[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21515-21553]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I was unavoidably detained in 
Chicago today on a family emergency.
  Had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall Nos. 408, 409 
and 410. I would have voted no on rollcall Nos. 411, 412, and 413. I 
would have voted yes on rollcall No. 414.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 7 printed 
in House Report 106-311.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Calvert

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page 21516]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Calvert: 
       Add at the end of title V the following new section (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 517. REQUIRING MAJORITY OF AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTIONS 
                   ACCEPTED BY CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES TO COME 
                   FROM IN-STATE RESIDENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 315 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i)(1) The total amount of contributions accepted with 
     respect to an election by a candidate for the office of 
     Senator or the office of Representative in, or Delegate or 
     Resident Commissioner to, the Congress from in-State 
     individual residents shall be at least 50 percent of the 
     total amount of contributions accepted from all sources.
       ``(2) If a candidate in an election makes expenditures of 
     personal funds (including contributions by the candidate or 
     the candidate's spouse to the candidate's authorized campaign 
     committee) in an amount in excess of $250,000, paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply with respect to any opponent of the candidate 
     in the election.
       ``(3) In determining the amount of contributions accepted 
     by a candidate for purposes of paragraph (1), the amounts of 
     any contributions made by a political committee of a 
     political party shall be allocated as follows:
       ``(A) 50 percent of such amounts shall be deemed to be 
     contributions from in-State individual residents.
       ``(B) 50 percent of such amounts shall be deemed to be 
     contributions from persons other than in-State individual 
     residents.
       ``(4) As used in this subsection, the term `in-State 
     individual resident' means an individual who resides in the 
     State in which the election involved is held.''.
       (b) Reporting Requirements.--Section 304 of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 434), as amended by sections 103(c), 204, and 307, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(h)(1) Each principal campaign committee of a candidate 
     for the Senate or the House of Representatives shall include 
     the following information in the first report filed under 
     subsection (a)(2) which covers the period which begins 19 
     days before an election and ends 20 days after the election:
       ``(A) The total contributions received by the committee 
     with respect to the election involved from in-State 
     individual residents (as defined in section 315(i)(4)), as of 
     the last day of the period covered by the report.
       ``(B) The total contributions received by the committee 
     with respect to the election involved from all persons, as of 
     the last day of the period covered by the report.
       ``(2)(A) Each principal campaign committee of a candidate 
     for the Senate or the House of Representatives shall submit a 
     notification to the Commission of the first expenditure of 
     personal funds (including contributions by the candidate or 
     the candidate's spouse to the committee) by which the 
     aggregate amount of personal funds expended (or contributed) 
     with respect to the election exceeds $250,000.
       ``(B) Each notification under subparagraph (A)--
       ``(I) shall be submitted not later than 24 hours after the 
     expenditure or contribution which is the subject of the 
     notification is made; and
       ``(II) shall include the name of the candidate, the office 
     sought by the candidate, and the date of the expenditure or 
     contribution and amount of the expenditure or contribution 
     involved.''.
       (c) Penalty for Violation of Limits.--Section 309(d) of 
     such Act (2 U.S.C. 437g(d)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(4)(A) Any candidate who knowingly and willfully accepts 
     contributions in excess of any limitation provided under 
     section 315(i) shall be fined an amount equal to the greater 
     of 200 percent of the amount accepted in excess of the 
     applicable limitation or (if applicable) the amount provided 
     in paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(B) Interest shall be assessed against any portion of a 
     fine imposed under subparagraph (A) which remains unpaid 
     after the expiration of the 30-day period which begins on the 
     date the fine is imposed.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to elections occurring after January 
     2001.
       Page 86, line 10, strike ``(2 U.S.C. 437g(d)) is amended'' 
     and insert the following: ``(2 U.S.C. 437g(d)), as amended by 
     section 517(c), is further amended''.
       Page 86, line 12, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman form California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to introduce the Shaw-Calvert-Gallegly 
amendment. It is a simple reform that would make candidates 100 percent 
accountable to the people they represent by controlling the source of 
campaign funds.
  Unfortunately, some of our colleagues from Florida, including the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), have hurricane-force winds bearing 
down on their homes. Our prayers are with them and their constituents 
as they brace for Hurricane Floyd's impact. The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Shaw) requested that I offer this amendment in his absence.
  Too many candidates take their show on the road and sell themselves 
to the Americans all across this country. This practice comes at the 
expense of the people the candidate is supposed to represent. When a 
candidate has to primarily rely on money from people outside their home 
State, they no longer need to listen to the needs and concerns of their 
own constituents.
  This amendment requires candidates to raise at least half of the 
money for their campaigns from their home State. Through this simple 
requirement, we give all Americans a greater voice in the political 
process.
  I introduced a similar amendment last year that received 147 votes. 
My colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), also submitted a 
similar amendment last year that garnered 160 votes.
  We brought the best of both bills together today, working with the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and our colleague from California 
(Mr. Gallegly). We combined my language with the amendment of the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) to address the concerns of Members 
about the constitutionality of its provisions.
  I also heard from a number of Members who are concerned about the 
wealthy candidates abusing these provisions for their own advantages. 
These are valid concerns, and we have amended the language accordingly.
  Should a candidate face an opponent that uses more than $250,000 of 
their own funds in a campaign, all candidates would be exempt from this 
amendment's provision.
  This amendment is common sense electoral reform, and I hope that 
every Member will support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this legislation. It is not 
quite as simple as it sounds. And it does sound, I believe, good on its 
face. But the truth of the matter is there are those of us in small 
States, and I am one of them, there are those that have border 
districts, which small States automatically have, so I am one of them, 
as well. And there are those who are from very poor districts 
throughout this country who have problems raising campaign funds. I am 
not in that category, as Delaware is a relatively wealthy State.
  When I first ran four terms ago for the Congress of the United 
States, I was out-spent by my opponent, not significantly, but I was 
out-spent. He raised at least 90 percent, probably a lot greater 
percentage, of his money from outside Delaware. We made a campaign 
issue out of it. It worked out just fine. And I understood what the 
process was. He was allowed to raise that money and he could.
  If we are going to carry this to the nth degree, we really should say 
that no money should come from outside a particular State.
  Delaware has 800,000 people. Many of my constituents cross over into 
Pennsylvania and Delaware on a regular basis and back over. It is 
almost impossible to distinguish exactly where they are from, and it 
makes I believe a matter like this very complicated.
  The Shays bill calls for a study of this, and I believe that we 
should go with that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shaw-
Calvert amendment.
  This key amendment requires candidates to raise their money locally

[[Page 21517]]

thereby aligning constituent and donor interest. By requiring 
candidates to raise 50 percent of their contributions within their home 
State, we not only give the public a greater voice in elections but 
also limit the power of Washington special interests.
  This is a seminal change that should be coupled with anti-bundling 
reforms to restrict gaming of PAC donor limits and a requirement that 
half of a candidate's contributions come from an individual rather than 
PACs to achieve truly viable reform.
  In considering campaign finance legislation, we should consider the 
practical effects of the bill, not the stated intentions of its 
proponents. By limiting the ability of all candidates to raise money, 
Shays-Meehan rewards candidate committees with a broad, already-
established donor base.
  Specifically, incumbents, Shays-Meehan is clearly the incumbent 
protection bill in this debate. Because Shays-Meehan tilts the field to 
incumbents, this amendment is necessary to help correct this fatal flaw 
by forcing incumbents and challengers to raise half their money at home 
and compete on a level playing field.
  I urge all my colleagues and all true friends of campaign finance 
reform to vote in favor of this amendment. However, without additional 
perfecting amendments, I, for one, cannot support Shays-Meehan this 
evening. And I feel bad about that.
  I hope this amendment is successful.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the honesty of 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He makes it clear he is against Shays-
Meehan, so he is for an amendment which would kill it.
  Here is one of the problems. We have, in the first place, some very 
large States, California. When the gentleman from California, and two 
of the three sponsors are from California, talk about how self-
sacrificing they are going to be because they can only go from San 
Diego to north of San Francisco, that is not very self-sacrificing 
compared to people from much smaller States.
  We have small States in this country with ethnic diversity. Let us be 
very clear. Money and ethnicity are sometimes correlated. And if we now 
tell African-American candidates in the South, now that we have 
redistricting rules from the Supreme Court that say that the districts 
have to be fairly evenly balanced ethnically, if we tell candidates in 
Mississippi and South Carolina and Alabama, these smaller States, that 
the money has to be raised in State, we are putting minority candidates 
at a significant disadvantage. Because we know as a fact that wealth is 
not equally distributed, and we put ethnic minority candidates at a 
disadvantage.
  Finally, as to incumbent protection, when we limit money to that 
State, we are increasing incumbent protection because the incumbent in 
a small State is far more likely to be able to raise the money.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to answer the 
concern of the gentleman.
  My amendment probably will not even impact most candidates. According 
to the Congressional Research Service, in 1996 only 8 percent of total 
known receipts raised by Democratic candidates for the House came from 
outside their State. A similar figure for House Republican candidates 
was 7 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my good friend, the gentleman 
from the State of Michigan (Mr. Smith).

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have introduced legislation 
that actually bans PAC money from donating to individual congressional 
campaigns and requires that congressional candidates raise 50 percent 
of the money from within their own legislative district. Having a 
requirement that 50% of contributions for a Member of Congress come 
from the State is reasonable. It moves us in the right direction, and 
it helps make sure that constituents are going to be represented, not 
special interests.
   Mr. Chairman, let's concentrate on constituent interests, not 
special interests. As the great political reporter Theodore White 
wrote, ``The flood of money that gushes into politics today is a 
pollution of democracy.'' I haven't accepted PAC contributions since I 
first ran for the Michigan state senate in 1982. Although I knew I 
would always vote the way I felt was right regardless of who donated to 
my campaign, I also knew that it was equally important that my 
constituents had no doubts about how much PAC lobbyists might be 
influencing my decisions.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Shaw-Calvert amendment. This bill requires candidates to raise 50 
percent of their contributions from their own State. This bill makes it 
difficult, if not impossible, for candidates to remain competitive if 
they represent low-income districts, border or small geographic 
districts.
  When I rise to speak in Congress, I represent more than the 11th 
Congressional District of Ohio. I represent the hopes and dreams of the 
descendants of a host of African Americans who were enslaved, beaten, 
hung, brutalized and died, and are still underrepresented in the United 
States Congress.
  Their descendants, wherever they reside, should be able to contribute 
to my campaign. When I rise to speak in this House, I represent the 
United States as a whole. I recommend that a commission be appointed to 
study the impact this provision would have on the ability of Members to 
raise sufficient funds when they represent low-income, border and 
minority districts. Until such a commission is appointed, I urge my 
colleagues in this House to vote ``no.''
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bilbray.)
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a strong supporter of Shays-
Meehan. I was one of the original cosponsors. I rise as a 
representative of all the people in the 49th District of California.
  The supporters of true campaign finance reform in my district have 
come to me and said they want Shays-Meehan passed, but they want a 
condition that says at least half of your money should come from your 
State. The fact is, these rules will apply to everyone equally in the 
district that is being run for.
  Now, there was a gentleman from Massachusetts who said, ``Why not 
make it district?'' My constituents would like to have it district, but 
this is a compromise. It is the minimum we can do. Let us do true 
campaign finance reform, pass Shays-Meehan, and require half the money 
to come from your State.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
because I think it is an attempt to undermine the Shays-Meehan campaign 
finance reform bill. That bill is the best opportunity America has to 
end the corrupting influence of big money and to ensure that all 
Americans can participate and be heard by their elected officials 
without money as the motivator. Real campaign finance reform is needed 
to accomplish this goal. Every single one of us who comes to this body 
takes an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution against 
all enemies, foreign and domestic. The biggest enemy to our 
constitutional democracy is campaign money.
  This city was built on a swamp over 200 years ago. It has returned to 
being a swamp, a swamp that is dirtied by the huge amount of special 
interest money that pours in here and stacks the deck against the 
typical American seeking a legitimate role in the political process.
  As far as this amendment is concerned, as a Californian, a State that 
is wealthy and supports its candidates, I urge my colleagues to vote 
against it. There will be no way we will have more women and more 
minorities in this Congress if we pass this legislation. This Congress 
will never look like America. I urge a ``no'' vote.

[[Page 21518]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shays-Meehan campaign 
finance reform bill. The gentlemen are to be commended for their 
leadership in bringing hope to the House that we will finally break the 
bonds between the political process and big monied special interests.
  The Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill is the best opportunity 
America has to end the corrupting influence of big money and to ensure 
that all Americans can participate and be heard by their elected 
officials without money as the motivator. Real campaign finance reform 
is needed to accomplish this goal.
  Unfortunately, an election system based on wealth and money distorts 
the political process and adversely affects the civil rights of low-
income Americans by allowing politicians and fundraisers to dismiss or 
ignore their voices and infringe on their voting rights. While first 
amendment concerns have been raised, civil rights concerns must be 
addressed first.
  The Shays-Meehan bill includes a ban on soft money at the Federal and 
State level; a ban on foreign money entering the system; tougher 
political advertising disclosure requirements; mandatory electronic 
filing and internet posting of a candidate's Federal Election 
Commission reports; and establishment of a Commission to study further 
reforms to improve our campaign finance system.
  When Washington, D.C. first was established as America's capital, it 
was built on a swamp. It is still a swamp, a swamp dirtied by the huge 
amounts of special interest money that pours in here and stacks the 
deck against the typical American seeking a legitimate role in the 
political process.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose all the poison pill amendments and 
substitutes designed to derail this measure. America needs real 
campaign reform in the political process. Let's support today's 
bipartisan campaign finance measure.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard the arguments here. We do not have a very 
long time to discuss this tonight. We only have 10 minutes. The bottom 
line is, I think there are some serious questions about this. I have 
raised some about the small State problem that I have, the border 
districts where the people you really know, such as in a Kansas City 
situation, for example, right up in the border between two different 
States, those districts which are extraordinarily poor, represented 
often by minorities which need some help with respect to these 
circumstances.
  Let me just point out what is in the Shays-Meehan bill, because I 
think before everybody votes, they should understand this, and that is 
simply this. It establishes a bipartisan commission to study the impact 
of such concerns, and I think it goes a long way toward addressing the 
problem of campaign finance reform. This is what we need to do.
  I think that the gentleman from California's amendment raises a 
serious question, something perhaps we should consider, but I do not 
think we are ready to vote on it at this particular time and make it 
part of the law of the United States of America. I think, indeed, it is 
something that we should continue to look at and should continue to 
discuss, make some sort of professional determination if it is 
possible; if so, what it should be. For now, this amendment should be 
defeated and the Shays-Meehan bill should be passed.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, it is constitutional, it is common sense, 
it is constructive. I have been for this since I have been in Congress. 
I am in my fourth term. I was for this in my first term, and I am still 
for this. It is a good idea. Give your citizens a greater voice and 
vote for this amendment.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Shaw-Calvert-
Gallegly amendment to H.R. 417, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform 
Act of 1999.
  The Shaw-Calvert-Gallegly amendment is a common sense solution to 
reforming our current campaign finance laws. Our amendment would simply 
require candidates running for Congress to raise and accept no less 
than 50 percent of the total contributions from within the State they 
represent.
  Our amendment is simple and fair. It does not tilt the playing field 
in favor or Republicans or Democrats. If affects rich and poor 
districts equally. Our amendment does, however, lessen the huge 
advantage Washington insiders have over challengers who do not have 
access to the out-of-state fundraising circuit.
  In the past, some congressional candidates have raised as much as 95 
percent of their campaign funds from out-of-State donors. This 
amendment would require that candidates should be financially supported 
at least in part by the citizens they wish to represent.
  Mr. Chairman, Members should spend more time with the people that 
really count, namely the voters in our districts. We should show our 
constituents that we represent Main Street, not K Street. If you 
believe we should bring the focus of fundraising back to the people we 
represent, then I urge you vote in favor of the Shaw-Calvert-Gallegly 
amendment.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shaw-
Calvert-Gallegly amendment to H.R. 417. This key amendment requires 
candidates to raise their money locally, thereby aligning constituent 
and donor interests. I have supported similar legislation in previous 
sessions of Congress. In fact, during the 105th Congress, I drafted a 
similar amendment to this one.
  By requiring candidates to raise 50 percent of their contributions 
within their home State, we not only give the public a greater voice in 
elections, but also limit the power of Washington special interests. 
This change should be coupled with antibundling reforms to restrict 
gaming of PAC donor limits and a requirement that half of a candidate's 
contributions come from individuals rather than PAC's to achieve more 
meaningful reform.
  In considering campaign finance legislation, we should consider the 
practical effects of the bill, not simply the promises of its 
proponents. By limiting the ability of all candidates to raise money, 
the Shays-Meehan proposal rewards candidate committees with broad, 
already established donor files. The only committees with that type of 
donor file are incumbents.
  Because the Shays-Meehan proposal tilts the field to incumbents, this 
amendment is necessary to help correct this potentially fatal flaw by 
forcing incumbents and challengers to compete on a level playing field.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. However, 
without these additional amendments, I cannot support the passage of 
Shays-Meehan.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in House 
Report 106-311.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Sweeney

  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Sweeney: 
       Amend the heading for title X to read as follows (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly):

  TITLE X--REIMBURSEMENT FOR USE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY FOR CAMPAIGN 
                                ACTIVITY

       Add at the end of title X the following new section (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 1002. REIMBURSEMENT FOR USE OF GOVERNMENT EQUIPMENT FOR 
                   CAMPAIGN-RELATED TRAVEL.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.), as amended by sections 101, 401, 507, 
     510, 515, and 1001, is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following new section:


 ``reimbursement for use of government equipment for campaign-related 
                                 travel

       ``Sec. 329. If a candidate for election for Federal office 
     (other than a candidate who holds Federal office) uses 
     Federal government property as a means of transportation for 
     purposes related (in whole or in part) to the campaign for 
     election for such office, the principal campaign committee of 
     the candidate shall reimburse the Federal government for the 
     costs associated with providing the transportation.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Sweeney) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I offer this amendment today to

