[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 27, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H5282-H5290]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMENDING INTERNAL REVENUE CODE TO REQUIRE 527 ORGANIZATIONS TO DISCLOSE
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 4762) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require
527 organizations to disclose their political activities.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4762
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REQUIRED NOTIFICATION OF SECTION 527 STATUS.
(a) In General.--Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to political organizations) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) Organizations Must Notify Secretary That They Are
Section 527 Organizations.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (5), an
organization shall not be treated as an organization
described in this section--
``(A) unless it has given notice to the Secretary,
electronically and in writing, that it is to be so treated,
or
``(B) if the notice is given after the time required under
paragraph (2), the organization shall not be so treated for
any period before such notice is given.
``(2) Time to give notice.--The notice required under
paragraph (1) shall be transmitted not later than 24 hours
after the date on which the organization is established.
``(3) Contents of notice.--The notice required under
paragraph (1) shall include information regarding--
[[Page H5283]]
``(A) the name and address of the organization (including
any business address, if different) and its electronic
mailing address,
``(B) the purpose of the organization,
``(C) the names and addresses of its officers, highly
compensated employees, contact person, custodian of records,
and members of its Board of Directors,
``(D) the name and address of, and relationship to, any
related entities (within the meaning of section 168(h)(4)),
and
``(E) such other information as the Secretary may require
to carry out the internal revenue laws.
``(4) Effect of failure.--In the case of an organization
failing to meet the requirements of paragraph (1) for any
period, the taxable income of such organization shall be
computed by taking into account any exempt function income
(and any deductions directly connected with the production of
such income).
``(5) Exceptions.--This subsection shall not apply to any
organization--
``(A) to which this section applies solely by reason of
subsection (f)(1), or
``(B) which reasonably anticipates that it will not have
gross receipts of $25,000 or more for any taxable year.
``(6) Coordination with other requirements.--This
subsection shall not apply to any person required (without
regard to this subsection) to report under the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) as a
political committee.''.
(b) Disclosure Requirements.--
(1) Inspection at internal revenue service offices.--
(A) In general.--Section 6104(a)(1)(A) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to public inspection of
applications) is amended--
(i) by inserting ``or a political organization is exempt
from taxation under section 527 for any taxable year'' after
``taxable year'',
(ii) by inserting ``or notice of status filed by the
organization under section 527(i)'' before ``, together'',
(iii) by inserting ``or notice'' after ``such application''
each place it appears,
(iv) by inserting ``or notice'' after ``any application'',
(v) by inserting ``for exemption from taxation under
section 501(a)'' after ``any organization'' in the last
sentence, and
(vi) by inserting ``or 527'' after ``section 501'' in the
heading.
(B) Conforming amendment.--The heading for section 6104(a)
of such Code is amended by inserting ``or notice of status''
before the period.
(2) Inspection of notice on internet and in person.--
Section 6104(a) of such Code is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(3) Information available on internet and in person.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make publicly
available, on the Internet and at the offices of the Internal
Revenue Service--
``(i) a list of all political organizations which file a
notice with the Secretary under section 527(i), and
``(ii) the name, address, electronic mailing address,
custodian of records, and contact person for such
organization.
``(B) Time to make information available.--The Secretary
shall make available the information required under
subparagraph (A) not later than 5 business days after the
Secretary receives a notice from a political organization
under section 527(i).''.
(3) Inspection by committee of congress.--Section
6104(a)(2) of such Code is amended by inserting ``or notice
of status of any political organization which is exempt from
taxation under section 527 for any taxable year'' after
``taxable year''.
(4) Public inspection made available by organization.--
Section 6104(d) of such Code (relating to public inspection
of certain annual returns and applications for exemption) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``and Applications for Exemption'' and
inserting ``, Applications for Exemption, and Notices of
Status'' in the heading,
(B) by inserting ``or notice of status under section
527(i)'' after ``section 501'' and by inserting ``or any
notice materials'' after ``materials'' in paragraph
(1)(A)(ii),
(C) by inserting or ``or such notice materials'' after
``materials'' in paragraph (1)(B), and
(D) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Notice materials.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
term `notice materials' means the notice of status filed
under section 527(i) and any papers submitted in support of
such notice and any letter or other document issued by the
Internal Revenue Service with respect to such notice.''.
(c) Failure To Make Public.--Section 6652(c)(1)(D) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to public inspection
of applications for exemption) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or notice materials (as defined in such
section)'' after ``section)'', and
(2) by inserting ``and notice of status'' after
``exemption'' in the heading.
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), the amendments made by this section shall take effect on
the date of the enactment of this section.
(2) Organizations already in existence.--In the case of an
organization established before the date of the enactment of
this section, the time to file the notice under section
527(i)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by
this section, shall be 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this section.
(3) Information availability.--The amendment made by
subsection (b)(2) shall take effect on the date that is 45
days after the date of the enactment of this section.
SEC. 2. DISCLOSURES BY POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Required Disclosure of 527 Organizations.--Section 527
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to political
organizations), as amended by section 1(a), is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
``(j) Required Disclosure of Expenditures and
Contributions.--
``(1) Penalty for failure.--In the case of--
``(A) a failure to make the required disclosures under
paragraph (2) at the time and in the manner prescribed
therefor, or
``(B) a failure to include any of the information required
to be shown by such disclosures or to show the correct
information,
there shall be paid by the organization an amount equal to
the rate of tax specified in subsection (b)(1) multiplied by
the amount to which the failure relates.
