reform.
  First of all, take a look back. If we look back at where we started 
in our freshman task force, we started that task force because the 
current proposals on campaign finance reform, including the Shays-
Meehan proposal, were going nowhere. They were going nowhere.
  We said, let us have some principles. Let us avoid the extremes. Let 
us agree upon what we can mutually say both sides will vote on. We 
said, let us not challenge the Constitution, let us have that which is 
constitutional and will be upheld. Let us do something which can pass 
this body, the next body, be signed into law, and be upheld.
  Those were the principles that we had. The final principle was that 
we were going to have a commitment to bipartisanship. One of the 
lasting things that I will take out of this debate is my friends on 
both sides of the aisle, freshmen who are warm to reform and who are 
committed to this process, who are friends, and who will continue to 
fight for this through the lifetime we are here in this body. That is 
the long look.
  We also have to take a look forward. If we look forward, we want the 
headline tomorrow that, ``Campaign Finance Reform Passes''; yay. We 
also do not want a subsequent headline that says, ``The Senate Kills 
Reform; the Senate Fails to Take It Up; the U.S. Supreme Court Strikes 
It Down.'' That is where we go back to where we started from. Where we 
started was, let us get together and see what is constitutional, and 
let us get it passed. That is where we are today. We need to remember 
where we started.
  If we look forward again as to what can happen, what are we going to 
pass out of this body? Are we going to pass a political statement? Are 
we going to pass something that will advance a particular agenda? No. 
Let us pass something that is important, what will get through the 
United States Senate.
  If we look at what has been said already, Trent Lott has been made 
reference to. He happens to be the leader on the other side. ``Without 
any chance of 60 votes, why bring up Shays-Meehan? It would be a waste 
of time.'' That is what he says.
  Then there are those who say, well, the Republican leadership wants 
the freshman bill to be a stalking horse and to put down Shays-Meehan. 
That is not the case. In today's Roll Call, one leadership source says 
that they are afraid of the freshman bill going to the Senate, not the 
Shays-Meehan but the freshman bill, because that is what can be taken 
up over there. They know they do not have the votes on Shays-Meehan. It 
will die over in the Senate.
  Let us keep our eye on the big picture. Then, what will happen in the 
courts? The gentleman from California thinks, well, it will be upheld. 
Thinking is not enough. I do not believe we should base our efforts on 
reform on the mood of the United States Supreme Court. They have said 
clearly what they offer in Shays-Meehan is unacceptable, it will not 
pass. Why challenge that? Let us not risk our efforts. Let us vote for 
the freshman bill, because that is reform.
  I said this is the final hour. Let us make it the finest hour in this 
body and pass the freshman bill.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a strong advocate of campaign 
finance reform, a member of the Freshman Bipartisan Campaign Finance 
Reform bill, and a supporter of the Meehan-Shays reform plan.
  Eighteen months ago, I joined with 11 of my colleagues to form the 
Bipartisan Freshman Campaign Finance Reform Task Force. Our goal was to 
bring the issue of campaign finance reform to the forefront of the 
Congressional agenda. I am pleased that we were able to achieve that 
goal.
  We conducted months of meetings, including two public forums, which 
effectively served as the only hearings the House of Representatives 
conducted on this issue. The Task Force committed to developing 
legislation that would represent a bipartisan effort on campaign 
finance reform and ultimately a first step in the process of bringing 
true reform to the political process.
  I believe that one of the greatest achievements of the freshman Task 
Force is that it helped build momentum for House consideration of 
campaign finance reform. When the leadership made it clear that it 
would not bring Meehan-Shays to the floor of the House for a vote, the 
Task Force hoped its bill would serve as a starting place for debate on 
campaign finance reform. Our work has proven to be more than a starting 
place, it is the platform on which the most comprehensive campaign 
finance reform legislation has been successfully built.
  Passage of the Meehan-Shays amendment Monday was an historic moment. 
If we pass

[[Page H7328]]

the bill today with the Meehan-Shays language, we will have endorsed 
the most comprehensive political reform this body has seen in 20 years.
  So, it is unfortunate the Republican leadership of this House has 
chosen to use the Freshman bill as a tool in a cynical attempt to block 
final passage of the Meehan-Shays proposal. The rule dictating debate 
of campaign finance reform means that a vote for the Freshman bill is a 
vote against the Meehan-Shays bill. As a result, I will vote 
``present'' on the Freshman bill in order to ensure the passage of 
Meehan-Shays.
  We owe it to the American people to pass the most comprehensive 
campaign reform legislation in front of the House. That bill is Meehan-
Shays. By passing comprehensive campaign finance reform, we take a much 
needed step to restore the faith of the American electorate in our 
political system.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.


Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 8 Offered by Mr. Hutchinson

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows:

       Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 8 printed in 
     the Congressional Record and offered by Mr. Hutchinson:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Bipartisan Campaign 
     Integrity Act of 1998''.
  TITLE I--SOFT MONEY AND CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES OF POLITICAL 
                                PARTIES

     SEC. 101. BAN ON SOFT MONEY OF NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTIES AND 
                   CANDIDATES.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:


``ban on use of soft money by national political parties and candidates

       ``Sec. 323. (a) National Parties.--A national committee of 
     a political party, including the national congressional 
     campaign committees of a political party, and any officers or 
     agents of such party committees, may not solicit, receive, or 
     direct any contributions, donations, or transfers of funds, 
     or spend any funds, which are not subject to the limitations, 
     prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act. This 
     subsection shall apply to any entity that is established, 
     financed, maintained, or controlled (directly or indirectly) 
     by, or acting on behalf of, a national committee of a 
     political party, including the national congressional 
     campaign committees of a political party, and any officers or 
     agents of such party committees.
       ``(b) Candidates.--
       ``(1) In general.--No candidate for Federal office, 
     individual holding Federal office, or any agent of such 
     candidate or officeholder may solicit, receive, or direct--
       ``(A) any funds in connection with any Federal election 
     unless such funds are subject to the limitations, 
     prohibitions and reporting requirements of this Act;
       ``(B) any funds that are to be expended in connection with 
     any election for other than a Federal office unless such 
     funds are not in excess of the amounts permitted with respect 
     to contributions to Federal candidates and political 
     committees under section 315(a)(1) and (2), and are not from 
     sources prohibited from making contributions by this Act with 
     respect to elections for Federal office; or
       ``(C) any funds on behalf of any person which are not 
     subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 
     requirements of this Act if such funds are for the purpose of 
     financing any activity on behalf of a candidate for election 
     for Federal office or any communication which refers to a 
     clearly identified candidate for election for Federal office.
       ``(2) Exception for certain activities.--Paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply to--
       ``(A) the solicitation or receipt of funds by an individual 
     who is a candidate for a non-Federal office if such activity 
     is permitted under State law for such individual's non-
     Federal campaign committee; or
       ``(B) the attendance by an individual who holds Federal 
     office or is a candidate for election for Federal office at a 
     fundraising event for a State or local committee of a 
     political party of the State which the individual represents 
     or seeks to represent as a Federal officeholder, if the event 
     is held in such State.
       ``(c) Prohibiting Transfers of Non-Federal Funds Between 
     State Parties.--A State committee of a political party may 
     not transfer any funds to a State committee of a political 
     party of another State unless the funds are subject to the 
     limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this 
     Act.
       ``(d) Applicability to Funds From All Sources.--This 
     section shall apply with respect to funds of any individual, 
     corporation, labor organization, or other person.''.

     SEC. 102. INCREASE IN AGGREGATE ANNUAL LIMIT ON CONTRIBUTIONS 
                   BY INDIVIDUALS TO POLITICAL PARTIES.

       (a) In General.--The first sentence of section 315(a)(3) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     441a(a)(3)) is amended by striking ``in any calendar year'' 
     and inserting the following: ``to political committees of 
     political parties, or contributions aggregating more than 
     $25,000 to any other persons, in any calendar year''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 315(a)(1)(B) of such Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``$20,000'' 
     and inserting ``$25,000''.

     SEC. 103. REPEAL OF LIMITATIONS ON AMOUNT OF COORDINATED 
                   EXPENDITURES BY POLITICAL PARTIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 315(d) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(d)) is amended by 
     striking paragraphs (2) and (3).
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 315(d)(1) of such Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 441a(d)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(d)(1)'' and inserting ``(d)''; and
       (2) by striking ``, subject to the limitations contained in 
     paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection''.