[[Page 21519]]

strengthen the Nation's election law and bring a higher level of 
accountability into the campaign process.
  I believe there are, among other things, two important goals of 
Federal election law. First, election laws level the playing field for 
candidates running for office, offering access to the process to all 
Americans. The amendment I am offering today attempts to open up the 
process so that all candidates have a chance to get the job despite 
disadvantages in campaign resources. We want the best, the brightest, 
the most qualified, to have a shot at winning a seat, not only those 
with access to either money or resources. Second, the reforms we are 
discussing today attempt to further distinguish the political campaign 
activities from official duties.
  One of the issues we are addressing today is the perception among 
many Americans that the line between official duties and campaigning 
has been blurred. Americans deserve not to have policy decisions so 
colored by political motives, especially when their tax dollars are 
involved.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses both of these objectives by 
leveling the playing field and separating political campaign activities 
from official duties. The proposal is simple and reasonable. If you are 
seeking elected office and you use government-owned property for 
campaign travel purposes, you must fully reimburse the American 
taxpayer. This will ensure that no candidate is given an unfair 
advantage over another.
  Few people have access to government-owned vehicles, particularly 
military aircraft. Those that do should be responsible for paying the 
full and actual cost of travel when campaign activities are involved. 
This amendment will not only make the candidate more accountable to the 
taxpayer, but it also removes the unfair advantage that any individual 
may hold over candidates without access to government transportation.
  This amendment also strengthens the separation between campaign 
activities and official duties. Candidates who use government-financed 
transportation, while defending the practice, often split hairs over 
what constitutes campaigning versus official business. We have an 
obligation to make these activities separate and distinct.
  The American public deserves to know that every candidate using any 
government vehicle will not violate the public trust by traveling at 
taxpayer expense. We are free to run for office, but as we all know 
here today, running for office is not free. Neither are we free to 
spend the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars unless, of course, your 
campaign headquarters is some military jet. Freedom has its cost, 
running for office has its cost, but let us not confuse the two. One we 
gain at birth, the other we must earn.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Sweeney amendment. 
We have an opportunity today to pass real campaign finance reform, but 
instead we are wasting our time on a mean-spirited, petty, politically 
partisan charged amendment that has nothing to do with real campaign 
finance reform.
  The goal of this amendment is to target the First Lady by forcing her 
to pay for the full costs of her travel when she flies on government 
planes. Mrs. Clinton is already following the same FEC rules as all 
other candidates, rules that require her to reimburse the government 
for the fair value of the travel. If this amendment were to pass, the 
First Lady may be forced to abandon the security the Secret Service 
says she needs or face tremendous costs that no candidate could afford. 
We should not compromise her security for political, partisan purposes.
  The gentleman from New York's amendment would apply to all 
candidates, and I quote, other than a candidate who currently holds 
Federal office. So the gentleman from New York would exempt himself. He 
says that it is okay to have two sets of rules, one for the current 
officeholders, himself, and another one for everyone else. It is a 
double standard. It is a glaring loophole.
  I have a letter here from the chair of the Federal Election 
Commission which I would like to place in the Record at the appropriate 
time which states clearly that no provision of current law covers 
incumbent travel, that only FEC regulations apply.
  The gentleman from New York would like to undermine these regulations 
by passing a law that specifically exempts himself, other incumbents 
and creates an enormous loophole. If the gentleman from New York's 
amendment is such a good idea for Mrs. Clinton, then why do we not 
apply it to candidates who rely on State and city transportation and 
State and city security when they run for Federal office? Or better 
yet, why do we not apply it to the gentleman from New York and Members 
of this body who may fly on corporate or commercial planes but are not 
required to reimburse the company or the government for the full cost 
of the plane?
  We should not open up a huge loophole in election law by punishing 
challengers and giving the gentleman from New York and incumbents a 
free ride. Campaign finance reform is supposed to be about leveling the 
playing field, but here he is creating one standard for everyone else 
and Mrs. Clinton and a very different standard for incumbents. It is 
petty, it is partisan, it is just plain mean.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Sweeney amendment.

                                      Federal Election Commission,


                                       Office of the Chairman,

                                     Washington, DC, May 14, 1991.
     Hon. Robert E. Wise, Jr.,
     Chairman, Government Information, Justice and Agriculture 
         Subcommittee, Committee on Government Operations, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: this responds to your April 25, 1991, 
     letter requesting information concerning the application of 
     Federal election law to the use of Government-owned aircraft 
     for political purposes.
       Your letter cites 24 flights taken by the White House Chief 
     of Staff on aircraft owned by the Federal government that are 
     listed as ``political'' in nature. You state that the chief 
     of Staff or a campaign or political organization reimbursed 
     the Department of Defense for these flights in the amount of 
     ``coach fare plus one dollar.'' You request a summary of the 
     law pertaining to political travel on Government aircraft and 
     also ask how the pertinent laws ``would apply to the Chief of 
     Staff's travel as listed'' in the enclosure submitted with 
     your letter.
       In addition, you are ``interested in how Federal election 
     law applies to the President's use of military aircraft for 
     political purposes,'' and whether the law applies differently 
     when the aircraft is used for political purposes ``by other 
     personnel.'' You further ask whether the ``rules change'' 
     when Government aircraft is used ``in support'' of a 
     Presidential candidate after he or she qualifies for Federal 
     matching funds.
       In view of the requirements of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (``the Act''), it is not 
     appropriate for me or the Commission to issue a ruling or 
     opinion of an advisory nature in response to your inquiry. 
     The advisory opinion procedure, as set forth in the Act, 
     authorizes the Commission to give such an opinion only in 
     response to the written request of any person who describes 
     his or her own prospective or ongoing activity, not that of 
     another person. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437f, 11 CFR 112.1(b). Any 
     person who believes that someone else may have violated the 
     Act may file a sworn complaint with the Commission presenting 
     the alleged facts and related violations. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437g, 
     11 CFR 111.4.
       Notwithstanding the inability to give such official advice, 
     we can respond to your request for general information as to 
     those provisions of the Act and Commission regulations that 
     govern campaign travel on Government-owned aircraft for the 
     purpose of influencing Federal elections, since the 
     Commission has no jurisdiction over State election law.
       First, the Act and the presidential public funding 
     provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 
     Sec. Sec. 9001-9042) are silent with respect to any use of 
     Government-owned aircraft by any person in connection with 
     any election for Federal office. the 1979 amendments to the 
     Act did make clear that the use of appropriated funds of the 
     Federal government would not result in a ``contribution' to 
     influence a Federal election because the Federal government 
     is not a ``person''; only persons are deemed to have the 
     capacity to make contributions under the Act. 2 U.S.C. 
     Sec. Sec. 431(8)(A), 431(11). The legislative history further 
     indicates that misuse of appropriated funds is a violation of 
     Federal law and subject to enforcement by other agencies, not 
     the Federal Election Commission. (report of Committee on 
     House Administration, Federal Election Campaign Act 
     Amendments of

[[Page 21520]]

     1979, H. Rep. No. 96-422, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 6, 7, 11 
     (1979).)
       Several Commission regulations govern expenditures for 
     campaign travel in connection with Federal elections and 
     include provisions pertaining to campaign travel via 
     Government-owned conveyance, which would include Government-
     owned aircraft. those cited herein are most pertinent in your 
     inquiry and copies are enclosed for your reference.
       11 CFR 106.3 pertains to allocation of campaign travel 
     expenditures with respect to campaigns for Federal 
     office,other than presidential candidates who receive Federal 
     matching funds or grants for their campaign expenses. See, in 
     particular, 11 CFR 106.3(e).
       11 CFR 114.9(e) applies to the use of non-commercial 
     corporate (or labor organization) aircraft for campaign 
     travel in connection with a Federal election. It does not 
     apply to the campaign use of aircraft owned by the Federal 
     government.
       11 CFR 9004.7 governs the allocation and payment of 
     campaign travel expenditures by presidential and vice 
     presidential candidates who accept Federal funding for their 
     general election campaigns. See, in particular, 11 CFR 
     9004.7(b)(4) and (b)(5) with respect to use of Government-
     owned aircraft.
       11 CFR 9034.7 governs the allocation and payment of 
     campaign travel expenditures by a presidential candidate 
     seeking nomination by a political party who has accepted 
     Federal matching funds for his or her primary election 
     campaign. See, in particular, 11 CFR 9034.7(b)(4) and (b)(5) 
     regarding use of Government-owned aircraft.
       I hope you will find this letter and the enclosed materials 
     helpful for purposes of your inquiry. If you have any other 
     questions, please contact me or John Surina, our Staff 
     Director.
           Sincerely yours,
     John Warren McGarry,
       Chairman for the Federal Election Commission.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I am confused by my colleague and friend from New York and her 
position. First I am confused because I do not recall at any point in 
my opening remarks mentioning the First Lady and her bid for the Senate 
seat in New York State. Although I will say that on recess and 
throughout all of the travels that I have had in my district, a number 
of my constituents, in fact many of my constituents, have raised 
concerns about the inequity that exists with an individual who may or 
may not be a candidate using the resources of Air Force One or a 
military jet to conduct what may or may not be a campaign.
  But let me address and respond to some of the positions that my good 
friend has taken. First, let me point out that the loophole that exists 
in the current proposal, in the underlying bill, would be a loophole 
that would allow a candidate who is not defined as a public officer, 
which the First Lady certainly fits under, to use the resources for 
transporting back and forth to conduct campaign activities. If we pass 
the underlying legislation, the President, the Vice President, other 
Federal officials, including myself, would not be able to use those 
resources, not that I have that available to me at this point in time, 
anyway, but they would not be able to do that. And the loophole that 
would exist would be one that would allow for a continuation of that 
kind of use by a candidate who does not fall under that public officer 
definition.
  Let me also talk about the issue of security and abandoning security 
and you talk about red herrings being thrown out there. At no point and 
no time do any of us advocate that security concerns as it relates to 
the First Family or any other Federal official who duly needs that kind 
of security be taken away from them. In fact, we all recall that it was 
just several years ago that Saddam Hussein and other Mideast terrorists 
threatened the life of former President Bush. It was because we had 
strong security around former President Bush that we were able to 
thwart that attempt.

                              {time}  1830

  I in no way intend to hinder the security today or in the future of 
the First Family, and I suspect and I propose that because we require a 
full reimbursement for the use of military jets we are not diminishing 
in any capacity. In fact, we are not diminishing the opportunity for 
the First Lady or anyone else who has access to those vehicles to use 
them. That is a choice that they will make, a choice that they will 
make in conjunction with the security interests that they will have as 
well.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman is so certain that current 
officeholders are already covered, I would ask him to cite the specific 
provisions of election law that applies. Just tell me where in the 
Federal Election Act, and I will not yield, the gentleman may talk on 
his own time. It says that current officeholders are blocked from using 
Government travel for political purposes, but the challengers are not. 
I have a letter from the Chair of the FEC which says that no provision 
of current law covers it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lofgren), my good friend.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, this partisan amendment is overtly aimed 
at the First Lady of the United States and no one else. Now candidates 
in Government planes pay back the Government for any part of their 
travel which is campaign related. If a candidate has to be guarded by 
the Secret Service, the FEC accommodates that in the cost calculation. 
That is the right thing to do.
  A democratic Nation requires physical safety for public officials, 
and by the way, keeping the First Family safe benefits us all. This 
dangerous amendment also violates the Constitution's equal protection 
clause. Federal candidates who are not officeholders would pay, but not 
candidates who are already elected.
  Mr. Chairman, that is a brand-new loophole for the in-crowd. The 
effect would be to repeal the repayment rule, but only for those 
already elected to a federal office. It could benefit every Member of 
this House, but not those who challenge us.
  This amendment creates special protections for federal officeholders 
that singles out the First Lady for bad treatment. It is bad policy, it 
is unconstitutional, it is petty, and it is unchivalrous. It deserves 
to be voted down.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 
time to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the 
leader of the Democratic party.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is recognized 
for 30 seconds.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding this time to me.
  We ought to reject this amendment. This is a large issue which we are 
debating, campaign finance reform. The American public wants campaign 
finance reform.
  We ought not to mire ourselves in the petty politics, as the 
gentlewoman indicated. The gentleman from Pennsylvania says he did not 
mention the First Lady. He did not have to. He cannot mention anybody 
else that this affects. He cannot mention anybody else that this 
affects right off the top of his head. Mr. Chairman, I know it, and my 
colleagues know it. This is trying to make a petty political point to 
distract our attention from a major reform bill.
  Reject this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Sweeney).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 9 printed in House 
Report 106-311.


                  Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. DeLay

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page 21521]]

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. DeLAY:
       Insert after title XV the following new title (and 
     redesignate the succeeding provisions and conform the table 
     of contents accordingly):
      TITLE XVI--EXEMPTION OF INTERNET ACTIVITIES FROM REGULATION

     SEC. 1601. EXEMPTION OF INTERNET ACTIVITIES FROM REGULATION 
                   UNDER FECA.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.), as amended by sections 101, 401, 507, 
     510, 515, 1001, and 1101, is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following new section:


                   ``exemption of internet activities

       ``Sec. 330. (a) In General.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (b), none of the limitations, prohibitions, or 
     reporting requirements of this Act shall apply to any 
     activity carried out through the use of the Internet or to 
     any information disseminated through the Internet.
       ``(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the 
     solicitation or receipt of contributions.
       ``(c) Internet Defined.--The term `Internet' means the 
     international computer network of both Federal and non-
     Federal interoperable packet-switched data networks.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will prevent the burdensome restrictions 
and regulations in Shays-Meehan from applying to the Internet. Shays-
Meehan will impose unprecedented free speech restrictions and 
discussions on the Internet. Chat rooms, e-mail and personal Web pages 
will all be regulated by the Federal Government if Shays-Meehan, as 
drafted, becomes law.
  I want to take a minute to show my colleagues how overreaching some 
of these restrictions are. This Web site right here was created by an 
anonymous, private person who supports the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt), the minority leader. The purpose of this site is to tell 
other people why Dick Gephardt and other Democrats are good people. 
Simply put, this private citizen is exercising his first amendment 
rights to communicate. But under Shays-Meehan, this site would violate 
the law.
  First of all, the site clearly falls within the broad and burdensome 
express advocacy definition in Shays. Second, this person does not 
disclose their name and address, which Shays-Meehan would require. And 
third, the person has not submitted proper information to the FEC 
concerning the independent expenditure.
  Now I want my colleagues to look at this Web site. This is the Nazi 
Party home page that freely distributes its hate and its filth across 
the Web. Under Shays-Meehan, this site is not regulated. These hate 
mongers can distribute their opinions under the protection of the first 
amendment without regulation.
  Now I find it very disturbing that an informational site like this 
private citizen who supports the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) 
will be regulated while this Nazi Web site can freely distribute its 
filth. What is the sense in this legislation?
  The Internet is a medium that allows individuals to engage in 
political discourse without regulation. I believe we should encourage 
this dialogue, not discourage it through burdensome regulations. 
Citizens should not be forced to register their Web sites with the 
Federal Government, and my amendment protects the rights of individuals 
who want to engage in political communication on the Internet.
  Even Democrat FEC Commissioner Karl Sandstrom supports this approach, 
stating that the best remedy for questionable information is more 
information, and our goal should be to encourage, not discourage, this 
new form of political participation.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more. We must defend the 
constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech, and I urge my colleagues 
to oppose the burdensome Internet restrictions in Shays-Meehan and 
support this free speech amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin, if my colleague 
would promise to be brief in his response, with a colloquy with the 
distinguished majority whip. Do I take him to say that he would like to 
impose regulation on that Nazi website?
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Absolutely not. I am for free speech, and I want open and 
free speech.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Reclaiming my time then, the gentleman's point about 
the unfair treatment is really not very based in fact in that he would 
have no regulation of either website. He pointed out that perhaps the 
Nazi site should be regulated.
  Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman would yield, I never said that.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I will allow the gentleman from Texas to 
correct it as I ask him the second question.
  First off, let me just suppose for a moment this Gephardt For 
President web ad was paid for by the Red Chinese Communists. They put 
this money to put this ad on the web, and as I understand it, the 
gentleman's position would be that nobody would know that this was 
financed by the Communists in China--or similarly banner ads on the web 
that they can put on at huge expense, spending say, $10 million.
  Is that correct? Do I understand the gentleman's position.
  Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield, first of all, I think it is a 
specious argument because I do not know how we would require the 
Chinese to file with the FEC, number one; and it just points out how 
when we seek regulating free speech, how complicated it can get.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Reclaiming the time, it is apparent to me that the 
gentleman would not do anything to disclose the Red Chinese Communists 
funding a huge campaign for a candidate for office in the United 
States, provided they use the Internet loophole which his amendment 
creates, and that is exactly the reason why we have disclosure.
  Shays-Meehan does nothing to prohibit free speech, but it does 
protect free speech by guaranteeing disclosure so that if the Red 
Chinese Communists are behind the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt) for president, a possibility which I do not entertain, it 
would be known by the people of the United States.
  What is going on in this amendment is absolutely clear. Just read it. 
It says ``Except as provided in subsection (b),'' which deals with 
fund-raising, ``none of the limitations, prohibitions or reporting 
requirements of this Act shall apply to any activity carried out 
through the use of the Internet,'' [emphasis added] Not even the 
reporting requirements would apply.
  I think I was asked to speak on this because my district cares more 
about the Internet, I suspect, than the average, but fair is fair. If 
the means of dissemination are to be controlled, the Internet should be 
covered no more and no less.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. 
As a general policy, the Government should not try to control or 
regulate the Internet, and I think most of the 90 million Americans who 
send e-mail or surf the Web would totally agree with us on this.
  Last year we overwhelmingly approved the Internet Tax Freedom Act. We 
were wise enough to allow commerce on the Web to grow and flourish 
unfettered by Government interference before trying to tax or control 
it, and I

[[Page 21522]]

believe that keeping Government bureaucracies out of the business of 
regulating political speech on the Web is a very important thing for us 
to do.
  This is not a partisan statement at all. In fact, a Democratic 
commissioner of the Federal Election Commission recently said the 
Internet changes politics. On the Internet every woman and man is a 
potential publisher. One need only visit the Web page of a 
sophisticated high school student to see how slim a technical advantage 
media giants enjoy.
  The Government should not involve itself in regulating free speech, 
and I believe that support of this amendment is the most responsible 
thing that we can do.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the DeLay 
amendment. It is a poison pill that jeopardizes today's bipartisan 
effort to reform our campaign finance system.
  The DeLay amendment exempts activities on the Internet from federal 
campaign finance laws. While proponents say they are protecting the 
Internet and protecting political speech, the DeLay proposal, if 
enacted, would endanger the Internet and stifle the voice of the 
average citizen. It is a step backwards; it is anti-reform.
  First, it creates a potentially huge loophole through which big 
donors, corporations, and unions could pour unlimited funds into 
Internet ad campaigns to directly promote the election or defeat of a 
candidate. This would spread the disease of sham issue ads from the TV 
to the Internet.
  Second, the DeLay amendment opens a loophole that would allow State 
parties to suspend unlimited amounts of soft money on Internet 
activities to influence federal elections.
  Third, the DeLay amendment could undermine the FEC's authority to 
require mandatory electronic filing of campaign reports. That is hardly 
in the spirit of full disclosure so strongly advocated by the majority 
whip.
  Despite the claims of the DeLay proponents, Shays-Meehan specifically 
allows nonpartisan voter guides to be distributed on the Internet as 
well as other venues. Despite the claim of DeLay proponents, the Shays-
Meehan reform bill does not impose restrictions on users of e-mail or 
Internet chat rooms. Political discussion there is as protected and 
cherished as it is in the corner barber shop or a neighbor's living 
room. Shays-Meehan does not require people to list their Web sites with 
the Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, the Internet is growing at an exponential rate. 
Congress thus far has taken a hands-off policy to let the Internet grow 
and flourish. The DeLay amendment, however, could undermine the freedom 
of the Internet by making it the favored conduit for special interests 
to fund soft money and stealth issue ads into federal campaigns.
  Let us not poison the Internet and poison our democracy with this 
poison pill.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in introducing the chairman of the Internet Caucus, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), I would just say the Internet 
is pure free speech. That is what makes it a powerful force for freedom 
around the world and here in the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay) for yielding and for offering this amendment, which I urge my 
colleagues to support.
  Mr. Chairman, the Internet has the potential to be a revolutionary 
force in the evolution of our system of democratic governance. The 
ability of citizens to share information at relatively little cost 
enables all Americans to become active participants in the political 
process.
  In response to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), there is 
no way to control what people outside the U.S. put on the Internet any 
more than the Chinese can control what U.S. citizens put on the 
Internet.
  For the gentleman to attempt to regulate some poor soul who wants to 
have a web site promoting the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) or 
any other American citizen running for office is an outrage, and we 
should strongly support this amendment and protect free speech on the 
Internet.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to point 
out exactly what the bill does. The bill does not single out the 
Internet in any fashion. It is for exactly the reasons that were 
expressed by Mr. DeLay.  He cited a commissioner that said that the 
Internet is going to bring about great change.
  One of the arguments that is constantly made by the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
is that we should not take a snapshot of the Internet in an attempt to 
decide exactly what is going on there. This is a very fluid situation. 
That is why it needs to be studied. That is exactly what the FEC is 
doing. They are studying how the Internet is going to affect politics, 
and it will be a positive force.
  Meanwhile, we are here on the floor of the House today debating the 
proposition that if somebody is going to intend to influence the 
outcome of an election, whatever medium they should choose, they should 
have to stand up and attach their name to anything that they intend to 
say or do.
  Those people that are ashamed of the political advertising that they 
are engaged in today, so ashamed that they do not want to put their 
names on it, will resort to any media to accomplish that dirty deed. We 
need to put it to a stop. We need to adopt the issue ad restrictions in 
this bill. We need to defeat this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) will 
be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 printed in House 
Report 106-311.