``(2) Required disclosure.--A political organization which
accepts a contribution, or makes an expenditure, for an
exempt function during any calendar year shall file with the
Secretary either--
``(A)(i) in the case of a calendar year in which a
regularly scheduled election is held--
``(I) quarterly reports, beginning with the first quarter
of the calendar year in which a contribution is accepted or
expenditure is made, which shall be filed not later than the
15th day after the last day of each calendar quarter, except
that the report for the quarter ending on December 31 of such
calendar year shall be filed not later than January 31 of the
following calendar year,
``(II) a pre-election report, which shall be filed not
later than the 12th day before (or posted by registered or
certified mail not later than the 15th day before) any
election with respect to which the organization makes a
contribution or expenditure, and which shall be complete as
of the 20th day before the election, and
``(III) a post-general election report, which shall be
filed not later than the 30th day after the general election
and which shall be complete as of the 20th day after such
general election, and
``(ii) in the case of any other calendar year, 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, or
``(B) monthly reports for the calendar year, beginning with
the first month of the calendar year in which a contribution
is accepted or expenditure is made, which shall be filed not
later than the 20th day after the last day of the month and
shall be complete as if the last day of the month, except
that, in lieu of filing the reports otherwise due in November
and December of any year in which a regularly scheduled
general election is held, a pre-general election report shall
be filed in accordance with subparagraph (A)(i)(II), a post-
general election report shall be filed in accordance with
subparagraph (A)(i)(III), and a year end report shall be
filed not later than January 31 of the following calendar
year.
``(3) Contents of report.--A report required under
paragraph (2) shall contain the following information:
``(A) The amount of each expenditure made to a person if
the aggregate amount of expenditures to such person during
the calendar year equals or exceeds $500 and the name and
address of the person (in the case of an individual,
including the occupation and name of employer of such
individual).
``(B) The name and address (in the case of an individual,
including the occupation and name of employer of such
individual) of all contributors which contributed an
aggregate amount of $200 or more to the organization during
the calendar year and the amount of the contribution.
Any expenditure or contribution disclosed in a previous
reporting period is not required to be included in the
current reporting period.
``(4) Contracts to spend or contribute.--For purposes of
this subsection, a person shall be treated as having made an
expenditure or contribution if the person has contracted or
is otherwise obligated to make the expenditure or
contribution.
``(5) Coordination with other requirements.--This
subsection shall not apply--
``(A) to any person required (without regard to this
subsection) to report under the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) as a political committee,
``(B) to any State or local committee of a political party
or political committee of a State or local candidate,
``(C) to any organization which reasonably anticipates that
it will not have gross receipts of $25,000 or more for any
taxable year,
``(D) to any organization to which this section applies
solely by reason of subsection (f)(1), or
``(E) with respect to any expenditure which is an
independent expenditure (as defined in section 301 of such
Act).
``(6) Election.--For purposes of this subsection, the term
`election' means--
``(A) a general, special, primary, or runoff election for a
Federal office,
[[Page H5284]]
``(B) a convention or caucus of a political party which has
authority to nominate a candidate for Federal office,
``(C) a primary election held for the selection of
delegates to a national nominating convention of a political
party, or
``(D) a primary election held for the expression of a
preference for the nomination of individuals for election to
the office of President.''.
(b) Public Disclosure of Reports.--
(1) In general.--Section 6104(d) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to public inspection of certain annual
returns and applications for exemption), as amended by
section 1(b)(4), is amended--
(A) by inserting ``Reports,'' after ``Returns,'' in the
heading,
(B) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``and'' at the end of
clause (i), by inserting ``and'' at the end of clause (ii),
and by inserting after clause (ii) the following new clause:
``(iii) the reports filed under section 527(j) (relating to
required disclosure of expenditures and contributions) by
such organization,'', and
(C) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting ``, reports,'' after
``return''.
(2) Disclosure of contributors allowed.--Section
6104(d)(3)(A) of such Code (relating to nondisclosure of
contributors, etc.) is amended by inserting ``or a political
organization exempt from taxation under section 527'' after
``509(a))''.
(3) Disclosure by internal revenue service.--Section
6104(d) of such Code is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(6) Disclosure of reports by internal revenue service.--
Any report filed by an organization under section 527(j)
(relating to required disclosure of expenditures and
contributions) shall be made available to the public at such
times and in such places as the Secretary may prescribe.''.
(c) Failure To Make Public.--Section 6652(c)(1)(C) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to public inspection
of annual returns) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or report required under section
527(j)'' after ``filing)'',
(2) by inserting ``or report'' after ``1 return'', and
(3) by inserting ``and reports'' after ``returns'' in the
heading.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to expenditures made and contributions received
after the date of enactment of this Act, except that such
amendment shall not apply to expenditures made, or
contributions received, after such date pursuant to a
contract entered into on or before such date.
SEC. 3. RETURN REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO SECTION 527
ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Return Requirements.--
(1) Organizations required to file.--Section 6012(a)(6) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to political
organizations required to make returns of income) is amended
by inserting ``or which has gross receipts of $25,000 or more
for the taxable year (other than an organization to which
section 527 applies solely by reason of subsection (f)(1) of
such section)'' after ``taxable year''.
