[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 22, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1917-E1918]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. PATSY T. MINK

                               of hawaii

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 14, 1999

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 417) to 
     amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reform the 
     financing of campaigns for elections for Federal office, and 
     for other purposes:

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment being offered by Congressmen Bereuter and Wicker.
  This amendment would bar legal permanent residents of the United 
States from being able to contribute to campaigns for Federal offices.
  Legal permanent residents of this country are here in the United 
States working, paying taxes, fighting in the military, and they have 
even sacrificed their lives for this country. Twenty percent of 
Congressional Medal of Honor winners from our Nation's past wars were 
either legal permanent residents or naturalized citizens. In 1997, 
about 7,500 new recruits of the U.S. Armed Forces were legal permanent 
residents and currently, at least 20,000 members of the U.S. Armed 
Forces are legal permanent residents.
  Legal permanent residents are often here in the United States to be 
with their close family members, to take jobs that no qualified U.S. 
citizens filled after the job was advertised, or to escape persecution. 
Unlike U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents must reside in the 
United States or risk having their residency status revoked. Legal 
permanent residents often send their children, many of whom are U.S. 
citizens by virtue of their birth in this country, to our Nation's 
public schools. They often participate in community and civic 
activities. As the ``citizens in training'' of our country, they have a 
stake in the future of our country and this amendment seeks to unfairly 
and unconstitutionally shuts them out of the political process.
  This amendment restricts the right of legal permanent residents to 
express their political views, a right which is guaranteed to them, and 
to us all, in the first amendment of our Constitution. Passage of this 
amendment will send a message to thousands of legal permanent residents 
that we as a nation want them to contribute to our economy, join our 
military, fight and die for our country but we do not want them to 
exercise their basic first amendment right.
  The U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark case Buckley v. Valeo, 424 
U.S. 1 (1976), ruled that campaign contributions are speech protected 
by the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in our 
Constitution does it state that the freedoms and protections provided 
in the Constitution apply to U.S. citizens only. The U.S. Supreme Court 
in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) affirmed this sentiment by 
stating that, ``. . . the Constitution is not confined to the 
protections of citizens.'' Also, in the case of Bridges v. Wixon, the 
Supreme Court held that the ``freedom of speech and press is accorded 
aliens residing in this country.'' A letter sent to every Member of 
Congress, signed by 100 Constitutional law professors who teach all 
across the United States, affirms that the Bereute-Wicker amendment is 
unconstitutional. It would be unconscionable and beyond the scope of 
power of this Congress to pass this amendment and rob a whole class of 
people of a constitutional right.

  I have tried to understand what my colleagues, Misters Bereuter and 
Wicker, hope to ahieve by introducing this amendment. Do they really 
believe that their amendment would keep foreign money out of Federal 
elections? I have read their amendment and I have analyzed what it 
would do the Federal election law. This amendment in no way makes it 
more difficult for foreign money to enter into the Federal electoral 
process.
  Money from foreign sources is already illegal and this amendment does 
not change that fact. It has been expressed that we should pass this 
amendment to place a greater distance between foreign money and our 
Federal elections, that people who have not expressed a permanent 
allegiance to the United States should not have the opportunity to 
influence our Federal elections and that if permanent legal residents 
want a chance to express their voice in Federal elections they should 
just become U.S. citizens. These reasons are designed solely to be 
scare tactics and none of them hold any water.
  If a foreign person wanted to illegally contribute money to a Federal 
election it is not necessary to find a legal permanent resident to be 
the conduit, any person, including any citizen could be used. There is 
no basis to assume that legal permanent residents are more likely to 
launder money from foreign sources than U.S. citizens. Therefore, how 
can the proponents of this amendment believe that it puts any greater 
distance between foreign money and federal elections? Permanent legal 
residents, by virtue of their legitimizing their residency status, have 
expressed a permanent allegiance to the United States. They also 
express a permanent allegiance to the United States by volunteering to 
join our military and by sacrificing their lives in the defense of this 
country. To state that legal permanent residents should only be allowed 
to exercise their

[[Page E1918]]

constitutional right of free speech when they become U.S. citizens 
displays a dangerous misunderstanding of constitutional law and 
overlooks the fact that many legal permanent residents are currently 
waiting for INS processing to become naturalized U.S. citizens.
  This amendment will also have a discriminatory and embarrassing 
effect on the rights of U.S. citizens who are ethnic minorities. The 
amendment penalizes candidates who accept contributions from legal 
permanent residents. Therefore, in order to avoid violating the law, 
candidates will consider suspect any contribution contributed by a 
person with an ethnic or foreign sounding name. The contributor will 
likely be asked to verify his or her citizenship status. The prospect 
of having to endure humiliation such as this will make minorities more 
reluctant to participate in the political process. Considering that 
Asian-Americans and Hispanic-Americans already have low-voter turnout 
and political participation statistics, the effect this amendment will 
have is distressing. The effects will be particularly disastrous in 
those districts, like mine, that contain large minority populations. 
This amendment forces candidates to discriminate against people solely 
because of the way they look, because of a last name that is ethnic or 
foreign sounding, or because of their place of national origin. Any 
class of citizens having to prove their citizenship in order to 
exercise their basic first amendment right is an insult to all U.S. 
citizens.
  This amendment which unconstitutionally denies legal permanent 
residents the protection of the first amendment right of free speech 
and which will cause a discriminatory and insulting effect on the 
rights of U.S. citizens who are ethnic minorities must be rejected. I 
urge my colleagues to vote against the Bereuter-Wicker amendment.

                          ____________________