                 Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Ewing

  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 10.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Ewing:
       Strike section 1601 and insert the following (and conform 
     the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 1601. NONSEVERABILITY OF PROVISIONS.

       If any provision of this Act or any amendment made by this 
     Act, or the application thereof to any person or 
     circumstance, is held invalid, the remaining provisions of 
     this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall be treated 
     as invalid.
       In the heading for title XVI, strike ``SEVERABILITY'' and 
     insert ``NONSEVERABILITY'' (and conform the table of contents 
     accordingly).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Ewing) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing).
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First and foremost, I support campaign finance reform. Leadership 
supports campaign finance reform. Both the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) support 
campaign finance reform. However, this debate should center around real 
campaign finance reform, reform that closes loopholes that have tainted 
the current system; reforms which treat both political parties fairly; 
and reforms that protect the First Amendment rights of all Americans.

[[Page 21523]]

  My amendment is about preserving the First Amendment rights of all 
Americans by enacting constitutionally accepted campaign finance 
reform.
  In a hearing before the Committee on House Administration, 
constitutional experts from the ACLU to the Cato Institute indicated 
that Shays-Meehan was very seriously constitutionally flawed. In fact, 
those witnesses believed that important elements of the Shays-Meehan 
bill would be unconstitutional.
  The proponents have indicated that Shays-Meehan is constitutional in 
all its major provisions. Yet, if the Court rules that any key 
provision of this bill is unconstitutional, this would put an 
unprecedented monkey wrench into our current system and make a bad 
situation worse.
  Congress went down this road in the 1970s when it enacted laws 
without nonseverability provisions. This created the soft money problem 
we are trying to address today.
  My amendment says one simple thing. If any part of the Shays-Meehan 
bill is ruled unconstitutional, then the entire bill becomes invalid. 
All the Ewing amendment does is provide a constitutional check for the 
bill. Recently, supporters of Shays-Meehan have declared my amendment a 
poison pill to their legislation. It seems to me that the proponents 
believe that much of this bill is unconstitutional and that is why they 
are opposed to my amendment.
  If the supporters of Shays-Meehan feel that their bill will stand the 
constitutional test, then why should they have any problem with 
supporting this amendment?
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I have a great degree of admiration for 
my good friend and colleague who proposes this amendment. And I have 
some sympathy for the concept of the amendment because, when the 
original bill was passed in 1974, it had expenditure limits and it had 
contribution limits. And I can understand how the two would march 
together or not at all. But that simply is not the case with Shays-
Meehan.
  In other words, there is in Shays-Meehan a prohibition on sham issue 
ads. That is a good prohibition whether the rest stands or falls. There 
is in Shays-Meehan a prohibition on contributions of a soft money 
nature. That is a good prohibition whether sham issue ads stand or 
fall. In other words, this bill is unlike the 1974 bill where, in order 
to get expenditure limits, one had to have contribution limits, and 
vice versa. Here, both are good. There is no quid pro quo. There is 
not, for example, a sacrifice that Democrats make in order to get a 
sacrifice for Republicans to make. Both provisions of this bill, the 
sham issue ad ban and the prohibition on soft money, are good.
  Second, I think it is only fair that the authors of Shays-Meehan be 
allowed to offer their proposal and have it voted on as their proposal.
  Third, I would just like to point out to all of our colleagues how 
frequently unanticipated provisions of bills are struck down. The 
clearest example of this is the one House veto, the legislative veto, 
struck down by the Supreme Court in INS versus Chadha. Nobody 
anticipated that. That same provision is in the laws about transfer of 
arms sales. It is in the war powers resolution. The war powers 
resolution, that allowed me to bring to the floor of the House the 
resolutions regarding Kosovo, had another provision saying that a 
single House could, by its order alone, withdraw the troops. We would 
have lost the entire bill, the entire value, the entire ability to 
bring the vote to the floor, simply because an unanticipated part was 
held to be unconstitutional.
  Finally, I remain of the view that this bill is in all its parts 
quite constitutional, but I recognize people of goodwill can disagree. 
If one believes it is unconstitutional, which is the view of my good 
friend and colleague, then it seems to me just fairness would suggest 
that unless there is some overt quid pro quo in making this fabric into 
one consistent whole, that he allow those parts which are 
constitutional to go ahead and work their beneficial effect.
  With that, I conclude that the amendment though well intentioned is 
not the best way to proceed in this debate tonight.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, although I appreciate the argument of my 
friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the idea that a 
portion of a significant campaign reform bill ought to be allowed to 
stand, notwithstanding the fact that other provisions are declared 
unconstitutional, is exactly why we are where we are today because back 
in the 1970s they attempted to use the model, and we have heard this 
phrase repeatedly on the floor, that we want to stop corruption or the 
appearance of corruption.
  The court, I think quite properly, looked at contribution limits and 
said if we limit the amount that someone was given it certainly could 
be plausible that the limit was there to stop corruption or the 
appearance of corruption but in no way should it extend to the 
expenditure of money. How does spending money corrupt?
  The court then took that same logic and applied it to individuals who 
spent their own money and a key portion of Shays-Meehan that we have 
been concerned about is those individuals who make independent 
expenditures exercising their First Amendment freedom.
  We heard the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) in his opening 
statement say Shays-Meehan is constitutional. We heard the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell) say they believe it is constitutional. 
What we ought not to do is go down the same road we went down 25 years 
ago with campaign election reform.
  Any structure is balanced. If we can come to an agreement now and the 
court throws out a portion, we ought to be able to come back and come 
to an agreement on a whole, not on a piece. For more than 25 years, we 
have operated on a piece. It seems that if we want to go down the 
reform road again, we ought to opt as a whole. It is either all 
constitutional or if a portion of it is not, it all falls and we do it 
again.
  The only way to stop repeating exactly what we have done in the last 
25 years is to say there should be no severability clause; that it all 
stands or it all falls. That is exactly what the Ewing amendment does. 
It ought to pass.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has 3 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) has 45 
seconds.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Might I make a parliamentary inquiry. Do 
I correctly assume the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) plans to 
close with his 45 seconds and not divide it?
  Mr. EWING. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have just seen a demonstration that while proximity 
may breed contempt, it can also breed familiarity because my ally on 
this issue, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), anticipated 
the argument we just heard and refuted it before it was made; a very 
impressive feat. As he pointed out, this is not at all analogous to the 
1974 act because it is not meant to be interlocking, and that is why 
this is a sham amendment.
  The gentleman says well, if we think it is all constitutional what 
are we worried about? Well, I do not know what the Supreme Court will 
do and no one else does. It is entirely possible they will find some 
parts constitutional. It is clear that other parts will not be found 
constitutional.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), who just spoke, said they 
have different standards for contribution limits and expenditure 
limits.

[[Page 21524]]

When we are talking about soft money, we are talking about 
contributions and that would clearly be constitutional.
  This is an effort to try to kill the whole thing, if any part of it 
fails, by people who are against it.
  By the way, if we adopted this principle that we do not have 
severability clauses, guess what we would not have? The 
Telecommunications Act of 1996. We passed the Telecommunications Act. 
Maybe some people who voted for it wish we did not have it, but we have 
it. Part of it was found unconstitutional, the Communications Decency 
Act.
  We would not have a Brady bill. Now, that may make some people happy, 
although probably fewer than would have said they were happy a couple 
of months ago, but the Brady bill was found partly unconstitutional, 
the part that mandated that local officials go ahead with it. It was 
only because there was a severability clause that we still have handgun 
checks, because if we followed this notion that it all has to be 
balanced and of a piece and it is either all constitutional or all 
unconstitutional there would be no handgun checks now.
  We would not have a privacy right for children because when my 
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), offered a 
privacy right to children, which was just done last year, it was merged 
with another obscenity bill, which has already been found 
unconstitutional at the district court level by a Reagan appointee.
  So this notion that it all hangs or falls together is simply a way to 
try to hang this whole bill by people who are against it. The gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thomas), who just spoke, said we all have to come 
to an agreement. Let us be honest. We are not coming to an agreement. 
The gentleman happens to be in disagreement with the majority on this 
bill. He is entitled to that, but he is not entitled to twist our 
normal constitutional doctrines around so that if the Supreme Court 
found any one piece of this unconstitutional, maybe the Supreme Court 
will find that there is a constitutional right of noncitizens to 
contribute, so maybe the majority that voted for the amendment will 
have then succeeded in killing the whole thing.
  That is a nice way to go; there is a nonseverability clause, put 
through an amendment of dubious constitutionality, and then kill the 
whole bill. The fact is that we are not sure what will happen, but the 
key point was made by the gentleman from California. This is not an 
interlocking piece of jigsaw. It is a bill with several distinct 
provisions. If some part of the independent expenditure is held 
unconstitutional, that in no way makes it wrong to try to ban soft 
money, in no way. It in no way undercuts it. So, please, reject this 
silly notion that it is all constitutional or not and save Shays-
Meehan.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me try to clear away some of this smoky rhetoric 
that has been put out here to mask the problem here.
  This bill is an intricate interlocked bill that affects the 
Democratic Party and the Republican Party, and the part that affects 
the Republican Party is soft money and that will be constitutional; and 
the part that affects the Democratic Party is the issue advocacy and 
that will be unconstitutional. When we are done, we will have an unfair 
bill that does not treat both parties fairly and the gentleman knows it 
and I know it and that is why we should adopt this amendment.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Ewing 
Amendment to H.R. 417. This amendment is a vital component to any 
meaningful campaign finance reform passed by the House today.
  True advocates of campaign finance reform favor legislation that can 
survive legal challenge and remain balanced, that is, without unduly 
favoring one party or ideolgical grouping over another.
  Many provisions of the Shays-Meehan bill that are most susceptible to 
unfavorable legal review are those most critical to the maintenance of 
this balance.
  The Ewing Amendment fixes this by subjecting the entire Shays-Meehan 
bill to a rigorous test of Constitutionality. Non-severability is the 
true test of sincere reform. If my colleagues who support the Shays-
Meehan bill really believe in the campaign finance reform package they 
are touting as the one real reform being debated today, I urge them to 
vote for this amendment.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1900

  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Ewing).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) 
will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order:
  Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Calvert of California; Amendment No. 8 
offered by Mr. Sweeney of New York; Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. 
DeLay of Texas; Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Ewing of Illinois.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Calvert

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on Amendment No. 7 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Calvert) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice note.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179, 
noes 248, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 415]

                               AYES--179

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Foley
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

[[Page 21525]]



                               NOES--248

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conyers
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Hastings (FL)
     Kingston
     Payne
     Pryce (OH)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shaw

                              {time}  1922

  Ms. KILPATRICK and Messrs. WEYGAND, FLETCHER, PICKERING, and ACKERMAN 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SAXTON, ISAKSON, CANNON, WAMP, CRAMER, LUTHER, WICKER, TAYLOR 
of Mississippi, PITTS, and MORAN of Virginia changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Sweeney

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 8 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 261, 
noes 167, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 416]

                               AYES--261

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--167

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez

[[Page 21526]]


     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Hastings (FL)
     Kingston
     Pryce (OH)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shaw

                              {time}  1931

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. DeLay

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 9 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160, 
noes 268, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 417]

                               AYES--160

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Biggert
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Vitter
     Walden
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--268

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Hastings (FL)
     Kingston
     Pryce (OH)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shaw

                              {time}  1941

  Mr. McCOLLUM changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no''.
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Ewing

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment No. 10 offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Ewing) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167, 
noes 259, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 418]

                               AYES--167

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Biggert
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frost
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Obey
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus

[[Page 21527]]


     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--259

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cubin
     Hastings (FL)
     Kingston
     McKeon
     Pryce (OH)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shaw

                              {time}  1948

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 11 in the 
nature of a substitute printed in House Report 106-311.


Amendment No. 11 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Doolittle

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. 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 No. 11 in the nature of a substitute 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 2000.'.'

     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, 1999.''
       (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, 2000, 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, 2000, 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, 2000.''
       (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 
     2001.

     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

[[Page 21528]]

     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, 2001.

     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 2001.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 7 minutes 
to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and 7 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and they will control that 
time, leaving myself with 6 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) is 
recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close on this 
amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. No. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), as a 
member of the committee does.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard an awful lot about the problems of the 
present system. I would like to present what I believe are the problems 
with the system. I think it has tremendous problems. They are 
intolerable and they cry out for reform. It is just that the nature of 
the reform that I would favor is much different than the advocates of 
Shays-Meehan would favor.
  I believe that today's campaign finance system requires current and 
prospective office-holders to spend too much time raising money and not 
enough time governing and debating issues. Today's system has failed to 
make elections more competitive. And indeed, since the 1974 amendments, 
the disastrous system we have that was created by those amendments, 
voter participation has actually declined.
  Today's system allows millionaires to purchase congressional seats 
and inhibits the ability of challengers to raise the funds necessary to 
compete. 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.
  Today the 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 
latter fact is what causes the advocates of Shays-Meehan to focus upon 
soft money because that is one of those areas. But they fail to 
understand that what is driving soft money is the unadjusted limits on 
hard money, never changed in 25 years.
  Justice Thurgood Marshall in Buckley v. Valeo observed that one of 
the points on which all members of the court agree is that money is 
essential for effective communication in a political campaign.
  David Broder, not known I do not think as a Republican, this is not a 
conservative, but he wrote in the Washingtonian 3 years ago and said 
the following:
  ``Raise the current $1,000 limit on personal campaign contributions 
to $50,000. Maybe even go to $100,000.''
  I note parenthetically, we could not even go to $3,000 tonight let 
alone 50 or 100 like Mr. Broder has recommended.
  ``Today's limits are ridiculous given television and campaigning 
costs. Raising that limit with full disclosure would enable some people 
to make really significant contributions to help a candidate.''
  My campaign finance reform goals are the following: we should 
encourage political speech rather than limit it, like the supporters of 
Shays-Meehan want to do. We should promote competition, freedom, and a 
more informed electorate, not limit their information at the time when 
people are coming awake and paying attention to politics, namely, 60 
days before an election. We should enable any American citizen to run 
for office, not just of the wealthy, not just the well connected. And 
that tends to be the trend if we continue down this road of regulation, 
like Shays-Meehan. We should increase the amount of time candidates 
spend with constituents in debating issues rather than raising money.
  Just last week we lost a couple of candidates for the Senate because 
of this very thing. They could not put themselves through the absurd 
race to raise money that the present law requires.
  And lastly, we should make candidates accountable to their 
constituents for the money they accept.
  I propose to achieve those goals with the Citizen Legislature and 
Political Freedom Act embodied in H.R. 1922, which is the substitute I 
bring before my colleagues now.
  This legislation repeals limits on how much individual and political 
action committees may contribute to candidates or parties. It repeals 
limits on how much parties can contribute to candidates. We think 
political speech is good, and we think those limits have got to go.
  This bill also terminates the horrid taxpayer financing of 
presidential election campaigns that we have in place today. This 
legislation requires political parties to distinguish between federal 
and nonfederal funds and requires that each State party file with the 
FEC a copy of the same disclosure form as filed with the State. That 
way we do not add any bureaucratic requirements to what the States have 
to do, but we make the information available for people to see.
  We require electronic filing of campaign reports, and we require 
those reports to be filed every 24 hours within 3 months of an 
election. With the advent of the Internet, any person with a computer 
and access to the Internet will be able to access this information. The 
media, of course, will do that and it will be available for all to see.
  That is why we call ours the full disclosure act because we get right 
to the heart of it, and we make this information available to the 
electorate rather than empowering a new government information czar.
  We require the FEC to post all campaign reports on the Internet. They 
do not have to go down to the government office and get the Xeroxed 
copy of the report somebody mailed in months after the election. They 
will have it right there on the Internet.
  By the way, we also bar acceptance of campaign contributions unless 
specific disclosure requirements are met. We repeal, if you will, the 
best-effort rule. That is what the legislation does.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bilbray), who has been very active on this issue for 
many months and years now.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I regretfully have to stand in opposition 
to the substitute.
  I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), my dear 
colleague that I have worked so closely with for so long, has come up 
with a lot of hard work and a total reform of the approach to campaign 
finance reform,

[[Page 21529]]

and I have got to give him credit for that. He has shifted the whole 
perspective to a whole new view.
  We may be there some day, but the fact is today we have Shays-Meehan 
in front of us. We have a bill that tries to correct the problems of 
campaign finance reform that was passed in the 1970s.
  The proposal of the gentleman from California would totally approach 
the issue totally different than we have in the last 30 years. I would 
ask us to consider, let us see if we can fix the existing system before 
we try to replace the entire system with a whole new approach.
  Now, I happen to have had the privilege of serving as a county 
supervisor in California in a county of 2.8 million people with 
districts as large as congressional districts; and our campaign limits 
were $250 a person, no PACs, no corporate checks, no union 
participation.
  Let me tell my colleagues something: it works. I just ask, do not 
fear campaign finance limitations. It is an equal ground. Everybody 
plays by the rules, and we move forward.
  So I have to say, in all fairness, I think the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle) may have a great argument, but my question 
is, before we try to scrap the old system and move on, let us try to 
fix the one we have in Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a cosponsor and an author of the clean 
elections bill himself.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts 
for yielding me the time, and I congratulate him on once again having 
the tenacity to stay with the Shays-Meehan bill and bring it back to 
this House.
  With all due respect, I suggest that the proposal by our colleague 
from California is a step backwards, certainly not a step forward. I 
would say that we should support the Shays-Meehan bill and note that 
that is in fact only a partial reform.
  The bill that I propose pending before this body and some day, 
hopefully, we will get it as part of a rule and be able to debate it is 
the clean money, clean elections bill and in fact calls for public 
financing of campaigns.
  I understand all of the arguments that the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Doolittle) has made and just suggested. There is nobody that I 
hear in the district, no average citizen, that thinks that it is going 
to be easier on elections if in fact they can raise money or thinks 
that people are going to stop raising money at some point in time. In 
fact, if we raise the limits, they are going to spend more, raise more, 
have more TV ads and go on.