(2) Information required to be included on return.--Section
6033 of such Code (relating to returns by exempt
organizations) is amended by redesignating subsection (g) as
subsection (h) and inserting after subsection (f) the
following new subsection:
``(g) Returns Required by Political Organizations.--In the
case of a political organization required to file a return
under section 6012(a)(6)--
``(1) such organization shall file a return--
``(A) containing the information required, and complying
with the other requirements, under subsection (a)(1) for
organizations exempt from taxation under section 501(a), and
``(B) containing such other information as the Secretary
deems necessary to carry out the provisions of this
subsection, and
``(2) subsection (a)(2)(B) (relating to discretionary
exceptions) shall apply with respect to such return.''.
(b) Public Disclosure of Returns.--
(1) Returns made available by secretary.--
(A) In general.--Section 6104(b) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to inspection of annual information
returns) is amended by inserting ``6012(a)(6),'' before
``6033''.
(B) Contributor information.--Section 6104(b) of such Code
is amended by inserting ``or a political organization exempt
from taxation under section 527'' after ``509(a)''.
(2) Returns made available by organizations.--
(A) In general.--Paragraph (1)(A)(i) of section 6104(d) of
such Code (relating to public inspection of certain annual
returns, reports, applications for exemption, and notices of
status) is amended by inserting ``or section 6012(a)(6)
(relating to returns by political organizations)'' after
``organizations)''.
(B) Conforming amendments.--
(i) Section 6104(d)(1) of such Code is amended in the
matter preceding subparagraph (A) by inserting ``or an
organization exempt from taxation under section 527(a)''
after ``501(a)''.
(ii) Section 6104(d)(2) of such Code is amended by
inserting ``or section 6012(a)(6)'' after ``section 6033''.
(c) Failure To File Return.--Section 6652(c)(1) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to annual returns
under section 6033) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or section 6012(a)(6) (relating to
returns by political organizations)'' after
``organizations)'' in subparagraph (A)(i),
(2) by inserting ``or section 6012(a)(6)'' after ``section
6033'' in subparagraph (A)(ii),
(3) by inserting ``or section 6012(a)(6)'' after ``section
6033'' in the third sentence of subparagraph (A), and
(4) by inserting ``or 6012(a)(6)'' after ``section 6033''
in the heading.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to returns for taxable years beginning after June
30, 2000.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Houghton) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton).
General Leave
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4762.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the hour is late and it has been a long day, but I
frankly thought I would be here tonight talking about another bill,
H.R. 4717. It has a long title, the Full and Fair Political Activity
Disclosure Act of 2000, but this is not the case.
As it turned out, it was not the right time, either. This is a fact,
and we now move on to H.R. 4762, an entirely different bill.
Furthermore, it is the way our democratic process works. One shoots
as high as they possibly can and ends up with something the majority
feels is the best practical solution at the time.
Personally, I wanted to do two things. One is to get something done,
which means produce the first piece of campaign reform legislation that
will pass not only this House but also the Senate in years.
Secondly, to make it bipartisan this bill, 4762, is the base McCain-
Feingold-Lieberman bill with strong inputs from the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett)
and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle).
We changed the Senate sanction provision to apply 35 percent tax rate
against nondisclosed amounts, and that is all. So I just have to feel
that passing this bill on suspension will send a signal that, yes, that
we can do something on campaign finance reform, just as the Senate did.
This is not the end. It is the first step and a big one; and we still
need to move forward on better disclosure, but that will come. First,
we must pass this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 2320
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I know we all are anxious to vote, but this is such a
great victory for Republicans and Democrats to do the right thing.
I would like to believe that many on the other side would really want
to join with us, because I think that the voters are very concerned
about how we got to where we are this evening.
Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my friend, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Houghton) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), but
I am afraid that I do them more harm than good by doing that, but it
does show what happens when good people decide that they are going to
do the right thing. We do not care what we will call the bill, but we
are concerned that we do have a bill that we can move forward on a
bipartisan basis.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Doggett) for doggedly following through.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the overwhelming support on this side of the
aisle, we can see whether the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) has
earned it on the other side.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
[[Page H5285]]
Mr. Speaker, since March, we have called on the House to come
together to support in a bipartisan fashion a cleanup of some of the
worst excesses in our campaign finance system, what one expert referred
to as the most dangerous loophole that has ever come along, period,
what Senator McCain has rightly called this 527 political loophole, an
egregious and obscene distortion of everything the American people
believe in.
I think it is unfortunate that we have this sudden switch to the
suspension calender at this late hour, which will deny Members, both
Republicans and Democrats, an opportunity to offer amendments to
perfect the reform that has been advanced and to broaden it to be more
comprehensive reform, and certainly its passage is imperiled by the
two-thirds requirement.
Mr. Speaker, I did not pick the procedure. We have it, I think we
should utilize it now to try to move forward in the most constructive
way possible to approve a reform that will be significant, though
modest, in addressing this abuse.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time, and I particularly appreciate his efforts to put together a
bipartisan bill. This is one of the most contentious issues for all of
us, because the Democrats say we have to have an advantage and the
Republicans say we have to have an advantage. When we get into campaign
finance reform, it is highly charged politically.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), I think, has done a
tremendous job in trying to work through that; and I applaud him for
that.
First, this bill does nothing but require disclosure. It does not
change anything as to how much money can be given or how it can be
used, any of those other substantive things in the law.
I am sad that we could not broaden it more. I think any tax exempt
entity that is excused from paying any income tax under our law and
engages in significant political activity should have to disclose and
report. It should not be simply limited to one group, but,
unfortunately, that was not going to be accepted on a bipartisan basis.