     SEC. 104. INCREASE IN LIMIT ON CONTRIBUTIONS BY 
                   MULTICANDIDATE POLITICAL COMMITTEES TO NATIONAL 
                   POLITICAL PARTIES.

       Section 315(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(2)(B)) is amended by striking 
     ``$15,000'' and inserting ``$20,000''.
                 TITLE II--INDEXING CONTRIBUTION LIMITS

     SEC. 201. INDEXING CONTRIBUTION LIMITS.

       Section 315(c) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 441a(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(3)(A) The amount of each limitation established under 
     subsection (a) shall be adjusted as follows:
       ``(i) For calendar year 1999, each such amount shall be 
     equal to the amount described in such subsection, increased 
     (in a compounded manner) by the percentage increase in the 
     price index (as defined in subsection (c)(2)) for each of the 
     years 1997 through 1998.
       ``(ii) For calendar year 2003 and each fourth subsequent 
     year, each such amount shall be equal to the amount for the 
     fourth previous year (as adjusted under this subparagraph), 
     increased (in a compounded manner) by the percentage increase 
     in the price index for each of the four previous years.
       ``(B) In the case of any amount adjusted under this 
     subparagraph which is not a multiple of $100, the amount 
     shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.''.
    TITLE III--EXPANDING DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE INFORMATION

     SEC. 301. DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN COMMUNICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Any person who expends an aggregate amount 
     of funds during a calendar year in excess of $25,000 for 
     communications described in subsection (b) relating to a 
     single candidate for election for Federal office (or an 
     aggregate amount of funds during a calendar year in excess of 
     $100,000 for all such communications relating to all such 
     candidates) shall file a report describing the amount 
     expended for such communications, together with the person's 
     address and phone number (or, if appropriate, the address and 
     phone number of the person's principal officer).
       (b) Communications Described.--A communication described in 
     this subsection is any communication which is broadcast to 
     the general public through radio or television and which 
     mentions or includes (by name, representation, or likeness) 
     any candidate for election for Senator or for Representative 
     in (or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to) the Congress, 
     other than any communication which would be described in 
     clause (i), (iii), or (v) of section 301(9)(B) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 if the payment were an 
     expenditure under such section.
       (c) Deadline for Filing.--A person shall file a report 
     required under subsection (a) not later than 7 days after the 
     person first expends the applicable amount of funds described 
     in such subsection, except that in the case of a person who 
     first expends such an amount within 10 days of an election, 
     the report shall be filed not later than 24 hours after the 
     person first expends such amount. For purposes of the 
     previous sentence, the term ``election'' shall have the 
     meaning given such term in section 301(1) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971.
       (d) Place of Submission.--Reports required under subsection 
     (a) shall be submitted--
       (1) to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, in the 
     case of a communication involving a candidate for election 
     for Representative in (or Delegate or Resident Commissioner 
     to) the Congress; and
       (2) to the Secretary of the Senate, in the case of a 
     communication involving a candidate for election for Senator.
       (e) Penalties.--Whoever knowingly fails to--
       (1) remedy a defective filing within 60 days after notice 
     of such a defect by the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk 
     of the House of Representatives; or
       (2) comply with any other provision of this section,

     shall, upon proof of such knowing violation by a 
     preponderance of the evidence, be subject to a civil fine of 
     not more than $50,000, depending on the extent and gravity of 
     the violation.

[[Page H7329]]

     SEC. 302. REQUIRING MONTHLY FILING OF REPORTS.