                              {time}  2000

  The clean money, clean elections bill will in fact be the one process 
by which we can lower the cost of campaigns. It requires broadcasters 
to give time for campaign ads at low or reduced cost, because in fact 
we have given them a public value, we have given them the spectrum, and 
they ought to in return give some public benefit back on that and that 
would reduce the cost of campaigns by some 40 or 50 percent.
  The clean money, clean elections bill would limit the amounts of 
money spent. It would make campaign season shorter by virtue of the 
distribution schedule. It would make the money chase end. People would 
not have to spend virtually all their time raising money. And, in fact, 
it would allow people that are not personally wealthy and do not know 
people with $50,000 or $75,000 or $3,000 able to run for office and 
have a reasonable prospect of campaigning and winning. It is, in fact, 
the kind of campaign reform that most of America wants. State after 
State are passing referenda and certifying that they want to have a 
campaign system where they get their elective process back in their 
hands. They have heard all the arguments. All of those referenda has 
been put to them in a way of, ``Do you want public money buying bumper 
stickers for candidates?'' The resounding answer is ``Yes, rather than 
special interests paying that money, we want to have our election 
process back.''
  Let us pass Shays-Meehan and get beyond that someday to real campaign 
finance reform.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished House majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I think we just heard what this is all 
about. This is about more regulation of free speech and, at the end of 
the last speaker's remarks, taxpayer-funded elections. That is where we 
are headed when you regulate free speech and regulate the people's 
right to participate in the political system.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this substitute legislation. 
We simply cannot allow the participation of Americans in our democracy 
to be limited. We have an important choice today, a choice to either 
encourage participation in our political system or a choice to limit 
it. We can either choose to uphold the first amendment which guarantees 
our citizens the right to free speech, or we can choose to infringe 
upon this right.
  Now, some of the rhetoric on the other side might sound good, but we 
must not allow those who support Shays-Meehan to fool us. In short, the 
Shays-Meehan bill restricts the democratic process by placing unfair 
regulations on those willing and able to compete as candidates and as 
their supporters. While accountability in fund-raising is necessary, we 
must be sure that we do not limit the ability of those who want to 
compete through fair and worthy avenues to do so. The Doolittle 
substitute will instill this accountability. Among other things, the 
Doolittle substitute institutes new filing requirements and mandates 
that the Federal Election Commission post all campaign reports on the 
Internet. After all, what reform can restore accountability more than 
an open book? Simply put, freedom works.
  Only those supporting Shays-Meehan would think that freedom is a step 
backwards. The important responsibility of this body is to protect 
freedom, not take it away.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress must work to reform, not restrict, the 
political process. We must encourage, not limit, our citizens' ability 
to participate in the political system. I urge my colleagues to vote 
for fairness, vote for freedom in our political system by supporting 
this substitute.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), one of our most distinguished new Members.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Doolittle substitute 
amendment. A vote for the Doolittle substitute is a vote to kill Shays-
Meehan. I urge opposition to all of the poison pill substitutes and 
urge support of Shays-Meehan.
  The Doolittle substitute would eliminate all Federal contribution 
limits, end public financing of presidential campaigns, which has 
worked well, and would weaken the disclosure requirements contained in 
Shays-Meehan.
  Instead, we should adopt Shays-Meehan, which prohibits soft money 
contributions, stops the sham issue ads and strengthens FEC disclosure 
and enforcement.
  The House should also pass comprehensive reform to implement 
voluntary spending limits for campaigns in exchange for partial public 
financing and free and discounted air time. These reforms also deserve 
a floor debate and the attention of this House.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose Doolittle, support Shays-
Meehan, and move on to Tierney.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Doolittle substitute. The 
Doolittle substitute repeals all existing limits on contributions, ends 
the presidential public financing system, and requires disclosure of 
funds transferred to a State or local political party. But let us be 
honest. This amendment would virtually turn over the campaign finance 
system to the wealthy and the special interests.

[[Page 21530]]

  Mr. Chairman, in a recent survey, over 50 percent of Americans said 
they believe that Abraham Lincoln's revered formulation that our 
democracy is a government of, by and for the people no longer applies. 
Passing the Doolittle substitute will regrettably confirm this very 
cynical perception of public service and public servants.
  It will take the passage of meaningful, comprehensive campaign 
finance reform, which is the Shays-Meehan bill, H.R. 417, to change the 
prevailing attitude.
  Mr. Chairman, the key word here is comprehensive campaign finance 
reform. The Doolittle substitute, although it may be well-intended, is 
window dressing. It requires only limited disclosure rather than making 
the necessary changes to clean up the current system, namely, ending 
soft money and reining in sham issue ads.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Doolittle 
substitute and support final passage of the Shays-Meehan bill.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones), again, one of the leaders on campaign finance 
reform.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Doolittle substitute amendment, eliminating all Federal campaign 
contributions and public financing of presidential campaigns. In 
effect, the Doolittle amendment would be the kiss of death for H.R. 
417, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, because it guts the essence of 
the Shays-Meehan bill. Eliminating public financing of presidential 
campaigns in effect eliminates the ability of the little people to 
impact a presidential election at a time when voter apathy and 
participation is at an all-time low. Eliminating limits on 
contributions allows the haves to speak louder and places a gag on the 
have-nots. Eliminating campaign contribution limits will cause the 
House of Representatives to represent only the wealthy and leave the 
poor un- and underrepresented.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. All the 
proposed reporting is only a smoke screen to cover this attempt to turn 
public office and public officeholders over to the wealthy.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the 
Doolittle substitute. Thirteen States do not have limits, and I do not 
think you can name them because they do not stand out as States loaded 
with public corruption. Thirteen States do not limit campaign 
financing. We should be here debating increasing disclosure, immediate 
reporting and enforcement.
  I have heard speaker after speaker talking about laws not being 
enforced. What about more laws without enforcement? Yet folks in this 
city have worked themselves into a state of hysteria over what they 
call campaign finance reform. This in spite of the fact that survey 
after survey show that most Americans rate campaign finance reform near 
the bottom of their concerns, if they rate it at all. Then why the 
hysteria?
  The liberals' idea of reform rests primarily on restricting the free 
flow of moneys and ideas to the public through any channels except 
those they control and they regulate.
  The refreshing motto of Fox Cable News network is ``We report and you 
decide.'' That is how elections ought to be. We report who helped us 
and you decide. By contrast, the motto of liberals and their media 
allies embodied in the Shays-Meehan bill seems to be, ``We report, we 
decide, and everyone else be quiet.''
  It is a bedrock principle of American political heritage that money 
is speech. When the supporters of Shays-Meehan want to restrict and 
regulate the amount of money in campaigns, they want to restrict and 
regulate the amount of speech. They decide, not the voters. Even the 
American Civil Liberties Union has stated that the Shays-Meehan bill is 
patently unconstitutional and makes it harder for ethnic and racial 
minorities, women and non-mainstream voices to be heard prior to an 
election. It will be an incumbent protection bill.
  I will give my colleagues an example from Pennsylvania when you do 
not have money to get the message out. In 1998, Governor Ridge was 
running for reelection, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania was 
running for reelection, and they both had strong bipartisan support. 
They both had three, four or five Democrat opponents in the primary but 
none of them could raise any money because of the strength of the 
incumbents. So when it came to the primary election in my district, 
Clarion and Elk County, because the message did not get out because the 
candidates did not have any money, 19 percent of the Democrats voted. 
In McKean County, 9 percent. In Jefferson County, 6 percent. Why? They 
did not know the candidates, they did not know about them, they did not 
know who to vote for, so they stayed home. If you want people to come 
out and vote, they have to understand what the candidates stand for and 
that is about free speech.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Doolittle reforms because they are in the 
American tradition. They truly ``do little'' when it comes to 
restricting first amendment rights. They remove the restrictions of 
most campaign giving and spending, and thus remove the restrictions to 
free speech. At the same time, they require immediate and full 
reporting of all contributions. Immediate and full reporting of all 
contributions. Shays-Meehan does not do that. The message that money 
buys then can reach more voters and the voters can judge for themselves 
the message and who is supporting it.
  Like Fox News, the Doolittle approach says to voters, ``We report, 
you decide.'' If the liberal media is so concerned about how much 
campaigns cost today, then why do they not turn themselves into 
electronic Wal-Marts and charge the lowest prices for campaign ads? No, 
the highest. They are like an airline carrier charging hostage-level 
prices for tickets and complaining that people are spending too much 
money on transportation.
  To add a little more perspective, during the Super Bowl the networks 
charge more for a single 30-second commercial than I have spent in two 
congressional elections, $1.6 million. Is anybody crying about that?
  Liberals cry that too much money buys elections and corrupts the 
process. People need to understand the candidates and what they stand 
for. Thirty million Americans listen to network news regularly. One 
hundred million Americans elect our Presidents. In 1996, 76 million 
Americans voted for Congress. Only 30 million of those people watch the 
news regularly. Somehow, the message of our candidates has to get out 
to the people. It takes money. It takes a message. The people will buy 
when money is behind a message, because if the other were the case, we 
would have elected Huffington for the Senate because he certainly had 
the money, we would have elected Forbes and Perot for President because 
they had the money. It is the message that has to be driven by the 
money.
  Certainly Eugene McCarthy would not have had a shot to run against 
Lyndon Johnson if Stuart Motts had not come to his aid because Lyndon 
Johnson had shut down his ability to raise money.
  Yes, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to really eliminating corruption and 
creating a fairer, freer and more constitutional environment in 
American political life, I support Doolittle. We need to simplify the 
process, not turn it over to another government bureaucracy.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Luther).

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Doolittle 
amendment. This amendment which allows unrestricted contributions in 
our federal political process shows just how out of touch Congress can 
become.
  I challenge all Members of this body to go to any meeting in their 
district and ask their constituents how many can afford a $1,000 
contribution. They will get virtually no one in that room,

[[Page 21531]]

and they will get a lot of snickers from the people in that room.
  Mr. Chairman, if Congress truly wants to reduce the influence of 
money in politics today, we should work to set up a system where more 
people can participate and give small amounts in the political process. 
We have done some of that at our State level in Minnesota, and other 
States have taken similar steps.
  The absolute last thing we should do to get money out of politics is 
to allow a few interests to give even more money than they are giving 
today. The Doolittle amendment moves us in exactly the wrong direction. 
It gives us less democracy rather than more. Mr. Chairman, I urge its 
defeat.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Boehlert) who represents Cooperstown and the baseball 
Hall of Fame.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Doolittle substitute, which is quite simply an effort to kill the 
Shays-Meehan bill. The Doolittle substitute not only would block any 
new efforts to reform campaign finance, it would actually repeal the 
few successful reforms that we passed in the 1970s.
  The fundamentals of our democratic system are at risk, and this 
Congress must not be so complacent as to ignore the evidence that is 
all around us. Turn-out in elections is at an all time low. Polls show 
public confidence in government at record lows as well. As the Supreme 
Court has noted many times, democracy can thrive only if there is a 
marketplace of ideas, but it is not supposed to be a marketplace that 
belongs to the highest bidder.
  By a marketplace of ideas our forefathers meant a place of fair, 
free, and open exchange. But in our time we have perverted that concept 
so that the marketplace of ideas has become commercial, a place where 
ideas triumph when they are backed by large sums of money.
  The very way we talk about campaigns shows how far we have drifted 
from our Founding Fathers' ideas. Opponents of Shays-Meehan say that 
the system is not out of kilter because soft money amounts to only 
about 50 cents per voter. But that is an advertising concept, not a 
civic concept.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to beware of sunshine patriots who 
come to the defense of the first amendment only when the free speech 
being defended comes with a price tag.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), a truly outstanding member of the 
freshman class and a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, we are living in a day and age when there 
is a tremendous amount of cynicism about electoral politics and 
involvement in democracy. The perception that candidates are being 
bought, that elections are more like auctions, has resulted in a widely 
held sentiment that a person's vote does not count any more. I believe 
that the Shays-Meehan bill is an important step in the right direction 
to regain the trust of the American people and to reclaim our 
democracy.
  Mr. Chairman, the Shays-Meehan bill is the only comprehensive 
campaign finance reform package before us today. It bans all 
contributions of soft money and shines a spotlight on the way special 
interest groups have been able to influence the outcomes of elections.
  The Doolittle substitute by contrast does nothing to limit 
contributions or to reign in sham issue advocacy ads.
  By removing all contribution limits, the Doolittle substitute would 
allow individuals and PACs to make unlimited contributions to 
candidates and parties. I fear that alone would further erode the 
public confidence in our democratic process. But the substitute does 
more harm by failing to require disclosure of special interest money 
used in certain campaign ads. These ads have avoided disclosure 
requirements by posing as issue advocacy.
  I believe that Americans have the right to know who is influencing 
the outcome of our elections.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I am a cosponsor of the Doolittle bill 
and am proud to stand here in front of my colleagues in full support of 
that bill. I congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) 
for bringing forward this bill, and I thank him for yielding me time.
  Campaign finance is like so many other issues. There are two basic 
philosophies. Free speech and free market is one philosophy; increasing 
the size of the Federal Government with more restrictive regulations is 
the other philosophy. Mr. Chairman, I stand before our colleagues in 
favor of free speech. Over time, a big-government approach has choked 
our campaigns. Regulation without provision for inflation has dwindled 
the real value of contributions to just 30 percent of what it was when 
enacted. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, these strangling limits may be what led 
the Democrats into all of their campaign finance irregularities.
  Let us pass the Doolittle substitute. Let us free up political speech 
as America's founders intended, in the tradition of Thomas Payne, the 
publisher of free political speech in that famous document, Common 
Sense, that enabled the creation of this great Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Doolittle substitute.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price), a distinguished political scientist who has 
probably studied elections as much as any of us on the floor.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity today to take a serious step 
toward cleaning up elections financially and otherwise. The Shays-
Meehan bill closes the soft money loophole that has made a mockery of 
the existing contribution limits. It holds advocacy groups accountable 
for the money they raise and spend in campaigns. It strengthens 
enforcement. And it includes a variant of my stand-by-your-ad bill to 
make candidates and committees more accountable for the ads they run.
  Stand-by-your-ad was first introduced by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn) and myself 2 years ago. It is a good North 
Carolina idea originated by Lieutenant Governor Dennis Wicker, recently 
passed by our General Assembly and signed into law. It will make 
candidates think twice before running mud-slinging or distorted ads, 
for the sponsoring candidate will have to appear in that ad and take 
responsibility for it.
  Shays-Meehan is legislation we should have passed months ago, but I 
am pleased that this bill is finally on the House floor. Many of us 
wish the bill did more, but it is a compromise worthy of our support.
  I urge defeat of all substitutes and passage of the Bipartisan 
Campaign Reform Act.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) who has shown exemplary demeanor all day today.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me, and as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) was 
speaking, I, for one, thought how good it was to have him come back 
after his surgery but how I disagreed with him on his basic point. The 
bottom line is this bill eliminates soft money, the unregulated money 
from individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other interest 
groups. It calls the sham issue ads what they are, campaign ads, which 
means to run them free speech, but have to have disclosure, and that is 
something that is not in the substitute offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle). He does not want the sham issue ads to be 
disclosed even though he says he is for disclosure.
  Mr. Chairman, the third thing it does is we require immediate 
disclosure on the Internet of expenditures, and we provide for stronger 
FEC enforcement; and then anything we have not dealt with in our bill, 
we deal with in the commission bill.

[[Page 21532]]

  It has been against the law since 1907 for corporations to contribute 
to campaigns. It has been against the law since 1947 for union dues 
money to be used in campaigns. It has been against the law since 1974 
for foreign countries to contribute to our campaigns. But all three 
take place, and they take place through the absurdity of soft money and 
these sham issue ads.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that dirty disclosed money beats no money any 
day, and what we do is we provide for disclosure, and we provide for an 
even field for all who wish to participate in the political process.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding this time to me.
  This legislation that is considered in the House of Representatives 
on September 14, 1999, in my opinion is the most important legislation 
that we take up in this session. It goes to the heart of the political 
process in America, the integrity of our electoral process.
  All of us know the level of cynicism that exists in our communities 
regarding politics in America. I believe that all of us have a 
commitment to try to clean this up. Unfortunately, strong differences 
of opinion have frustrated these efforts over the last 10 years. 
Numerous bills have come up. They have been subject to filibusters, to 
vetoes, to deadlocks, and the inability that we have had between 
Congress and the White House to agree on how to proceed.
  This fall we have an opportunity to agree. We have an opportunity to 
pass legislation in the House, the Senate, send it to the White House 
for signature. We cannot let amendments like the one that is under 
consideration undermine this effort.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to say that this substitute 
is an honest effort, frankly, to address this issue because it is 
intellectually pure and ideologically doable, and I applaud the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle). Unlike the third substitute 
amendment which we will consider tonight, the Thomas substitute, which 
is really not about campaign finance reform, it is about campaign 
reform and FEC reform and technical corrections, and we tried to make 
an amendment to the underlying bill instead of a freestanding 
substitute. This substitute and the Hutchinson substitute are good 
efforts to look at the alternatives that we have before us.
  But this is not an ideologically perfect situation because I do not 
think the American people would allow us to go back to the way things 
were a long, long time ago with unlimited contributions. I understand 
full disclosure would be there and the American people could go out and 
elect folks, but in this day of money and power and influence and the 
entertainment industry really having such an impact on people and 
television being such a powerful medium, I think the people expect us 
to try our best to fix the current system.
  Mr. Chairman, that is what Shays-Meehan does, and I support it and 
not the substitute.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement).
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
substitute amendment, in strong support for the Shays-Meehan bipartisan 
campaign finance reform act.
  An editorial in one of today's newspapers in my home State of 
Tennessee says it is hard to overestimate the importance of this vote 
for rebuilding public trust in the American electoral system. Congress 
has debated campaign finance reform since 1985, and in the meantime the 
public has only grown more disenchanted with our political process. 
Americans want their elected representatives to act in their best 
interests, not in the interest of the privileged few.