We are back now on what has been agreed to basically on the Senate
side and by a large number of Members of the House of Representatives,
and it is a disclosure bill.
Mr. Speaker, I support it, but I wish we had more significant
campaign finance reform that was much broader in nature. I, again,
applaud the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) for his work, and I
do urge the passage of this bill.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my distinguished chairman,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), for the leadership that he has
displayed on this most important piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Moore).
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Houghton), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett),
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for their excellent work on this bill.
Back in February, I filed the Campaign Integrity Act of 2000 which is
required as to 527s only disclosure, I think that should be the bottom
line, and that is where we are now. I am proud, even though this is not
my bill, to support this bill, because it is what the American people
demand, it is what the American people deserve. When I go home, I hear
from my constituents, and I think a lot of my colleagues do, too, we
are so tired of all the partisan bickering, the Democrats did this and
the Republicans did that; what they wanted it us to do is come up here
and do the people's agenda.
That is what we are doing tonight by just campaign finance reform
bill is disclosure so people will know who is trying to influence their
vote and who is trying to influence Federal elections. That is the
bottom line. I invite all people of good will to vote for this bill
tonight.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New
York (Mr. Houghton) for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I also credit the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel)
for the tremendous work which he did, along with other Members in the
House of Representatives and in the United States Senate who have been
involved with this.
Tonight the House of Representatives has the opportunity to ensure
that meaningful campaign finance reform is passed in time for this
year's election. H.R. 4762 is the campaign finance bill with the best
chance to pass both Chambers and be signed into law that has reached
the floor of this House in years.
Mr. Speaker, last week when I testified before the Committee on Ways
and Means, I said that I would help lead the fight to pass legislation
that would reign in the section 527 groups if the House could not pass
more comprehensive disclosure legislation. I will do that tonight.
In this case, we cannot afford to make the perfect, the enemy of the
good. Section 527 organizations set up under section 527 of the Tax
Code are established to engage in political activities which influence
our political process by funding an election-related communications
without having to disclose their donors.
H.R. 4762 is needed because current campaign laws are wholly unable
to adequately regulate the torrent of political advising by groups
exploiting this loophole in both our taxation and election laws.
Huge sums of money are being spent to influence the election system.
This is a troubling new trend in campaign-finance spending by groups
operating under unique designations in our Tax Code such as section
527.
Mr. Speaker, while I would have liked to cover more groups engaging
in electioneering communications, I am pleased that we will pass
significant legislation that will tackle the 527 stealth political
organization problem.
We explored many possible alternatives, and I believe we have laid
the groundwork for further legislation in this area. Tonight we will
vote on H.R. 4762 language taken from Senator John McCain's legislation
which has already passed the Senate.
This legislation requires section 527 organizations that have gross
receipts of more than $25,000 to disclose their donors. Whether or not
we agree with the message of any advertisement campaign, I hope we can
agree that voters have the right to know who is paying for any
campaign-related ad and who is trying to influence their vote.
The 2000 general election cycle is fast approaching, and section 527
political groups are expanding at a rapid pace that will be a dominant
force in the 2000 election.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced this bill will curb some of the most
blatant abuses and will allow the public to know who is supporting
these groups that are now operating behind a veil of secrecy.
I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting H.R. 4762 in an effort
to restore integrity to our election process and return the election
process to the American people. It is a real step forward, and we
should take it.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, let me thank the Republican Members, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Houghton), who worked so hard to bring this here and the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Shays), as well as Democratic Members.
{time} 2330
Can any of us forget over the period of the last several months the
efforts of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett) to bring us to this point in time? And I
congratulate both of them for that.
This is an important step, but it is a step. Let none of us forget
the fact that this House passed a campaign finance reform bill by a
wide bipartisan margin
[[Page H5286]]
that would have dealt with the problems in this bill. The problem is
the bill went over to the United States Senate with 53 Members of that
body, the majority of the Members, all of the Democrats and several
Republicans, a majority of that body voted to pass that bill; and it
could have gone to the President's desk for signature, but 60 Members
of that other body were required to break a filibuster.
So let no Member in this body or no one in this country make the
mistake of thinking this is comprehensive campaign finance reform,
because it is not. We still have our work cut out for us, and we are
going to try to push our colleagues in the other body to break that
filibuster, and we are going to be back at it. If we cannot get this
done before this session, then next session. It is an important step,
and I congratulate my colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we reduce the influence of
money in American politics. At every turn we have met with obstacles,
but we will continue in this effort; we will push this effort until we
break the filibuster in the other body and send a real campaign finance
reform bill for the President's signature, because he is waiting to
sign it.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Bateman).
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I ask the indulgence of the House. This will not be a 1-minute
filibuster, I assure my colleagues.
I am concerned about the process and how we got to where we are, as
much as I congratulate my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Houghton), and those who have labored with him.
I stand here with a perception that there are many, many Members of
this body who would not like to have any form of campaign finance
reform. I think there are many, many Members of this body who would buy
into any form of campaign finance reform. I am not sure what we are
buying into, because I know so little of what we are doing. But I do
know that when we start limiting what people can do with their money to
influence the outcome of the political process, we are treading on very
serious constitutional ground. I choose not to tread there without
knowing much more about where I tread.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill, H.R.
4762. I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), my good friends and colleagues,
for their work on this important issue. We all know that it is time to
fix our broken system of financing elections, and this bill is a good
and necessary first step.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4762 would close a huge loophole by requiring
simple disclosure by these secret political organizations and groups.