       (a) Principal Campaign Committees.--Section 
     304(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(2)(A)(iii)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(iii) monthly reports, which shall be filed no later than 
     the 20th day after the last day of the month and shall be 
     complete as of the last day of the month, except that, in 
     lieu of filing the reports otherwise due in November and 
     December of the year, a pre-general election report shall be 
     filed in accordance with clause (i), a post-general election 
     report shall be filed in accordance with clause (ii), and a 
     year end report shall be filed no later than January 31 of 
     the following calendar year.''.
       (b) Other Political Committees.--Section 304(a)(4) of such 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(4)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(4)(A) In a calendar year in which a regularly scheduled 
     general election is held, all political committees other than 
     authorized committees of a candidate shall file--
       ``(i) monthly reports, which shall be filed no later than 
     the 20th day after the last day of the month and shall be 
     complete as of the last day of the month, except that, in 
     lieu of filing the reports otherwise due in November and 
     December of the year, a pre-general election report shall be 
     filed in accordance with clause (ii), a post-general election 
     report shall be filed in accordance with clause (iii), and a 
     year end report shall be filed no later than January 31 of 
     the following calendar year;
       ``(ii) a pre-election report, which shall be filed no later 
     than the 12th day before (or posted by registered or 
     certified mail no later than the 15th day before) any 
     election in which the committee makes a contribution to or 
     expenditure on behalf of a candidate in such election, and 
     which shall be complete as of the 20th day before the 
     election; and
       ``(iii) a post-general election report, which shall be 
     filed no later than the 30th day after the general election 
     and which shall be complete as of the 20th day after such 
     general election.
       ``(B) In any other calendar year, all political committees 
     other than authorized committees of a candidate shall file a 
     report covering the period beginning January 1 and ending 
     June 30, which shall be filed no later than July 31 and a 
     report covering the period beginning July 1 and ending 
     December 31, which shall be filed no later than January 31 of 
     the following calendar year.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 304(a) of such Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 434(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (8).
       (2) Section 309(b) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 437g(b)) is 
     amended by striking ``for the calendar quarter'' and 
     inserting ``for the month''.

     SEC. 303. MANDATORY ELECTRONIC FILING FOR CERTAIN REPORTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 304(a)(11)(A) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(11)(A)) is 
     amended by striking the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``, except that the Commission shall require the 
     reports to be filed and preserved by such means, format, or 
     method, unless the aggregate amount of contributions or 
     expenditures (as the case may be) reported by the committee 
     in all reports filed with respect to the election involved 
     (taking into account the period covered by the report) is 
     less than $50,000.''.
       (b) Providing Standardized Software Package.--Section 
     304(a)(11) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(11)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) The Commission shall make available without charge a 
     standardized package of software to enable persons filing 
     reports by electronic means to meet the requirements of this 
     paragraph.''.

     SEC. 304. WAIVER OF ``BEST EFFORTS'' EXCEPTION FOR 
                   INFORMATION ON OCCUPATION OF INDIVIDUAL 
                   CONTRIBUTORS.

       Section 302(i) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 432(i)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(i) When the treasurer'' and inserting 
     ``(i)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), when the 
     treasurer''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to 
     information regarding the occupation or the name of the 
     employer of any individual who makes a contribution or 
     contributions aggregating more than $200 during a calendar 
     year (as required to be provided under subsection (c)(3)).''.
                        TITLE IV--EFFECTIVE DATE

     SEC. 401. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall apply 
     with respect to elections occurring after January 1999.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is not further debatable.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 147, 
noes 222, answered ``present'' 61, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No 404]

                               AYES--147

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barton
     Bateman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Canady
     Chabot
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Crapo
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fowler
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Jones
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Packard
     Pappas
     Pastor
     Paul
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pryce (OH)
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Upton
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--222

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baesler
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McHale
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Metcalf
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Skeen
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Weller
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--61

     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Capps
     Carson
     Clayton
     Conyers
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dooley
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Filner
     Ford
     Frost
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hinojosa
     Hoyer
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich

[[Page H7330]]


     LaTourette
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Maloney (CT)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Stenholm
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cunningham
     Gonzalez
     Inglis
     McDade

                              {time}  1440

  Messrs. HEFLEY, STUMP, PAXON, CHRISTENSEN, and CALLAHAN changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. EVERETT, PITTS, WELDON of Pennsylvania, SNOWBARGER, WATT of 
North Carolina, and GOODLATTE changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  Mr. FROST changed his vote from ``no'' to ``present.''
  Mr. BLUMENAUER and Mr. WAMP changed their vote from ``present'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Pursuant to House Resolution 
442, the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) is finally adopted and shall be 
reported to the House.
  Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose, and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Barrett of Nebraska) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ewing, 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, pursuant to House Resolution 442, he reported the 
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of 
the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question 
is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 252, 
noes 179, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 405]

                               AYES--252

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

                               NOES--179

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cunningham
     Gonzalez
     Inglis

                              {time}  1458

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________