                              {time}  2030

  Americans want their representatives to be chosen not based on the 
richness of their pocketbook but the richness of their character and 
message. In short, they want a government of the people, by the people, 
for the people. Let us have the courage to give them what they want, 
not because it will benefit their fund-raising coffers but because they 
deserve nothing less. Vote no on the substitute amendment and support 
real campaign finance reform.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) is 
recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, in many ways, the debate on this substitute 
is a debate that I think crystallizes the differences of opinion of 
what we are doing. Many of the substitutes and many of the amendments 
are really designed to cloud the issue, are really designed to fool the 
public. That is not the case with this substitute. This is a case of a 
difference of opinion.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), and I respect his 
honesty, would like to repeal all contribution limits. He wants to end 
the presidential system of public financing, which is an incentive to 
get the presidential candidates to limit how much money they spend. 
Yes, in fact, I think this amendment crystallizes the difference 
between those who think we should have more money in the election 
process in this country and those of us who believe we should try to 
lessen the influence of money in American politics.
  I have to say, I think the American people are with those of us who 
want to lessen the influence. Two out of three Americans think that 
money has an excessive influence on elections and government policy. 
According to the Committee of Economic Development, a group of CEOs, 
two-thirds of the public think that their own representative in 
Congress would listen to the views of outsiders who made large 
political contributions before a constituent's views, and 92 percent of 
the people think that too much money is being spent on political 
campaigns in our country.
  So this is a clear choice. Whether one wants to have more money 
spent, more wealthy individuals spending unlimited amounts of money so 
that somehow elections become we are going to compete with soap suds or 
Coca Cola or Pepsi, or whether or not we are going to reform this 
system, let us defeat this substitute and pass Shays-Meehan tonight.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemen from California (Mr. Doolittle) is 
recognized for 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I hate to talk about myself as an 
example but I think I will, just to illustrate the point of view that I 
have about this. I could talk about Eugene McCarthy, the Senator who 
was able to run for President, was not subject to this because this law 
did not exist in those days. I think he said he raised a million 
dollars from ten people. It was enough money to basically successfully 
move out of the presidential race the incumbent President Lyndon 
Johnson. He definitely made a huge impact on the affairs of the Nation 
by the step that he took. I think many, looking back, would view what 
he did as a positive step for the Nation.
  I could talk about Senator James Buckley who has authored an 
excellent article, and it is interesting because this is the plaintiff 
in the famous Buckley versus Valeo case, who is now a senior judge with 
the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. If I 
have time, I will quote from this article, but it is in the current 
issue of National Review. September 27 is the date; great article. It 
is an interesting perspective by the author.
  Let me just talk about why I am so opposed to the other approach, the 
big government one, the increased regulatory approach, which I submit 
has never worked and cannot work and will not work, which I also submit 
is largely unconstitutional and would be

[[Page 21533]]

struck down by the Supreme Court under the precedents that have been 
set, but even beyond that is highly undesirable because it is going to 
have the effect of curtailing political speech before elections, which 
is just when we want to have all the information and speech that we can 
get.
  Yes, people are cynical, I acknowledge that as well, but 
unfortunately this sort of failed approach piling on more of the same 
old failing approaches is not going to relieve the cynicism.
  The Washington Times correctly refers to this as a campaign finance 
charade; and unfortunately, I believe that is correct.
  Let me just go to my own case. When I ran for office in 1980, no one 
had ever heard of me. I had never held any political office of any 
kind, but I cared about crime and education and taxes and I ran and I 
was able to get support from a relative handful of people that were 
willing to put in substantial amounts of money just like they did for 
Senator McCarthy.
  Had I been forced to run under the present laws we have today, I 
would never have been successful; I could not have been because when 
one does not have any name ID or any notoriety, one cannot get lots of 
contributions from the general electorate just by sending out a 
mailing. Nobody has ever heard of his name. So one needs the ability, 
as a challenger, to be able to go and raise seed money. It is not 
because money buys elections. Money does not buy elections. That has 
been demonstrated time and time again. The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Peterson) very accurately stated the realities there.
  However, one can never win an election without money. Money is what 
gives one the opportunity to present their views to the electorate.
  I just think the arguments are so circuitous; it is like black is 
white and white is black when I listen to this debate.
  I am taking the position I am taking because I want the average 
person to be able to run for office. The wealthy can already run for 
office. In fact, they are the only ones in the whole country that have 
no spending limit under the present law. They can spend whatever they 
choose to get elected. It is only the rest of us that are limited in 
terms of the contributions that we can receive.
  Existing government regulation of campaigns is poisoning our system, 
and yet despite that fact, despite the fact that soft money is a 
symptom of the problem, it is not the problem, it is being treated as 
the problem.
  What happens with a patient? I am not a doctor but I have been sick 
and we all know people who have been. What happens when the doctors 
treat the symptom rather than the problem? The patient is not cured.
  This problem has been misdiagnosed for 25 years. We have been piling 
on more and more and more regulations. It is like the doctor that gives 
a prescription and the patient is still sick so he doubles the dosage. 
The patient comes back sicker yet. He doubles it again.
  Voter participation has continued to decline coincidentally, though 
not a coincidence in my view, with the enactment of the 1974 amendments 
to the Federal Election Campaign Act, the very law that we are faced 
with today.
  The more we pile on regulation, the more we discourage people from 
participating; the more we reward the wealthy and those who have 
notoriety. What is the matter with a person of average means being able 
to run for office and going and getting some other people who have 
greater means to back him, or back her, and get those views out?
  Money does not buy the elections but money is the means of 
communicating the views to the electorate and then the electorate can 
decide. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) to close on our side.
  Mr. KIND. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Doolittle substitute and in 
strong support of the Shays-Meehan bill. I think there is just a 
fundamental difference between these two different bills. If my 
colleagues believe there is too much money in the political system, 
then support Shays-Meehan. If my colleagues believe there is too much 
influence of money in the political process, then support Shays-Meehan.
  The difference between the two is very simple. Rather than take a 
step to contain the big dollar contributions to the political parties, 
Doolittle would blow the lid off current contribution limits. Instead 
of reducing the influence of special interest money, the Doolittle 
substitute would start a bidding war.
  Shays-Meehan, on the other hand, would eliminate the biggest of the 
big money contributions to the political process, the unregulated soft 
money contributions.
  This chart demonstrates the trend of soft money contributions during 
presidential election years. In 1988, it was roughly $45 million; but 
then it escalates every presidential year after this. In 1992, $86 
million; 1996, $262 million; and if current projections of the first 6 
months of this year hold true, we are looking at between $500 million 
to $750 million in soft money contributions in this next election 
cycle.
  The people across the country see what is happening. They may not 
understand the nuances of current campaign finance rules, but they do 
understand that there is too much money in the political system and 
that money translates into access and influence.
  What is funny about today's debate is some of the CEOs who are making 
these large soft money contributions are also saying that the system is 
broken and needs fixing. In fact, a business group called the Committee 
for Economic Development recently endorsed campaign finance reform. The 
chairman of that committee calls the current system a ``shakedown'' and 
business executives have no choice but to ``play by the rules of the 
game.''
  It is time to rewrite the rules of that game and eliminate soft money 
contributions. So I urge my colleagues to reject this ``show-me-the-
money'' substitute bill that is being offered and instead support true 
comprehensive campaign finance reform, the Shays-Meehan bill.
  This vote is long overdue. For almost three years we have heard about 
the abuses in the campaign finance system. We have heard from our 
constituents that they feel their voice has been drowned out by the big 
money special interests who push their own agenda. We have heard a lot 
of rhetoric from leaders in Washington who say they want to clean up 
our elections yet have failed to allow a vote on changing the system 
until now, when it is too late to affect this year's elections.
  There are many members of this body who are committed to reform of 
our broken campaign finance system. I applaud the efforts of my friends 
Congressmen Shays and Meehan for their courageous leadership on this 
issue. The Shays-Meehan bill will take the biggest money out of the 
political process and bring some control to the independent 
expenditures that have come to dominate our elections. It is a good 
first step to fix a problem that has no simple solution.
  I had worked in the last session of Congress with a bipartisan 
coalition of freshman members of Congress to craft our own campaign 
finance reform bill. That bill is a substitute bill being considered 
today. I will not support that bill this year because it is more narrow 
in focus, although it still gets at the most common abuses in the 
campaign system without a constitutional threat. Since Shays-Meehan 
passed the last session of Congress, and because it is more 
comprehensive, I will continue my support for it.
  Both the Shays-Meehan substitute and the Hutchinson substitute are 
honest, bipartisan attempts to fix our broken election process. I 
believe that this House works best when we work in a bipartisan manner, 
and that is how both these bills were created. However, because only 
one bill can advance today, given the current rules of debate, that 
bill should be Shays-Meehan.
  Ultimately this debate boils down to the belief that there is too 
much money in campaigns. If you support that idea, as I do and most 
constituents I talk to in western Wisconsin do, then you support 
campaign finance reform. If you believe that we need more money in the 
system then you will oppose Shays-Meehan.
  The majority of the public doesn't believe that Congress has the 
courage to change a

[[Page 21534]]

system that appears to benefit our own interests. Today we have the 
opportunity to show the public that we can take the big money out of 
this system and put elections back into the hands of the people we are 
sworn to represent. It's time to reduce the cynicism in our political 
process and increase the credibility of this democratic institution. 
Support the Shays-Meehan campaign reform bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. 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 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 117, 
noes 306, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 419]

                               AYES--117

     Armey
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barton
     Bateman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Everett
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--306

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Hastings (FL)
     Kingston
     Lewis (CA)
     Martinez
     Pryce (OH)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shaw
     Slaughter
     Visclosky
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2104

  Mr. GRAHAM changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 419, I was unavoidably 
detained on official business. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed 
in House Report 106-311.


     Amendment No. 12 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. 
                               Hutchinson

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. 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 No. 12 in the nature of a substitute 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 ``Campaign Integrity Act of 
     1999''.
  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.

[[Page 21535]]

       ``(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 2001, 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 1999 through 2000.
       ``(ii) For calendar year 2005 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.

     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

[[Page 21536]]

     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 2001.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and a Member opposed each will control 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask to control the time 
in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) is recognized 
for 20 minutes.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) be allowed to control 7 minutes 
of my time, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) be 
allowed to control an additional 7 minutes of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to extend to my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, congratulations on 
the manner in which this debate is being conducted. I see people 
engaged in this debate who are extremely passionate about their views, 
about their philosophy. I believe there is a great deal of sincerity in 
this Chamber, and there are a lot of different viewpoints that are 
expressed. I believe my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have 
engaged in this debate in a good-faith fashion, caring about this 
issue.
  We have been here before. We look back in the last Congress, and we 
all engaged in this debate. Some of us look around and say, it is not 
as exciting this time. There is some truth to that, because some of us 
have looked ahead and we sort of anticipate as to where this is going.
  I want to call this Chamber back to a moment of seriousness and 
reflection on the importance of what we are doing. Looking back to when 
I first came to Congress, I came with some of the most exciting group 
of freshmen that I have ever been associated with. It was during those 
early days when we were meeting as a freshman class, the Democrats and 
Republicans, and we said, what can we work together on?
  I look over to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Davis), and we all said, there are some things we can do. We looked at 
campaign finance reform. The Democrats said, let us get six Democrats, 
let us get six Republican freshmen together, and let us go to work as a 
task force and see what good we can do. It has been the most exciting 
and rewarding endeavor that I have been engaged in.
  I look back on that with great fondness, because we heard from the 
constitutional experts, we heard from people who are affected by it, 
the candidates, the political leaders. We said, we have got to do some 
things that have not been done before. The problem in this Congress is 
that we have always looked to the extremes. We have always gone 
directions in which we could not go to the common ground, and nothing 
passed. Let us do something different.
  So we adopted a couple of principles. One of them is that we should 
avoid the extremes when we deal with this issue. Secondly, we should be 
realistic, what can really get passed; not what is ideal, what is 
perfect, not what we can do, but what we can do together, and to be 
realistic? The third principle is, let us follow the Constitution.
  So taking those three simple principles, we drafted a bill. It is not 
something that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) wanted, it is not 
something I wanted, it is not something my good friend, the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Allen) wanted. It is something that we wanted together, 
because we wanted it to pass and become a reality.
  So we came up with a simple bill, and simple bills are always 
dangerous. When we presented this, immediately we were greeted with, 
well, you all just got here and you do not understand how this system 
works. That will never work. Both the Democrat leadership and the 
Republican leadership were concerned about it. The Senate was concerned 
about it, because they saw our bill as something that was unique, that 
had never been tried before, that was common ground, something that 
could actually pass.
  So we adopted a simple bill. There are three key elements to this 
substitute that is being considered today. One is stopping the soft 
money game. It bans the soft money to the Federal parties. Secondly, it 
strengthens the role of the individuals and the parties by indexing the 
contribution limits to inflation, so we empower individuals more, and 
we make their contribution more meaningful in the political process.
  Thirdly, we increase information to the public, so they will know 
more information more timely about who contributes to the political 
process. Three key elements: It meets the constitutional standard, it 
is realistic, it avoids the extremes.
  This year we came back for it. Some of my Democrat colleagues, who I 
still appreciate the way they engaged in this enterprise with us, but 
they said that they would prefer the Shays-Meehan. In my judgment, they 
just simply drifted back a little bit to what was the extreme, that 
which has been tried before and which could not pass before.
  I admire them for their commitment to that philosophy, but the fact 
is, we are still here, we are still debating the same subject, and we 
still have the same needs to be realistic, to avoid the extremes, and 
to be constitutional.
  So as I met with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Brady), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran). We said, what shall we 
introduce this year? We all looked at it and said, we cannot get a 
better product. We worked at it, and we cannot get a better product. We 
said, we can tinker with it here, we can make it something more to our 
liking. We said, no, we cannot get a better product.
  We introduced this year the exact same bill that my freshmen 
colleagues on the Democrat side supported in the last Congress. So here 
we are again, and we are presenting it. We are asking for the Members' 
support for this substitute. We believe it is a good reform, 
constitutional, and realistic.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), one of the outstanding leaders of the 
freshman class of the last Congress.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, as a freshman lawmaker in the 105th 
Congress, I joined a bipartisan coalition of fellow freshmen in 
crafting legislation that would reform our fatally flawed campaign 
finance system. I am proud to say that we were able to bridge the 
partisan gap that too often pervades our debate over legitimate public 
policy. We crafted a bill that Members on both sides of the aisle could 
support.
  Our freshmen task force, remember what it was called, literally drove 
the debate when it seemed dead, and later joined the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) to defeat a number of poison pill amendments that would have 
killed any chance of comprehensive reform.
  My friends, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Allen),

[[Page 21537]]

were effective voices during the debate last year. The bill our 
coalition supported is and was a good bill. It drove the debate.
  As I voted against my own bill last year, I plan to vote against the 
Hutchinson substitute today, not because it is not an improvement over 
our current system, but because we are offered an opportunity for what 
I believe is a better bill, a bill that would not be voted on this 
evening if it were not for the courage of both the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), and 
those who believe in productive change.
  Mr. Chairman, we must again pass Shays-Meehan and send a message to 
the American people that a bipartisan coalition in this body shares the 
same view of 90 percent of Americans. Ninety percent of Americans 
believe in this view. Our current campaign finance system needs real 
reform. It is time to stop making money the deciding factor in American 
politics and to restore power to where it belongs, with the American 
voter.
  We have all of us here helped to disenfranchise the average voter, 
making him or her feel helpless to have an impact on the American 
governmental system.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moran) who has been extraordinarily instrumental in pushing 
this bill forward in support of campaign finance reform.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I just finished hosting 66 town 
hall meetings across the 66 counties of the First District of Kansas 
during the August recess; and my constituents, like the rest of the 
country, feel alienated from government and from politics.
  The conventional wisdom that the ordinary citizen no longer has a say 
in our government is growing and that their voices are drowned out by a 
sea of special interests and campaign contributors is prevalent. 
Unfortunately, their concerns are often justified.
  I rise this evening in support of the Campaign Integrity Act and want 
to thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) for his hard work 
in bringing this legislation before this session of Congress. Ever 
since we were elected in 1996, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) has worked to achieve a bipartisan solution to improve our 
campaign finance laws. I support this legislation because it represents 
real reform, it is constitutional, and it is our best chance in passing 
legislation this year to help restore public faith in our system of 
campaigns and elections.
  By banning so-called soft money at the Federal level this bill closes 
the biggest loophole in our current finance system. Soft money 
contributions effectively shred the contribution limits in our current 
campaign finance law. As long as we allow special interests to 
contribute millions from soft money outside the regulated campaign 
finance system, the public will remain skeptical about the integrity of 
our system.
  This legislation also improves the disclosure requirements for 
candidates running for federal office. It would provide more detailed 
information regarding the origin of campaign contributions and the time 
in which they need to be reported. It also calls for electronic 
disclosure to allow voters more timely access to campaign information.
  Finally, this bill improves disclosure requirements for third party 
groups and lobbying organizations which run television and radio 
advertisements. Unlike other campaign reform proposals, this bill does 
not seek to restrict or regulate free speech of outside groups. It only 
seeks to inform the public about who is running the ads. Organizations 
that stand by their messages and by their missions have nothing to fear 
from this legislation.
  As students return to the classroom this fall in high schools and 
colleges across the country, they will be taught the virtues of 
political democracy. Those students cannot help but be skeptical of a 
system that is perceived and perhaps in reality is driven by dollars 
rather than people. They need to know that their voice matters. They 
need to know that this still is their government. This legislation 
provides a common-sense evenhanded approach to help restore the faith 
in our American political process.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the Hutchinson substitute.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Ganske).
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I stand in admiration of the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moran), who just spoke, for doing 66 town hall meetings. I 
think he deserves the iron man award. But I must disagree with him.
  I rise in support of truth in advertising, in support of Shays-Meehan 
and in opposition to this amendment in the nature of a substitute. This 
substitute does not address a fundamental problem, and that is sham 
issue ads.
  The Hutchinson substitute requires disclosure of expenditures that 
exceed $25,000 per candidate or $100,000 per multiple candidates. The 
Shays-Meehan bill strengthens the definition of express advocacy to 
include any communication that contains unambiguous and unmistakable 
support for or opposition to a clearly identified Federal candidate and 
requires disclosure of the expenditure that exceeds $1,000 within 20 
days of election or those aggregating $10,000 at any time leading up to 
20 days before the election.
  I fully support organizations to make their positions known and to 
report on the voting record of elected officials, but I do not support 
organizations that hide behind this right to advocate the election or 
defeat of particular candidates.
  Shays-Meehan does not take away the rights of organizations to 
express their views. It does require them, when advocating the election 
or defeat of a specific candidate, to play by the same rules as 
official campaigns. The Hutchinson substitute does not do this.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the substitute and for real 
campaign finance reform. Vote ``no'' on the Hutchinson substitute and 
vote ``yes'' for Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Davis) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the debate. I have listened to each 
of my colleagues address the various amendments and now the 
substitutes. I think there is broad consensus that we need to reform 
our current campaign finance system.
  Let me just give my colleagues my short list of the problems. We 
spend too much time raising money. We spend too much money in 
campaigns. We spend too much unreported money in campaigns. There are 
too many loopholes in the system. It is corrupting the system, and we 
are losing more and more public confidence that our system is truly 
objective.
  Now, each one of us could craft what we think is the perfect bill. 
Each one of us could develop what we think would be the answer. But if 
we are going to be able to accomplish campaign finance reform, I agree 
with the author of this substitute.
  We need to support the campaign finance reform that has the only 
chance of being enacted this year and that is the Shays-Meehan bill. 
This is the bill that the public understands and supports. I believe 
each of us understands that if we had any chance to pass campaign 
finance reform this year, we need to support the Shays-Meehan bill. It 
is a comprehensive bill that deals with the under-regulated soft money. 
Each of us understands why we need to deal with that.
  In a letter written to our Speaker just recently by business leaders, 
they indicated that soft money distorts the process. It is more than 
doubling every 2 years the amount of money being spent on soft money. 
We need to do something about it. It is out of control. We need to 
close the loophole on so-called issue advocacy expenditures. We know 
that is wrong. We need to improve the Federal disclosure laws.
  So if my colleagues are for comprehensive campaign finance reform,