The American people have a right to know. They have a right to know who
is funding political campaigns in this country. They have a right to
know who is trying to influence their votes. The American people have a
right to a free and open election process.
It is time to close this loophole. It is time to get rid of the
secrecy; it is time to fix this mess. So tonight, I urge all of my
colleagues to support this bill. It is the right thing to do. The time
is always right to do right. Tonight is the first step down a long road
toward political campaign finance reform.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the House that of
course, 527 should have to disclose. But in the name of disclosure, it
just should not be the political organizations that have to disclose;
it should be any of the other organizations in this country, whether it
be business organizations like the Chamber of Commerce, or whether it
be labor organizations, whether it be the Christian right. It does not
matter who it is, if they are engaging in blatant political activity,
they ought to have to be forced to disclose so that the American people
can understand where they get their money from. To limit this just to
political organizations is worse than even half a loaf. Frankly, it
does not matter which organization is electioneering. If they are
electioneering, make them all report. Do my colleagues know why?
Because with disclosure comes power to the ordinary citizen.
The fact is, some in this House believe that the way we fix election
law and we give power to ordinary people is to restrict access to the
political process, to shut them down. I despise that idea. But I will
tell my colleagues what I do believe in. Give the ordinary citizen the
right and the power to know who is behind all of these political
organizations, all of them, and they will make the smart decision and
they will use the real power in America, which is the power of the
ballot box.
This is a debate tonight about one big thing. Do we want to restrict
Americans and their ability to communicate, or do we want to let the
sun shine in and let Americans decide for themselves who is behind
these political activities.
Mr. Speaker, I vote for openness. Let the sun shine in. Freedom. And
at the end of the day, the people will have their way, and they will
make a decision.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is a sham when it comes to real campaign
finance reform. We should have gone the whole way and forced anybody,
from the right and the business community, to the left and the labor
community, to have to square with the American people about where they
get their money and let the American people decide, and this will be a
long ongoing fight.
Tonight, I am going to vote for 527, but I want to tell my
colleagues, it is such a fig leaf, it is a shame. The House had a real
chance at reform. We blew it.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank the gentleman in the well for his vote for 527, and I
hope we will see who is not voting for 527. But that was an eloquent
statement against the bill; but I guess in the final analysis, it is
the vote that really counts.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, a
member of the committee (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Bateman), I dislike the process by which we got here. We voted
this bill down twice on this floor, and now suddenly we went to
committee, and we passed a bill out of that committee, which is not the
bill which we are voting on here on the floor. The gentleman from New
York (Mr. Houghton), my good friend, has worked hard to work this
problem; but it is pretty clear that this is being put out at 20
minutes to 12:00 so that disclosure is done in the middle of the night.
It is kind of an irony, if one has that kind of mind, to look at the
fact that we are bringing out a bill that nobody in a committee has
actually looked at the words.
We passed another bill out of our committee, and obviously, we could
not get the votes on the floor for that, so suddenly, miraculously, we
have a bill at 12 minutes to 12:00. I understand all the rules and the
way things work, but this process is not a good one.
I think the importance of campaign finance reform is very clear. It
is not a Democrat issue, it is not a Republican issue, it is an issue
about whether people are willing to participate in the elections.
{time} 2340
It is expected that this election will be the least participation
since 1924 because people are turned off, and they are turned off by
all the money in the election. It is our job to clean that up and get
the American people back involved. This is a very small step forward.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following statement:
[From the Office of Congressman Tom DeLay, June 27, 2000]
DeLay To Oppose McCain Bill
an attack on our first amendment rights
Washington, DC: Tom Delay (R-TX), the House Majority Whip,
issued the following statement tonight on the vote in the
House on the campaign finance reform.
[[Page H5287]]
Majority Whip Tom DeLay stated: ``I am first and foremost a
constitutionalist, and this bill is a clear violation of the
First Amendment. Again and again, the courts have upheld the
right of groups to participate in the political process while
retaining privacy for their members. I am therefore confident
that the courts will quickly and decisively strike down this
legislation. How will the Democrats explain to their
constituents that any American who supports these issue
advocacy groups could find his or her names on a government
list? This lack of privacy and free speech is chilling.
``This so-called `reform' bill is in reality nothing more
than a last ditch effort by the Democrats to protect their
vulnerable incumbent Members from valid attacks on their
positions and beliefs. The Left is trying to stamp out our
right to free speech for their own political purposes while
protecting their big labor friends and political
contributors. The Democrats are the ultimate hypocrites and
they must explain their double standard to the American
people.''
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
legislation. These are stealth PACs. That is exactly what they are.
They are completely operating in secret, and it is a dangerous loophole
in the law that we have to close. We can close it tonight.
It is not everything we would like to do, but we cannot let the
perfect be the enemy of the good. Let us deal with these stealth PACs,
close this loophole, and restore democracy to our electoral process.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).
(Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
this bill. I thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) for bringing
it to my attention.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in support of the measure before us.
Sincere advocates of campaign finance reform have named 527
organizations Public Enemy number One--and with good reason. 527s
illustrate everything that has gone wrong in America's political
campaign financing system.
We have all heard from our constituents how much they hate big money
in politics. But the one thing that undermines public confidence in our
electoral process more than the obvious influence of big monied special
interests is the hidden, disingenuous influence of the big monied
special interests. That, as we all know, is what 527s represent. The
widely applied term ``Stealth PAC'' aptly describes these groups,
because they operate `under the radar' of public scrutiny and cloaked
in a veil of secrecy.