[[Page 21538]]

they really have only one choice, and that choice is to defeat the 
substitutes and support Shays-Meehan. If we do that, we have our best 
chance this year of listening to our constituents and doing something 
about the system to make it work for public confidence.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill) who has been an extraordinary leader 
in this effort, but most important, he has been a former State party 
chairman and has a great deal of expertise.
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Arkansas for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people do not believe that Congress can 
reform the campaign finance laws. The reason they believe that is that 
they believe that politicians will not reform a system that they depend 
upon for their survival. I am fearful tonight that we are going to 
confirm that belief.
  In the past, reforms or so-called reforms have acted to protect 
incumbents to keep them getting reelected. That has worked. Ninety 
percent of incumbents get reelected to this body. One of the reasons 
for that is that challengers cannot raise the resources they need to 
challenge the incumbents.
  Everyone knows the basic rule we learn around here when we come to 
orientation, and that is we go out and we raise enough money to keep a 
challenger out of our race. And it works. Many people do not have a 
challenger.
  There are parts of the Shays-Meehan bill that I support 
energetically, enthusiastically: the ban on soft money going to our 
national parties, for example. There are parts that I have concerns 
about: the limits on the speech of outside groups that will surely, in 
my judgment, be struck down by the court.
  But the part that I object most to is the fact that it is an 
incumbent protection plan, and here is why: By banning the soft money 
to parties, it makes the parties dependent on hard money. Hard money is 
limited individual contributions, and those are limited in total, how 
much a person can give in total to all parties and all candidates in a 
year.
  So it puts the parties in competition with their own candidates. It 
is even now going to put parties in competition with outside groups who 
want to express their views.
  The result is that parties are going to get that money, and 
incumbents are going to get that money, and probably those outside 
groups are going to get that money. But who is going to get left out? 
Challengers are going to get left out. Incumbents already have huge 
advantages in frank mail and media attention and fund-raising, and 
Shays-Meehan adds to those advantages.
  Now, in my view, Shays will virtually guarantee the reelection of 
incumbents. That is why I call it an incumbent protection act. There is 
another choice, and that is the Hutchinson substitute tonight.
  If my colleagues support, as I do, a ban on soft money, support the 
Hutchinson substitute. If my colleagues support, as I do, protecting 
free speech, then they would want to support the Hutchinson substitute. 
If my colleagues believe, as I do, that if we really wanted to reform 
campaigns, we need to promote competitive campaigns, the only choice is 
the Hutchinson substitute.
  It solves those problems, and it does it this way: It creates a 
separate limit for parties and a separate limit for candidates. So 
there is no competition between candidates and their parties. It bans 
soft money. It deals with issue ads by saying, if they are truly issue 
ads, then they have to be managed like issue ads, and that is to report 
it as a lobbying activity which appropriately it is.
  Now, there is another reason to support this substitute as well, and 
that is because it could actually become law. The Senate has repeatedly 
rejected the Shays-Meehan bill. If my colleagues really believe in 
reform and if they want common sense reform, and they want it actually 
to become law, then this is the way to make that happen.
  If my colleagues vote no on the Hutchinson substitute, they are going 
to confirm the suspicions of the American people that my colleagues do 
not really believe in campaign reform.
  My colleagues have an opportunity tonight to vote for real reform. I 
urge my colleagues to support the Campaign Integrity Act, the 
Hutchinson substitute.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) has 9 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) has 4 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) has 
4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying that the Hutchinson bill is a 
noble effort by the author and his cosponsors. As far as I am 
concerned, on the substance, the Hutchinson bill passes all the right 
tests. It passes all the tests of good policy. Every component of the 
Hutchinson bill is good legislation.
  Unfortunately, it fails the one most crucial test, and that is its 
ability to garner a bipartisan large overwhelming passing number in 
this House. In fact, in the last session, the Hutchinson bill received 
147 votes, 105 votes fewer than the Shays-Meehan bill. The Hutchinson 
bill was only able to garner 26 Democrats to support it.
  This is the most partisan place on earth, and everything we do is 
constantly geared to one party gaining advantage over the other, and 
there is nothing wrong with that. The two-party system works.
  But campaign finance reform is like nuclear disarmament. Even if we 
can find within ourselves the nobility to put our own personal 
interests aside and not protecting incumbencies, we have to achieve 
campaign finance reform in a way that lets both sides across the aisle 
look each other in the eye and say ``This does not give my party 
advantage over yours. This does not give your party advantage over 
mine. And that is the only way that we will ever succeed in this 
effort.''
  Only Shays-Meehan meets that test. Unfortunately, sadly, the work of 
the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), as good as it is, does 
not meet that test. For that reason, I urge Shays-Meehan support.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this has been a very 
constructive debate, and I appreciate the various ideas that my 
colleagues have offered. But the American people are asking us to do 
our job tonight, finally, once and for all.
  Seventy-eight percent of them are believing that the current set of 
laws that control congressional campaign funding need reform. Eighty-
five percent believe that campaign finance reform is necessary to 
reduce the influence of special interests. Seventy-four percent believe 
that they have nothing to do with political life, it is only the big 
interests.
  So I think because we have struck a bipartisan collaborative effort 
in the Shays-Meehan legislation on campaign finance reform, let us do 
our job tonight.
  The Shays-Meehan legislation specifically makes it very clear when we 
see ads on television that they are unambiguous, they are unmistakably 
for or against an opponent. They do not confuse them. They know who 
they do not want to vote for because it says what this is about.
  In the shadow of this, the beginning of the election of 2000, when 
presidential campaigns are raising a whopping $50 million before 
federal campaign funds are matching, the American people want us 
tonight, Mr. Chairman, to do something.
  Vote for the Shays-Meehan, real campaign finance reform.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman

[[Page 21539]]

from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to 
the debate, and I am impressed with all of the words that I hear. But I 
am concerned about the Hutchinson substitute because it does gut some 
of the reforms of Shays-Meehan.
  First, it indexes individual contribution limits, allowing them to 
automatically increase over time. Increasing individual contribution 
limits tells the American public that we think federal offices are for 
sale. Raising contribution limits marginalizes the participation of the 
poorest Americans and even minorities.
  If we raise the limits, we are telling the American people and the 
American public that the richer we are, the better we are and we have 
to be rich to be heard.
  This substitute really is a vote in favor of continuing to let money 
run our political system. A vote for the Hutchinson substitute tells 
the world that federal offices really are for sale. And most glaringly, 
the Hutchinson substitute tells America that to be protected they must 
be rich, it will cost them.
  So I would ask that everyone support the Shays-Meehan and vote 
against the Hutchinson.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady), who has really been a team player, who has been very 
outspoken on the issue of campaign finance reform.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the American dream is unique to our 
Nation. It means that no matter where we were born or of what means, if 
we work hard enough, if we want it bad enough, we can be anything, 
anything we want to be in this life, including a Member of Congress.
  These days I am not so sure that American dream is going to be around 
for our young people. Today the average cost of winning an open seat in 
Congress is just about a million dollars. It is a million dollars, and 
it is doubling every 4 years.
  That means a lots of good people in my community and a lot of good 
people in years to come are not going to be able to raise their hands 
to run for Congress because they do not have a million dollars; they do 
not even know where they would find it.
  Well, it is not that perhaps the very wealthy cannot make good 
decisions. The point is, in a representative democracy like ours, I do 
not want to wake up some day and see that people from all walks of life 
cannot serve in this great body. I am convinced they can.
  The Hutchinson bill takes a big step in restoring us to a citizen 
Congress from all walks of life. It is balanced. It does not give an 
edge to either political party, and it is constitutionally sound.
  Today let me make a prediction. Shays-Meehan will pass this House and 
Shays-Meehan will die yet another death in the Senate, as it did last 
year.
  Now, for some that is not a problem, but for me it is. I am convinced 
the reason people do not raise campaign finance in the polls as often 
is that they have given up hope it will actually do something. And 
every year it fails, every year it fails to pass into law, we 
discourage more people.
  So my message is to the Senate, after Shays-Meehan dies, as it 
inevitably will, if they are serious about real reform that is 
constitutionally very sound, can actually become the law of the land, 
take a look at Hutchinson.
  We are a little like the girl next door. When we get tired of chasing 
the prom queen and we are looking for real substance, the Hutchinson 
reform bill is here. It closes the soft money loophole. It preserves 
free speech and returns us to a citizen Congress. And more importantly, 
Hutchinson offers hope for those Americans who have lost hope that 
Congress will do the right thing to restore a citizen Congress to make 
it harder for incumbents to push us back in our districts to listen to 
our people. Hutchinson offers hope.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes to refute, 
especially since my wife is in the gallery, that I am chasing the prom 
queen.
  First off let me say that whenever the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) is involved in starting the flow of the debate, it always 
starts in a tone that to me is what makes me proud to be in this 
chamber, Republicans and Democrats talking about what we agree and 
disagree on. I just appreciate what he and his fellow freshmen have 
done. They have had an important role in helping us.
  They could have an even more important role instead of giving the 
Senate an excuse to vote against campaign finance reform if their 
amendment fails, their substitute, that they then vote for our bill to 
enable it to have more support in the House and more impact in the 
Senate.
  The bottom line is that we have two loopholes in our campaign law. 
One is soft money, the unlimited sums contributed by individuals, 
corporations, labor unions, and other interest groups. The gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and his colleagues deal with part of 
that. They ban soft money on the federal level. But they do not ban 
soft money on the State level for federal elections, and that will 
still allow corporations and labor unions to provide unlimited sums 
through corporate treasury money and union dues money. We shut that 
off.
  The other thing they do not deal with are the sham issue ads. We do 
not outlaw them. We just simply call them what they are, campaign ads. 
Something interesting happens when we call them a campaign ad. We 
cannot use corporate money, and we cannot use union dues money. So we 
really believe that we need to deal with those issues.
  We did not reach for the stars. This is not public funding. We did 
not reach for the stars. This is not half-price radio and TV. This is a 
middle-ground bill. And I really believe we can pass it in the Senate.
  But even if we pass it in the Senate, do my colleagues really believe 
the Senate is going to vote for any bill exactly the way we send it to 
them? They are going to vote for their bill.
  So I encourage my colleagues to vote against the Hutchinson bill and 
send this bill to the Senate.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hutchinson 
substitute.
  The first legislative act I took when I came to Congress in January 
was to cosponsor the Shays-Meehan bill. I did that because I believe 
that there is a crisis of confidence among voters in our political 
process. They know it is broken.
  If we are ever going to restore the full trust of the American people 
in their Government, we must reform the campaign fiance system. The 
trust is vital if we are ever going to meet challenges like 
guaranteeing Social Security, improving our schools, increasing access 
to health care.
  The public will not accept any solutions crafted here if they believe 
the solutions exist just for the special interests.
  The Shays-Meehan bill would bar soft money; it would expose deceptive 
ads for what they really are, campaign ads. It would require new 
disclosure rules. These are partial, but essential, reforms.
  By contrast, the Hutchinson substitute would simply redirect these 
funds to State political parties and allow the parties to continue to 
raise unlimited soft money. With double-existing hard money amounts, it 
is not reform; it is a step backwards.
  Pass the Shays-Meehan bill, not a substitute.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) who is the president of the freshmen class that 
initiated campaign finance reform and has done an outstanding job.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  To my good friend from Connecticut and to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, we have been laboring today under the old adage that 
``If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.'' Yet, those of us who 
support the Hutchinson substitute, we believe we are engaged in an 
exercise of futility.

[[Page 21540]]

  The definition of ``insanity'' is taking exactly the same action and 
expecting a different result. The fact is that the Shays-Meehan bill is 
not going to pass in the Senate. The stage is set. The lights are up. 
The actors are ready. And they have handed us the same script. And 
guess what? The ending is the same.
  Now, I want to respond to two consistent themes that have been heard 
throughout the day. I heard one colleague that suggested that in order 
to accomplish reform we are going to have to navigate a mine field of 
poison pills, as if every legitimate substitute not named ``Shays-
Meehan'' somehow deserved a scarlet letter.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, there are some of us who are really sincere 
reformers who choose not to kneel at the altar of every bill that has 
been anointed by some in this House or some in the Beltway. I think 
that the refusal to budge or compromise on the underlying bill has 
poisoned the well of campaign reform.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania spoke earlier about the bipartisan 
majority in the last debate. Yes, there were 250 new votes. I was one 
of them. I reluctantly supported Shays-Meehan last time because it was 
the only train leaving the station.
  Quite frankly, if we were honest with ourselves in this body, I would 
think that we would agree that there were probably some jail-house 
converts last time who knew they were going to get a free vote on 
reform because the bill was going to fail in the Senate.
  Regarding the merits of the Hutchinson alternative, it does ban soft 
money at the federal level. It prohibits States from transferring soft 
money. First, it allows States to decide for themselves and their own 
State legislatures whether or not to ban soft money at the State level 
for party building or get-out-the-vote efforts. But there is a firewall 
that is built between the State campaigns and the federal campaigns. 
Some have declared this some sort of a loophole. I respectfully 
disagree.
  In Missouri, if they run for State-wide office, they can accept 
business contributions or corporate donations; and yet that money 
cannot be transferred to a federal candidate running for office. In the 
same way, the Hutchinson bill sets up an impenetrable firewall. And so 
we ban soft money at the federal level.
  To the gentlewoman who spoke earlier about indexing the caps for 
inflation, if we ban some money at the federal level, I believe we have 
to index and raise the amount of money available in hard dollars.
  I submit, Mr. Chairman, it is easy for newspaper editors or broadcast 
journalists across this country to wrap their arms around an extreme 
type of campaign reform because to them speech is free. And yet, if we 
want to refute or rebut a poisonous editorial, it costs us precious 
campaign dollars.
  Without indexing limits for inflation, two things happen: either 
wealthy candidates will fund their own extravagant campaigns for 
office, or incumbents get the benefits of the present campaign zone. 
Because, as the gentleman from Montana pointed out, we have the ability 
to have name recognition or we have the ability of franked mail and the 
advantages of the incumbency.
  For those of us who first ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a 
challenger, we need to keep the playing field level for challengers and 
incumbents alike. I think the Hutchinson bill is the best effort 
regarding that alternative.