527s wield vast power over American elections. They are authorized
under present law to raise unlimited sums of money, and they do. They
can spend their vast warchests to buy elections for favored candidates
or ruin opponents--and they do. The time has come to make 527 Stealth
organizations accountable to the American people.
That is what the legislation before us would do. This bill would
level the playing field, by applying the same public disclosure
requirements to 527s as are applied to PACs under current law. It would
give you and me a way to find out just who is running those ads
encouraging everyone in a media market to `Call For More Information
About Congressman Whomever's Bad Record on Clean Air'. Most
importantly, it would allow our constituents to find out just exactly
which big monied special interest is trying to tell them what to think
and how to vote.
This bill is not perfect. Some would prefer to apply similar
disclosure requirements to labor unions and social welfare
organizations, when they spend money to influence elections. Others
would like to require corporations to do the same. These are both
important points and deserve serious debate.
But the bill before us allows us take an important first step. It
allows us to build on the momentum generated in the Senate, and it has
been freed of poison pill provisions force-fed by opponents who sought
to scuttle this important reform effort. This clean, consensus bill
gives us a chance to restore a measure of fairness, candor, and
accountability to America's political system.
I disagree with those opponents of reform who argue that, if we
cannot do everything, we should do nothing. I encourage my colleagues
to join me in voting to ground the Stealth campaign and in launching a
new strike against secrecy and corruption in American electoral
politics.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I feel that I may be
betraying the Constitution. The Supreme Court just decided that a party
has a right to settle its own disputes and non-members should not
interfere. I find myself in the midst of an internal Republican dispute
here tonight, but I have no choice, because that is the way the
majority chose to bring it up.
I congratulate my Republican friends who have brought this bill
forward. For those who think it is being brought up without adequate
notice, they should know that it is essentially the bill they voted
down when we had a motion to recommit a while ago, so this is not the
first time Members are seeing this bill.
It does, I think, give some confidence in the political process
because there has been a great transmogrification on the other side
from people who did not like this bill a couple of weeks ago who have
now found some merit in it. I think it is a good idea. I am delighted
to see the wheel reinvented and campaign finance reform passed.
I would agree with the gentlemen who have complained about the
procedure. We of course had no say in this procedure: bringing this
bill up in a fashion that it cannot be amended, it has not had a chance
to be studied, and at midnight, that was their choice.
I do think that the debate has been a little one-sided. For people
who think I may be being too partisan, I would say that we on our side
deserve a lot of credit for the bill.
Let me quote a congressional leader: ``This bill is in reality
nothing more than a last-ditch effort by the Democrats,'' and I am
quoting the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), who
put out a statement giving us credit for the bill, although not too
cheerfully.
Under the general leave, I do think that in the interests of full
disclosure and full debate, and I do not see the majority Whip, he was
apparently tied up somewhere, I knew he was eager to be here, but under
the general leave that was gotten by the gentleman from New York, I
include the majority whip's statement into the Congressional Record.
The material referred to is as follows:
[From the Office of Congressman Tom DeLay, June 27, 2000]
DeLay To Oppose McCain
an attack on our first amendment rights
Washington, DC: Tom DeLay (R-TX), the House Majority Whip,
issued the following statement tonight on the vote in the
House on the campaign finance reform.
Majority Whip Tom DeLay stated: ``I am first and foremost a
constitutionalist, and this bill is a clear violation of the
First Amendment. Again and again, the courts have upheld the
right of groups to participate in the political process while
retaining privacy for their members. I am therefore confident
that the courts will quickly and decisively strike down this
legislation. How will the Democrats explain to their
constituents that any American who supports these issue
advocacy groups could find his or her names on a government
list? This lack of privacy and free speech is chilling.
``This so-called `reform' bill is in reality nothing more
than a last ditch effort by the Democrats to protect their
vulnerable incumbent Members from valid attacks on their
positions and beliefs. The Left is trying to stamp out our
right to free speech for their own political purposes while
protecting their big labor friends and political
contributors. The Democrats are the ultimate hypocrites and
they must explain their double standard to the American
people.''
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Linder).
Mr. LINDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr.
Speaker.
There is a gentleman at Rutgers University named Dr. Troy who has
been studying spending in campaigns for 20 years. What he said is that
in the last two cycles, 1996 and 1998, labor unions spent between $400
million and $600 million. If they are in our neighborhoods knocking on
doors, they were paid by labor unions.
This bill does not touch that. This bill yields them all they want.
They totally cover all that the Republican committees do combined, and
there was an original bill that covered all the spending by all the
groups, labor unions, right-to-life, political parties, and it was
determined by a variety of folks, including our friend Senator McCain,
that this is a poison pill.
If we include labor unions, Democrats cannot vote for it, and
therefore,
[[Page H5288]]
it is not bipartisan and we cannot pass that. Excuse me. If Members
want to have disclosure, I think we should have total disclosure,
including all that the unions spend all the rest spend.
I want to notify my friends, this is a suspension. One-third of the
votes will kill this bill. We ought to do it.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the primary sponsor of this bill.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, briefly, this is in no way a substitute for
comprehensive campaign finance reform of the type that the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Meehan) have so admirably led this House in pursuing.