                              {time}  2145

  Finally, I believe it is time that we send a new piece of legislation 
to the Senate. This act takes a realistic and practical approach to 
reforming our Nation's campaign laws. I urge its support.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1867, The Campaign 
Integrity Act of 1999, introduced by my colleague Representative 
Hutchinson. It is important to remember this legislation is the product 
of a bipartisan group of newly-elected Members last Congress. Through 
hearings and testimony, this legislation is a compromise approach to 
reforming our federal campaign finance structure. This core group of 
reformers stand before this chamber with an important alternative to 
the Shays-Meehan legislation.
  In discussions with many of my colleagues and after reading the bills 
handicaps in several news articles, one item stands as a striking 
difference with this years debate on campaign finance reform. This 
debate lacks the drama presented by last year's discussion. The radical 
and rarely used tool of the discharge petition has been rendered 
ineffective and the outcome of this debate on campaign finance reform 
seems all too certain. With the lights dimmed and the pre-debate 
rhetoric toned down, the House plans to run the same play with the 
confidence of the American people hanging in the balance.
  During last year's debate I challenged my colleagues to support the 
``freshmen bill'' because it cut a swath down the middle of the 
campaign finance reform debate. Members could receive the same 
accolades from editorial boards across the country and their 
constituents for banning soft money, improving disclosure, and dealing 
with issue advertisements without harming the Constitution's provision 
for free speech. These three key elements continue to be the mantel of 
most campaign finance reform supporters.
  However, it is incumbent upon us today to determine how these 
fundamental provisions of reform can make their way past the Senate and 
to the President's desk. Passing campaign finance reform measures out 
of the House, which we know will fall upon the same fate as it did last 
Congress in the Senate, does very little toward reforming the current 
inadequacies of how federal campaigns are financed. Mr. Chairman, we 
risk permanent damage to the faith of our individual constituents who 
feel their voices go unrecognized in the current political process. 
Passing Shays-Meehan and voting down the incremental but substantive 
strategy the Hutchinson bill provides will do little more than feed the 
flames of cynicism that Congress will never enact legislation to 
address the shortcomings of funding federal campaigns.
  My fellow colleagues, it is interesting that on the day we consider 
campaign finance reform that we are in the thick of the annual 
appropriations process. I know that when I consider my vote on any one 
of the 13 appropriations' bills I begin by asking myself if I can 
support the compromise reached in the legislation before the House. Are 
there provisions within the bill that I find objectional enough to 
withhold my support of the overall legislation? No one gets everything 
they would like in each appropriations bill and the appropriations 
process clearly becomes a work of compromise. I ask my colleagues to 
use this same strategy in this campaign finance reform debate. Put 
aside your pride of ownership so that we may get substantive campaign 
finance reform that can pass the Senate and become law. Congress has 
been sold a bill of goods that there is only one way you can be for 
reform of the current financing systems supporters of the underlying 
bill have placed the scarlet letter of a ``poison pill'' on every other 
alternative. The only thing being poisoned is the well of effective 
campaign finance reform that is the end result of passing the Shays-
Meehan bill and making it increasingly unlikely that Congress will 
enact meaningful reform. Adopting a strategy that simply tries the same 
thing twice is something Congress rarely does because it often doesn't 
work. I hope every constituent and newspaper editors ask the question; 
``Who are the real reformers?'' when we continue to try a failed 
strategy. A martyr's death does nothing to help restore confidence in 
our political system.
  It's time to send a new piece of legislation to the United States 
Senate. The Campaign Integrity Act takes a realistic and practical 
approach to reforming our country's campaign finance laws. By taking a 
step in the right direction the House can pass legislation that both 
focuses on reforming the most egregious campaign finance abuses, while 
standing the best chance of passing the Senate and being signed into 
law by the President. Let's restore the faith of the American people 
and pass legislation that moves towards meaningful campaign finance 
reform. I urge support of the Campaign Integrity Act of 1999.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee), a leader in campaign finance reform.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of Shays-Meehan and against 
the substitute. In doing so, I would like to make a freshman 
observation. The observation I would like to make is that those of us 
in this Chamber have a unique opportunity in the world tonight. I say 
in the world tonight, because while there are other legislators elected 
by their constituents in other places in the world, some even older 
than our democracy, like Iceland, none

[[Page 21541]]

of them represent the Taj Mahal of democracy which is the American 
democratic system. And so when we act tonight to try to refine our 
system, let me suggest that we must act with assertion, we must act in 
a stalwart manner, and we have got to act aggressively.
  Right now, the substitute acts with benign neglect of the biggest 
virus on the body politic in our country right now, which are bogus 
issue ads, bogus issue ads, which both parties and all special 
interests are taking out a political hammer and trying to beat their 
opponent over the head with it and seeking immunity in doing so by 
saying, ``It wasn't a hammer, it was only a blunt instrument.''
  The damage to the health of democracy is the same whether we call 
them hammers or blunt instruments. We have got to make sure we address 
issue advocacy. The substitute has an abject failure to do so. Shays-
Meehan recognizes that the special interests have found a giant 
loophole. They are taking those hammers and they are walking through. 
We have got to shut that down.
  We have got the Taj Mahal of democracy. We have got real democracy. 
Let us have real reform and end issue ads.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise that the gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Hutchinson) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 2 minutes, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Meehan) has 2 minutes, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) 
has 2 minutes.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), a member of the 
committee, has the right to close.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, how many times did the civil rights bill 
come up on the floor of this Chamber? Do we not owe a debt to those who 
in the face of having been defeated kept trying? How many times did the 
Brady bill come up, and those of us who were concerned about handgun 
violence kept bringing it up, and finally it did pass. To be told that 
we cannot try Shays-Meehan one more time after one failure is a rebuke 
to the previous experience of those two particular examples, and 
hundreds of others.
  We are told that the Shays-Meehan bill does not admit amendments or 
compromise. That is not true. Twenty-three amendments were passed last 
year and of those, 20 were incorporated in the bill this year. This 
bill has borne the benefit of the compromise process.
  Why is it important to try? Because as the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Inslee) who just spoke pointed out, there is a critical part of 
Shays-Meehan that is not in the Hutchinson bill. It deals with the sham 
ads. Why not try? Then if the bill gets over to the Senate and it turns 
out they do not like that provision, they can work their will over 
there. A motion can be made to strike the sham issue ads provision, and 
then we will go to conference and the result will be much like just the 
Hutchinson bill, in other words, a bill that just bans soft money. But 
if we do not try, we will never get there. We will never get the chance 
to ban sham issue ads.
  How serious are sham issue ads? Oh, they are serious. Think about it 
just for a minute. If you run a campaign ad saying, ``Vote for me,'' 
you can only use donations that are $1,000 maximum. But if instead your 
party says, you're a splendid candidate, a great individual and deserve 
to be in Congress, they can use any amount of money, unregulated, 
because they did not say, ``Vote for me.''
  We have seen this at the Presidential level. An actual ad from the 
last Presidential campaign points out, ``Medicare slashed . . . then 
Dole resigns, leaving behind gridlock he and Gingrich created.'' That 
was with soft money. Here is the one with hard money: ``The President 
stands firm. A balanced budget protects Medicare; disabled children; no 
again. Now Dole resigns, leaves the gridlock he and Gingrich created.'' 
They are the same thing.
  Let us try to close that loophole.
  How about the soft money loophole? It also is closed in the Shays-
Meehan, but not in Hutchinson.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 1 minute.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, there is a simple reason for voting against 
the Hutchinson substitute. A vote for it destroys the first and only 
bipartisan piece of campaign finance reform ever to be passed in this 
Chamber. It destroys the only bill that will close the soft money 
loophole. Should this bill pass, it will pull the rug out from under 
Shays-Meehan. We cannot let that happen. The Hutchinson substitute does 
not stop soft money from influencing our Federal elections. It only 
does half the job. While this amendment calls for a ban on Federal soft 
money, it does not stop State parties from spending soft money on 
Federal elections.
  That is like bolting the front door to protect yourself from burglars 
while hanging a neon sign on the back door that says, ``Come on in.'' 
It is a shell game. You are only moving the soft money from the Federal 
parties to the State parties.
  The American people deserve better. The substitute leaves in place 
the current loophole through which unlimited dollars are funneled into 
Federal elections through sham issue ads as well.
  Please vote against the Hutchinson substitute. America must do 
better. Vote against the substitute.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Again I want to thank my colleagues for their gracious spirit and the 
way they engaged in this debate, but I want to come back to some of the 
things that have been said. First of all I appreciate the kudos, that 
this is a noble effort, a great job. We need votes in this, votes that 
will change the dynamics in this body. I appreciate the compliments.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) is an extraordinary 
legal scholar, but he wants to challenge the Supreme Court, and he has 
got guts there, but I do not think when you are dealing with campaign 
finance reform, you ought to go right in the face of the Supreme Court. 
I think they make these decisions for a reason, and it is the loophole 
of the sham ads that you talk about, that loophole is called the first 
amendment. I think it is something to be cherished, something that is 
to be regarded, something that should not be discarded lightly. So I 
have problems with that approach, that we are just going to go up to 
the Supreme Court, we are going to cost citizens millions of dollars 
and we are not going to worry about it and hope they change their mind. 
I think that is the wrong approach.
  The gentlewoman from Ohio just talked about that this is not a 
bipartisan bill. I would remind my colleagues that this is inherently 
bipartisan. It is inherently bipartisan because my friends worked 
together with this. Now, they switched gears on us. In fact in the last 
vote there were 60 Democrats that voted ``present.'' I would urge my 
friends to reconsider that vote and vote positive for this, the bill 
that you supported.
  If you look at where we are right now, this bill is going to go to 
the Senate. I hope we have a great vote. I hope we win. I hope people 
change their mind, but I am realistic. Shays-Meehan will most likely 
pass. It is going to go to the Senate for the third time. The first 
time it could not get the votes. The second time it could not get the 
votes. What will happen this time? I have talked to some of you 
privately, you say, ``We know it doesn't have the votes in the 
Senate,'' but we are going to send it over there for the third time.
  I want to look to the future in a positive sense. I hope that the 
Senate will take some of these ideas and forge a bill that will pass. 
But what happens if they reject Shays-Meehan the third time? Next 
spring, are we going to give up? Are we going to tell the American

[[Page 21542]]

voters, ``We can't do it''? Please, I plead with my colleagues, when it 
comes back next year, let us reconsider our position, let us be 
flexible, let us work together and get something, what we originally 
said we were going to do, which is common ground, common ground that we 
can send over there and be passed. Then we can look back on this 
Congress and say, We did something. We worked together. We accomplished 
something. It passed, for the first time in 25 years.
  Do you believe in your heart Shays-Meehan will be the one to do that? 
I urge support for the Hutchinson substitute.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we enact campaign finance reform once in a generation. 
The last time we enacted meaningful, comprehensive campaign finance 
reform was in the post-Watergate era. For a while that system worked 
pretty well. But over a period of the last 20 to 25 years, loopholes 
have developed in the law, loopholes being that incredible amounts of 
soft money, over and above the legal limits, are being spent to 
influence elections in our country. An incredible amount, millions of 
dollars in sham issue ads are being spent to influence elections in our 
country. So we now have a unique opportunity to pass comprehensive 
campaign finance reform. We have to make sure that when we pass this 
bill, we do not pass a bill that already has loopholes in it.
  The Hutchinson amendment fails to close the soft money loophole 
because it enables the insurance companies and the tobacco companies 
and all of these special interests to circumvent the Federal parties 
and influence Federal campaigns by going to the States. Many of these 
States do not even have disclosure requirements of this money. It is 
too big of a loophole. It does not do anything about reining in sham 
issue ads. It is too big of a loophole. We have to deal with both of 
these problems. That is why we have to pass this bill.
  Finally, a majority of the Members of the Senate have supported this 
legislation. The only reason it has not passed is we have not gotten 
the 60 votes over there to break a filibuster. We are going to be able 
to do it because eventually the public will win this argument. Vote for 
Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) is recognized 
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the Hutchinson bill on balance is 
a good bill. I want to commend the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Allen) and all of us who worked very hard to put it 
together. It was the best we could do under some very rough 
circumstances, over opposition from Democrats and Republicans here. But 
I disagree with the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) when he 
says we cannot do better. We have to do better. Look how far we have 
come just in the last year.
  Last year, we as freshmen had to fight like dogs just to get the bill 
heard on the floor of the House. We encountered numerous forms of 
subterfuge just to be heard on the merits. Tonight we have been much 
more successful in having an open and honest debate on campaign finance 
reform. We have had some very strong votes here tonight, Democrats and 
Republicans. We are making progress. We are starting to make it clear 
that we have found a way to close two of the most gaping loopholes in 
the system.
  Shays-Meehan has been to the Senate only once, not twice. It will go 
over there again tonight. Last year 52 Senators, Democrats and 
Republicans, voted in favor of the McCain-Feingold companion to our 
bill. Can they do better? They have to do better. Our system of 
democracy depends upon it.
  Let us not sell ourselves short tonight. Let us instead be ambitious. 
Let us pass the strongest campaign finance reform bill that we can. Let 
us send it to the Senate. We will negotiate and try to produce 
something that is meaningful to close two of these most gaping 
loopholes, because the money continues to pour in at record rates. We 
have got to do something and we can help put the Senate in the right 
direction. I would urge defeat of the Hutchinson amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. 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 announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 99, 
noes 327, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 420]

                                AYES--99

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barton
     Bateman
     Blunt
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fowler
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hill (MT)
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Jenkins
     John
     Jones (NC)
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Linder
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Radanovich
     Riley
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NJ)
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Vitter
     Walden
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--327

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Phelps

[[Page 21543]]


     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Kingston
     Peterson (PA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shaw

                              {time}  2219

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. ROHRABACHER changed his 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. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 printed 
in House Report 106-311.


  Amendment No. 13 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Thomas

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. 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 No. 13 in the nature of a substitute offered by 
     Mr. Thomas:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Campaign 
     Reform and Election Integrity Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. References in act.

                 TITLE I--BAN ON FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

Sec. 101. Extension of ban on foreign contributions to all campaign-
              related disbursements; protecting equal participation of 
              eligible voters.

              TITLE II--IMPROVING REPORTING OF INFORMATION

Sec. 201. Mandatory electronic filing for certain reports; expediting 
              reporting of information.
Sec. 202. Reporting of secondary payments; expansion of other types of 
              information reported.
Sec. 203. Disclosure requirements for certain soft money expenditures 
              of political parties.

  TITLE III--STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL 
                          ELECTION COMMISSION

Sec. 301. Standards for initiation of actions and written responses by 
              Federal Election Commission.
Sec. 302. Banning acceptance of cash contributions greater than $100.
Sec. 303. Deposit of certain contributions and donations to be returned 
              to donors in Treasury account.
Sec. 304. Alternative procedures for imposition of penalties for 
              reporting violations.
Sec. 305. Abolition of ex officio membership of Clerk of House of 
              Representatives and Secretary of Senate on Commission.
Sec. 306. Broader prohibition against force and reprisals.
Sec. 307. Signature authority of members of Commission for subpoenas 
              and notification of intent to seek additional 
              information.

       TITLE IV--SIMPLIFYING AND CLARIFYING FEDERAL ELECTION LAW

Sec. 401. Application of aggregate contribution limit on calendar year 
              basis during non-election years.
Sec. 402. Treatment of lines of credit obtained by candidates as 
              commercially reasonable loans.
Sec. 403. Repeal Secretary of Commerce reports on district-specific 
              population.
Sec. 404. Technical correction regarding treatment of honoraria.

                        TITLE V--EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 501. Effective date.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES IN ACT.

       Except as otherwise specifically provided, whenever in this 
     Act an amendment is expressed in terms of an amendment to or 
     repeal of a section or other provision, the reference shall 
     be considered to be made to that section or other provision 
     of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 .

                 TITLE I--BAN ON FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

     SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF BAN ON FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ALL 
                   CAMPAIGN-RELATED DISBURSEMENTS; PROTECTING 
                   EQUAL PARTICIPATION OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS.

       (a) Prohibition on Disbursements by Foreign Nationals.--
     Section 319 (2 U.S.C. 441e) is amended--
       (1) in the heading, by striking ``contributions'' and 
     inserting ``donations and other disbursements'';
       (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``contribution'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``donation or other 
     disbursement''; and
       (3) in subsection (a), by striking the semicolon and 
     inserting the following: ``, including any donation or other 
     disbursement to a political committee of a political party 
     and any donation or other disbursement for an independent 
     expenditure;''.
       (b) Codification of Regulations Prohibiting Use of Foreign 
     Funds by Multicandidate Political Committees; Protecting 
     Equal Participation of Eligible Voters in Campaigns and 
     Elections.--Section 319 (2 U.S.C. 441e) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(b) It shall be unlawful for any person organized under 
     or created by the laws of the United States or of any State 
     or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
     States to make any donation or other disbursement to any 
     candidate for political office in connection with an election 
     for any political office, or to make any donation or other 
     disbursement to any political committee or to any 
     organization or account created or controlled by any United 
     States political party, unless such donation or disbursement 
     is derived solely from funds generated from such person's own 
     business activities in the United States.
       ``(c) Nothing in this Act may be construed to prohibit any 
     individual eligible to vote in an election for Federal office 
     from making contributions or expenditures in support of a 
     candidate for such an election (including voluntary 
     contributions or expenditures made through a separate 
     segregated fund established by the individual's employer or 
     labor organization) or otherwise participating in any 
     campaign for such an election in the same manner and to the 
     same extent as any other individual eligible to vote in an 
     election for such office.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to contributions, donations, and 
     other disbursements made on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

              TITLE II--IMPROVING REPORTING OF INFORMATION

     SEC. 201. MANDATORY ELECTRONIC FILING FOR CERTAIN REPORTS; 
                   EXPEDITING REPORTING OF INFORMATION.

       (a) Requiring Electronic Filing Within 24 Hours of Certain 
     Contributions and Independent Expenditures Made Within 90 
     Days of Election.--
       (1) In general.--Section 304(a) (2 U.S.C. 434(a)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(12)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     each political committee described in subparagraph (B)(i) 
     that receives a contribution in an amount equal to or greater 
     than $200, and any person described in subparagraph (B)(ii) 
     who makes an independent expenditure, during the period which 
     begins on the 90th day before an election and ends at the 
     time the polls close for such election shall, with respect to 
     any information required to be filed with the Commission 
     under this section with respect to such contribution or 
     independent expenditure, file and preserve the information 
     using electronic mail, the Internet, or such other method of 
     instantaneous transmission as the Commission may permit, and 
     shall file the information within 24 hours after the receipt 
     of the contribution or the making of the independent 
     expenditure.
       ``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) a political committee described in this clause is a 
     political committee that has received an aggregate amount of 
     contributions equal to or greater than $50,000 with respect 
     to the election cycle involved; and
       ``(ii) a person described in this clause is a person who 
     makes an aggregate amount of independent expenditures during 
     the election cycle involved or during any of the 2 previous 
     2-year general election cycles in an amount equal to or 
     greater than $10,000.
       ``(C) The Commission shall make the information filed under 
     this paragraph available on the Internet immediately upon 
     receipt.''.
       (2) Internet defined.--Section 301(19) (2 U.S.C. 431(19)) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(19) The term `Internet' means the international computer 
     network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet-
     switched data networks.''.