But to those who have said they wanted a much broader bill, the first
thing to point out is that 527s can be used by a union, they can be
used by the trial lawyers, they can be used by right-to-life, by
Planned Parenthood. This treats everyone who chooses to use a 527 in
exactly the same way. It discriminates neither for nor in favor of
anyone.
The second thing, however, is that in the committee, seven
Republicans, led by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and six
Democrats came to the committee and they said, why do we not take a
Republican idea advanced by Senator Snow and Senator Jeffords and add
that onto the bill so we will cover more people.
And we Democrats on the committee said, yes, that is a good idea. We
will do that. Republicans on the committee raised numerous objections
that that just was not broad enough, so we said, well, we will do more
than that. We will extend this. We will do more to be sure we are
covering and ensuring fairness and equity. We will cover unions and
their activities, we will cover business organizations and their
activities. We will try to treat everyone fairly and comprehensively.
And both privately in our discussions with Members on the other side
and publicly in the committee we sought to pursue this in a bipartisan
way. Not one change, not the slightest change, were our Republican
colleagues willing to even contemplate.
So what they produced was a bill that all Members have heard about.
They have heard from right-to-life, they have heard, I believe, from at
least 30 organizations, saying that it is blatantly unconstitutional,
and they are absolutely right. The bill that came out of that committee
was blatantly unconstitutional, and the woman that wrote it admitted
she could not find the lawyer that would say it was constitutional.
It is unfortunate that such a bill should come out of the committee.
I am very proud I voted against it, and so did every other Democrat, in
urging a constructive alternative, in trying to negotiate a way to deal
fairly with all these problems.
The problem all along has been that we are attacked from both
directions. The bill is either too narrow or it is too broad. It is
either too deep or it is too shallow. So it has been impossible to meet
all of the conflicting objections that have been raised.
So we find ourselves back tonight where we started in March
essentially, as my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, said,
voting on the same issue that the House has already voted on twice, but
hopefully with a better outcome. I think we are moving forward with
what is an important but obviously a small step to open up the secret
organizations to sunshine.
For months while we have waited for this coming together on this
approach there have been those who have obstructed reform that have
been working as hard as they can to raise as much secret money as they
can to fill our air waves with hate in the fall and our mailboxes with
misinformation.
We are going to get a very narrow window now, a too narrow window, I
must say, because of the way the effective date is constructed in this
legislation, but a very narrow window to look at those stealth
organizations with their secret stash. As they plan for the fall, we
will at least be able to know who is launching the attack and identify
the attackers.
Tonight I believe we must take a firm stance on the only action we
can on this very constricted midnight debate that denies an opportunity
for Republicans or Democrats to add and strengthen and expand and
perfect this bill, but we should take the action that we are permitted
to take because it is aimed directly at corruption in the American
political system, where someone can come in and ask for a favor one day
and deliver a contribution that is never disclosed on the next day.
Disclosure by the secret 527 political funds is the one modest reform
that we can still put in place to affect a little bit of this year's
election, and we ought to do it without any more delay. I believe that
this represents one small triumph for democracy over secrecy.
{time} 2350
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minute to the gentlewoman
from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, all is well that ends well; and at least
we are moving forward in the right direction. I am in very strong
support, and I hope this body is, of H.R. 4762. Again, I applaud the
very hard work and dedication of my friends, particularly the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Houghton), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays), and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and others on both
sides of the aisle who have, indeed as we know, worked tirelessly
around the clock to craft a meaningful, bipartisan and genuine step
forward in campaign finance disclosure legislation, legislation that
can and should become law.
The growing abuse of anonymous political advertising has reached such
extremes that many of us in Congress who are strong supporters of
campaign finance reform feel that at least disclosure of 527
organizations is something to which every voter is entitled. Our
American principles stress the importance and the value of transparency
in government; and this legislation, a small step, but a step forward,
this legislation demonstrates that this Congress is sincere.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress sincerity. It is, in fact, a step
that demonstrates that we do care, that we are sincere in our belief
that we can restore the public's voice and the public's confidence in
the Federal election system. This bill, H.R. 4762, moves us in that
direction.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly urge this entire body's support of this
legislation, and I thank the author for working so hard on it.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. I would just
like to say one other thing. I am proud to be a Member here, and I am
proud to have friends such as everyone. The Chamber badly needs to pull
itself together, to work together, to craft legislation together and
finally feel good about something they have done together.
So through this bill, H.R. 4762, I would like to feel we can
reinforce that process.
If I believed half of what I have heard about the Full and Fair
Political Activity Disclosure Act of 2000, I would have to vote against
my own bill.
Some have said that the bill requires disclosure by too many
organizations. Some say it should be expanded. Others have said that
the bill is too narrow. Some say it is unfair to labor; others that it
lets labor off the hook. Still others claim the bill is
unconstitutional, but somehow would pass muster if its provisions
applies 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election.
Or 60 to 90 days. Take your pick.
It becomes difficult to separate the fact from fiction.
Fiction: This issue is so politically charged that Congress should
simply require disclosure by Sec. 527 organizations, period.
Fact: Some of us feel we need the ``disinfectant of sunshine''
regardless of the specific section of the Internal Revenue Code that
confers tax-exempt status on a group trying to influence an election.
If we limit disclosure to Sec. 527 groups alone, the money will
certainly flow to other tax-exempt groups. Section 501(c) organizations
will become the new haven for those who wish to avoid scrutiny. Our
approach is fairly straightforward: if you are tax-exempt and intervene
meaningfully in an election, you disclose.
Fiction: The Houghton bill applies to lobbying.
Fact: This is a real red herring. The bill does not impact lobbying
by anyone--unless an ``issue ad'' identifies a candidate for office, or
[[Page H5289]]
otherwise tries to influence the election of a person. The right to
know your accuser is a basic element of American fairness. If your ad
attacks a candidate, the public should know who's paying for it.
Fiction: The bill is too vague. It isn't clear what must be
disclosed.
Fact: For 25 years, Sec. 527 of the Internal Revenue Code has
provided the definition of political activity for tax law purposes.
That's the same definition in our bill as well as the Doggett bill.
Tax-exempt social welfare organizations (sec. 501(c)(4)), labor unions
and agricultural organizations (sec. 501(c)(5)) trade associations, and
chambers of commerce (sec. 501(c)(6)) have been interpreting and
complying with this law for 25 years.
Fiction: The bill's disclosure requirements are overly broad. Less
disclosure should be required of 501(c) organizations.
Fact: Our basic approach here is what's good for the goose . . . . If
we have a strict set of rules for Sec. 527 organizations and a
loophole-ridden set of rules for other tax-exempt organizations, it
isn't too hard to figure out where the money and the activity will go.
Fiction: The bill is unconstitutional.
Fact: Because we have no way of knowing how the courts will rule on
any legislation we consider in Congress, this is always the perfect
excuse for doing nothing. Some of the bill's critics believe its
provisions are constitutional on some days, but not on others,
depending on proximity to an election. I'm not a lawyer but it is clear
that no group has a constitutional right to tax-exempt status. There is
no question that Congress has the right to impose conditions on such
privileged status. And our bill is severable; if one part is found
unconstitutional, the rest will stand. It's that simple.
Fiction: (1) The bill is unfair to organized labor. (2) The bill
gives labor an unfair advantage.
Fact: Presumably, these claims are mutually exclusive. Apparently,
some would prefer to shield a number of labor's political activities
from sunshine while others would like to impose unreasonable disclosure
requirements on unions. Let me be clear: the bill imposes exactly the
same disclosure requirements on organized labor as it does on Sec. 527
political organizations, social welfare organizations, and chambers of
commerce and trade associations.
Fiction: The bill will have a chilling effect on participation in the
political process.
Fact: The bill simply requires disclosure, nothing more, by tax-
exempt organizations which attempt to influence the outcome of an
election. The bill should not have a chilling effect unless someone has
something to hide. Public Citizen, Common Cause, the League of Women
Voters, Public Campaign and PIRG have lobbied Congress to pass Sec. 527
disclosure. If disclosure is good for one group, why not all?
Fact: This is not a perfect bill. There is no perfect bill. But this
bill, I hope, strikes a difficult balance of promoting meaningful
disclosure without creating unwarranted burdens for people who want to
participate in the political process. Senator John McCain is absolutely
right. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation to
require disclosure of political activities by section 527
organizations.
The legislation is identical to the McCain amendment which passed the
Senate.
This is an excellent step forward in campaign finance reform.
The bill will require section 527 organizations to disclose their
contributions and expenditures on political campaigns.
While the bill does not address the campaign activities of other 501
organizations, coverage of the 527s will address the
fastest growing problem in campaign advertising--independent groups
that can spend millions of dollars to influence a campaign--without
disclosing their contributors.
Eventually we must have total disclosure of all groups that try to
influence voting. If the American people know where the money is coming
from and can measure the significance of the special interest bias they
will ultimately make the best decision.
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of campaign finance
reform--and in particular the elimination of secret political slush
funds. With that in mind, I am pleased to support this legislation, and
I want to commend Chairman Houghton for his leadership and his earnest
efforts at bipartisanship.
Legislation addressing the abuse of section 527's operate in total
secrecy outside the view of the public. These organizations do not
apply for tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service nor file
annual returns with the IRS describing their activities and
contributors.
This bill is essentially identical to the legislation introduced by
Representative Lloyd Doggett. It is very similar to the legislation
that House Democrats have been trying to pass for several months now.
But this is not some bill designed to score partisan points. Rather, it
reflects the priorities identified by a bipartisan group of witnesses
who testified before the Oversight Subcommittee last week in advance of
the full Committee markup--witnesses like Senators McCain and Lieberman
and Representatives Castle and Doggett.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. If we
can't pass comprehensive campaign finance legislation this year, let's
at least subject the activities of these organizations to public
scrutiny. It is essential in a democracy that the voters know who is
spending money to influence elections.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 4762.
The question was taken.
Recorded Vote
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 385,
noes 39, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 341]
AYES--385
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
[[Page H5290]]
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOES--39
Barr
Barton
Bateman
Bonilla
Burton
Canady
Chenoweth-Hage
Coburn
Combest
Cooksey
Crane
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hostettler
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Kingston
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Manzullo
Mica
Myrick
Oxley
Paul
Peterson (PA)
Pitts
Pombo
Radanovich
Ryun (KS)
Souder
Stump
Tancredo
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
NOT VOTING--11
Cook
Markey
Martinez
McCarthy (MO)
McIntosh
Northup
Oberstar
Schaffer
Vento
Waters
Young (AK)
{time} 0007
So (two-thirds having voted to favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mrs. NORTHRUP. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 341, I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 341, had I
been present, I would have voted ``aye''.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 341, I was detained on an
emergency call in my office and was not present on the floor when
rollcall 341 was voted.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
____________________