[[Page 21544]]

       (b) Requiring Reports of Certain Filers to be Transmitted 
     Electronically; Certification of Private Sector Software.--
     Section 304(a)(11)(A) (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(11)(A)) is amended by 
     striking the period at the end and inserting the following: 
     ``, except that in the case of a report submitted by a person 
     who reports an aggregate amount of contributions or 
     expenditures (as the case may be) in all reports filed with 
     respect to the election cycle involved (taking into account 
     the period covered by the report) in an amount equal to or 
     greater than $50,000, the Commission shall require the report 
     to be filed and preserved by electronic mail, the Internet, 
     or such other method of instantaneous transmission as the 
     Commission may permit. The Commission shall certify (on an 
     ongoing basis) private sector computer software which may be 
     used for filing reports by such methods.''.
       (c) Requiring Reports for All Contributions Made Within 20 
     Days of Election; Requiring Reports to Be Made Within 24 
     Hours.--Section 304(a)(6)(A) (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(6)(A)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``after the 20th day, but more than 48 
     hours before any election'' and inserting ``during the period 
     which begins on the 20th day before an election and ends at 
     the time the polls close for such election''; and
       (2) by striking ``48 hours'' the second place it appears 
     and inserting the following: ``24 hours (or, if earlier, by 
     midnight of the day on which the contribution is 
     deposited)''.
       (d) Requiring Actual Receipt of Certain Independent 
     Expenditure Reports Within 24 Hours.--
       (1) In general.--Section 304(c)(2) (2 U.S.C. 434(c)(2)) is 
     amended in the matter following subparagraph (C)--
       (A) by striking ``shall be reported'' and inserting ``shall 
     be filed''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Notwithstanding subsection (a)(5), the time at which the 
     statement under this subsection is received by the Secretary, 
     the Commission, or any other recipient to whom the 
     notification is required to be sent shall be considered the 
     time of filing of the statement with the recipient.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 304(a)(5) (2 U.S.C. 
     434(a)(5)) is amended by striking ``or (4)(A)(ii)'' and 
     inserting ``or (4)(A)(ii), or the second sentence of 
     subsection (c)(2)''.
       (e) Change in Certain Reporting From a Calendar Year Basis 
     to an Election Cycle Basis.--
       (1) In general.--Section 304(b) (2 U.S.C. 434(b)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(or election cycle, in the case of an 
     authorized committee of a candidate for Federal office)'' 
     after ``calendar year'' each place it appears in paragraphs 
     (2), (3), (4), and (7); and
       (B) in paragraph (6)(A), by striking ``calendar year'' and 
     inserting ``election cycle''.
       (2) Election cycle defined.--Section 301 (2 U.S.C. 431) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(20) Election cycle.--Except as the Commission may 
     otherwise provide, the term `election cycle' means, with 
     respect to an election, the period beginning on the day after 
     the date of the most recent general election for the office 
     involved and ending on the date of the election.''.
       (f) Clarification of Permissible Use of Facsimile Machines 
     and Electronic Mail to File Reports.--Section 304(a)(11)(A) 
     (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(11)(A)) is amended by striking ``method,'' 
     and inserting the following: ``method (including by facsimile 
     device or electronic mail in the case of any report required 
     to be filed within 24 hours after the transaction reported 
     has occurred),''.

     SEC. 202. REPORTING OF SECONDARY PAYMENTS; EXPANSION OF OTHER 
                   TYPES OF INFORMATION REPORTED.

       (a) Requiring Record Keeping and Report of Secondary 
     Payments by Campaign Committees.--
       (1) Reporting.--Section 304(b)(5)(A) (2 U.S.C. 
     434(b)(5)(A)) is amended by striking the semicolon at the end 
     and inserting the following: ``, and, if such person in turn 
     makes expenditures which aggregate $5,000 or more in an 
     election cycle to other persons (not including employees) who 
     provide goods or services to the candidate or the candidate's 
     authorized committees, the name and address of such other 
     persons, together with the date, amount, and purpose of such 
     expenditures;''.
       (2) Record keeping.--Section 302 (2 U.S.C. 432) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(j) A person described in section 304(b)(5)(A) who makes 
     expenditures which aggregate $5,000 or more in an election 
     cycle to other persons (not including employees) who provide 
     goods or services to a candidate or a candidate's authorized 
     committees shall provide to a political committee the 
     information necessary to enable the committee to report the 
     information described in such section.''.
       (3) No effect on other reports.--Nothing in the amendments 
     made by this subsection may be construed to affect the terms 
     of any other recordkeeping or reporting requirements 
     applicable to candidates or political committees under title 
     III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
       (b) Including Report on Cumulative Contributions and 
     Expenditures in Post Election Reports.--Section 304(a)(7) (2 
     U.S.C. 434(a)(7)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(7)'' and inserting ``(7)(A)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) In the case of any report required to be filed by 
     this subsection which is the first report required to be 
     filed after the date of an election, the report shall include 
     a statement of the total contributions received and 
     expenditures made as of the date of the election.''.
       (c) Including Information on Aggregate Contributions in 
     Report on Itemized Contributions.--Section 304(b)(3) (2 
     U.S.C. 434(b)(3)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting after ``such 
     contribution'' the following: ``and the total amount of all 
     such contributions made by such person with respect to the 
     election involved''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting after ``such 
     contribution'' the following: ``and the total amount of all 
     such contributions made by such committee with respect to the 
     election involved''.

     SEC. 203. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN SOFT MONEY 
                   EXPENDITURES OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

       (a) Transfers of Funds by National Political Parties.--
     Section 304(b)(4) (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 (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.''.

  TITLE III--STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL 
                          ELECTION COMMISSION

     SEC. 301. STANDARDS FOR INITIATION OF ACTIONS AND WRITTEN 
                   RESPONSES BY FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION.

       (a) Standard for Initiation of Actions by FEC.--Section 
     309(a)(2) (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``it 
     has reason to believe'' and all that follows through ``of 
     1954,'' and inserting the following: ``it has a reason to 
     seek additional information regarding a possible violation of 
     this Act or of chapter 95 or chapter 96 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 that has occurred or is about to occur 
     (based on the same criteria applicable under this paragraph 
     prior to the enactment of the Campaign Reform and Election 
     Integrity Act of 1999),''.
       (b) Requiring FEC to Provide Written Responses to 
     Questions.--
       (1) In general.--Title III (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is 
     amended by inserting after section 308 the following new 
     section:


                 ``other written responses to questions

       ``Sec. 308A. (a) Permitting Responses.--In addition to 
     issuing advisory opinions under section 308, the Commission 
     shall issue written responses pursuant to this section with 
     respect to a written request concerning the application of 
     this Act, chapter 95 or chapter 96 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, a rule or regulation prescribed by the 
     Commission, or an advisory opinion issued by the Commission 
     under section 308, with respect to a specific transaction or 
     activity by the person, if the Commission finds the 
     application of the Act, chapter, rule, regulation, or 
     advisory opinion to the transaction or activity to be clear 
     and unambiguous.
       ``(b) Procedure for Response.--
       ``(1) Analysis by staff.--The staff of the Commission shall 
     analyze each request submitted under this section. If the 
     staff believes that the standard described in subsection (a) 
     is met with respect to the request, the staff shall circulate 
     a statement to that effect together with a draft response to 
     the request to the members of the Commission.
       ``(2) Issuance of response.--Upon the expiration of the 3-
     day period beginning on the date the statement and draft 
     response is circulated (excluding weekends or holidays), the 
     Commission shall issue the response, unless during such 
     period any member of the Commission objects to issuing the 
     response.
       ``(c) Effect of Response.--
       ``(1) Safe harbor.--Notwithstanding any other provisions of 
     law, any person who relies upon any provision or finding of a 
     written response issued under this section and who acts in 
     good faith in accordance with the provisions and findings of 
     such response shall not, as a result of any such act, be 
     subject to any sanction provided by this Act or

[[Page 21545]]

     by chapter 95 or chapter 96 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.
       ``(2) No reliance by other parties.--Any written response 
     issued by the Commission under this section may only be 
     relied upon by the person involved in the specific 
     transaction or activity with respect to which such response 
     is issued, and may not be applied by the Commission with 
     respect to any other person or used by the Commission for 
     enforcement or regulatory purposes.
       ``(d) Publication of Requests and Responses.--The 
     Commission shall make public any request for a written 
     response made, and the responses issued, under this section. 
     In carrying out this subsection, the Commission may not make 
     public the identity of any person submitting a request for a 
     written response unless the person specifically authorizes to 
     Commission to do so.
       ``(e) Compilation of Index.--The Commission shall compile, 
     publish, and regularly update a complete and detailed index 
     of the responses issued under this section through which 
     responses may be found on the basis of the subjects included 
     in the responses.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 307(a)(7) (2 U.S.C. 
     437d(a)(7)) is amended by striking ``of this Act'' and 
     inserting ``and other written responses under section 308A''.
       (c) Standard Form for Complaints; Stronger Disclaimer 
     Language.--
       (1) Standard form.--Section 309(a)(1) (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(1)) 
     is amended by inserting after ``shall be notarized,'' the 
     following: ``shall be in a standard form prescribed by the 
     Commission, shall not include (but may refer to) extraneous 
     materials,''.
       (2) Disclaimer language.--Section 309(a)(1) (2 U.S.C. 
     437g(a)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(a)(1)'' and inserting ``(a)(1)(A)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) The written notice of a complaint provided by the 
     Commission under subparagraph (A) to a person alleged to have 
     committed a violation referred to in the complaint shall 
     include a cover letter (in a form prescribed by the 
     Commission) and the following statement: `The enclosed 
     complaint has been filed against you with the Federal 
     Election Commission. The Commission has not verified or given 
     official sanction to the complaint. The Commission will make 
     no decision to pursue the complaint for a period of at least 
     15 days from your receipt of this complaint. You may, if you 
     wish, submit a written statement to the Commission explaining 
     why the Commission should take no action against you based on 
     this complaint. If the Commission should decide to seek 
     additional information, you will be notified and be given 
     further opportunity to respond.'''.

     SEC. 302. BANNING ACCEPTANCE OF CASH CONTRIBUTIONS GREATER 
                   THAN $100.

       Section 315 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(i) No candidate or political committee may accept any 
     contributions of currency of the United States or currency of 
     any foreign country from any person which, in the aggregate, 
     exceed $100.''.

     SEC. 303. DEPOSIT OF CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS AND DONATIONS TO 
                   BE RETURNED TO DONORS IN TREASURY ACCOUNT.

       (a) In General.--Title III (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:


 ``treatment of certain contributions and donations to be returned to 
                                 donors

       ``Sec. 323. (a) Transfer to Commission.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, if a political committee intends to return any 
     contribution or donation given to the political committee, 
     the committee shall transfer the contribution or donation to 
     the Commission if--
       ``(A) the contribution or donation is in an amount equal to 
     or greater than $500 (other than a contribution or donation 
     returned within 90 days of receipt by the committee); or
       ``(B) the contribution or donation was made in violation of 
     section 315, 316, 317, 319, or 320 (other than a contribution 
     or donation returned within 90 days of receipt by the 
     committee).
       ``(2) Information included with transferred contribution or 
     donation.--A political committee shall include with any 
     contribution or donation transferred under paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) a request that the Commission return the contribution 
     or donation to the person making the contribution or 
     donation; and
       ``(B) information regarding the circumstances surrounding 
     the making of the contribution or donation and any opinion of 
     the political committee concerning whether the contribution 
     or donation may have been made in violation of this Act.
       ``(3) Establishment of escrow account.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Commission shall establish a single 
     interest-bearing escrow account for deposit of amounts 
     transferred under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Disposition of amounts received.--On receiving an 
     amount from a political committee under paragraph (1), the 
     Commission shall--
       ``(i) deposit the amount in the escrow account established 
     under subparagraph (A); and
       ``(ii) notify the Attorney General and the Commissioner of 
     the Internal Revenue Service of the receipt of the amount 
     from the political committee.
       ``(C) Use of interest.--Interest earned on amounts in the 
     escrow account established under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     applied or used for the same purposes as the donation or 
     contribution on which it is earned.
       ``(4) Treatment of returned contribution or donation as a 
     complaint.--The transfer of any contribution or donation to 
     the Commission under this section shall be treated as the 
     filing of a complaint under section 309(a).
       ``(b) Use of Amounts Placed in Escrow To Cover Fines and 
     Penalties.--The Commission or the Attorney General may 
     require any amount deposited in the escrow account under 
     subsection (a)(3) to be applied toward the payment of any 
     fine or penalty imposed under this Act or title 18, United 
     States Code, against the person making the contribution or 
     donation.
       ``(c) Return of Contribution or Donation After Deposit in 
     Escrow.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Commission shall return a 
     contribution or donation deposited in the escrow account 
     under subsection (a)(3) to the person making the contribution 
     or donation if--
       ``(A) within 180 days after the date the contribution or 
     donation is transferred, the Commission has not made a 
     determination under section 309(a)(2) to seek additional 
     information regarding whether or not the contribution or 
     donation was made in violation of this Act; or
       ``(B)(i) the contribution or donation will not be used to 
     cover fines, penalties, or costs pursuant to subsection (b); 
     or
       ``(ii) if the contribution or donation will be used for 
     those purposes, that the amounts required for those purposes 
     have been withdrawn from the escrow account and subtracted 
     from the returnable contribution or donation.
       ``(2) No effect on status of investigation.--The return of 
     a contribution or donation by the Commission under this 
     subsection shall not be construed as having an effect on the 
     status of an investigation by the Commission or the Attorney 
     General of the contribution or donation or the circumstances 
     surrounding the contribution or donation, or on the ability 
     of the Commission or the Attorney General to take future 
     actions with respect to the contribution or donation.''.
       (b) Amounts Used to Determine Amount of Penalty for 
     Violation.--Section 309(a) (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)) is amended by 
     inserting after paragraph (9) the following new paragraph:
       ``(10) For purposes of determining the amount of a civil 
     penalty imposed under this subsection for violations of 
     section 323, the amount of the donation involved shall be 
     treated as the amount of the contribution involved.''.
       (c) Donation Defined.--Section 323, as added by subsection 
     (a), is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Donation Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `donation' means a gift, subscription, loan, advance, or 
     deposit of money or anything else of value made by any person 
     to a national committee of a political party or a Senatorial 
     or Congressional Campaign Committee of a national political 
     party for any purpose, but does not include a contribution 
     (as defined in section 301(8)).''.
       (d) Disgorgement Authority.--Section 309 (2 U.S.C. 437g) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Any conciliation agreement, civil action, or criminal 
     action entered into or instituted under this section may 
     require a person to forfeit to the Treasury any contribution, 
     donation, or expenditure that is the subject of the agreement 
     or action for transfer to the Commission for deposit in 
     accordance with section 323.''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections 
     (a), (b), and (c) shall apply to contributions or donations 
     refunded on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     without regard to whether the Federal Election Commission or 
     Attorney General has issued regulations to carry out section 
     323 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (as added by 
     subsection (a)) by such date.

     SEC. 304. ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES 
                   FOR REPORTING VIOLATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 309(a)(4) (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(4)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``clause (ii)'' and 
     inserting ``clauses (ii) and subparagraph (C)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C)(i) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), in the case of a 
     violation of any requirement under this Act relating to the 
     reporting of receipts or disbursements, the Commission may--
       ``(I) find that a person committed such a violation on the 
     basis of information obtained pursuant to the procedures 
     described in paragraphs (1) and (2); and
       ``(II) based on such finding, require the person to pay a 
     civil money penalty in an amount determined under a schedule 
     of penalties which is established and published by the 
     Commission and which takes into account the amount of the 
     violation involved,

[[Page 21546]]

     the existence of previous violations by the person, and such 
     other factors as the Commission considers appropriate (but 
     which in no event exceeds $20,000).
       ``(ii) The Commission may not make any determination 
     adverse to a person under clause (i) until the person has 
     been given written notice and an opportunity to be heard 
     before the Commission.
       ``(iii) Any person against whom an adverse determination is 
     made under this subparagraph may obtain a review of such 
     determination by filing in the United States District Court 
     for the District of Columbia or for the district in which the 
     person resides or transacts business (prior to the expiration 
     of the 30-day period which begins on the date the person 
     receives notification of the determination) a written 
     petition requesting that the determination be modified or set 
     aside.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 309(a)(6)(A) (2 U.S.C. 
     437g(a)(6)(A)) is amended by striking ``paragraph (4)(A)'' 
     and inserting ``paragraph (4)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to violations occurring on or after 
     January 1, 2001.

     SEC. 305. ABOLITION OF EX OFFICIO MEMBERSHIP OF CLERK OF 
                   HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SECRETARY OF 
                   SENATE ON COMMISSION.

       Section 306(a) (2 U.S.C. 437c(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the Secretary of the 
     Senate and the Clerk'' and all that follows through ``right 
     to vote, and''; and
       (2) in paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), by striking ``(other 
     than the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House 
     of Representatives)'' each place it appears.

     SEC. 306. BROADER PROHIBITION AGAINST FORCE AND REPRISALS.

       Section 316(b)(3) (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (C) as 
     subparagraphs (B) through (D); and
       (2) by inserting before subparagraph (B) (as so 
     redesignated) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(A) for such a fund to cause another person to make a 
     contribution or expenditure by physical force, job 
     discrimination, financial reprisals, or the threat of force, 
     job discrimination, or financial reprisal;''.

     SEC. 307. SIGNATURE AUTHORITY OF MEMBERS OF COMMISSION FOR 
                   SUBPOENAS AND NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO SEEK 
                   ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

       (a) Issuance of Subpoenas.--Section 307(a)(3) (2 U.S.C. 
     437d(a)(3)) is amended by striking ``signed by the chairman 
     or the vice chairman'' and inserting ``signed by any member 
     of the Commission''.
       (b) Notifications of Intent to Seek Additional 
     Information.--Section 309(a)(2) (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(2)) is 
     amended by striking ``through its chairman or vice chairman'' 
     and inserting ``through any of its members''.

       TITLE IV--SIMPLIFYING AND CLARIFYING FEDERAL ELECTION LAW

     SEC. 401. APPLICATION OF AGGREGATE CONTRIBUTION LIMIT ON 
                   CALENDAR YEAR BASIS DURING NON-ELECTION YEARS.

       Section 315(a)(3) (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)) is amended by 
     striking the second sentence.

     SEC. 402. TREATMENT OF LINES OF CREDIT OBTAINED BY CANDIDATES 
                   AS COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE LOANS.

       Section 301(8)(B) (2 U.S.C. 431(8)(B)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (xiii);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of clause (xiv) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(xv) any loan of money derived from an advance on a 
     candidate's brokerage account, credit card, home equity line 
     of credit, or other line of credit available to the 
     candidate, if such loan is made in accordance with applicable 
     law and under commercially reasonable terms and if the person 
     making such loan makes loans in the normal course of the 
     person's business.''.

     SEC. 403. REPEAL SECRETARY OF COMMERCE REPORTS ON DISTRICT-
                   SPECIFIC POPULATION.

       (a) Repeal Report by Secretary of Commerce on District-
     Specific Voting Age Population.--Section 315(e) (2 U.S.C. 
     441a(e)) is amended by striking ``States, of each State, and 
     of each congressional district'' and inserting ``States and 
     of each State''.
       (b) Deadline for Reporting of Certain Annual Estimates to 
     Commission.--
       (1) Price index.--Section 315(c)(1) (2 U.S.C. 441a(c)(1)) 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking ``At the beginning'' and inserting ``Not 
     later than February 15''; and
       (B) by striking ``as there become available necessary data 
     from the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of 
     Labor,''.
       (2) Voting age population.--Section 315(e) (2 U.S.C. 
     441a(e)) is amended by striking ``During the first week of 
     January 1975, and every subsequent year,'' and inserting 
     ``Not later than February 15 of 1975 and each subsequent 
     year,''.

     SEC. 404. TECHNICAL CORRECTION REGARDING TREATMENT OF 
                   HONORARIA.

       Section 301(8)(B) (2 U.S.C. 431(8)(B)), as amended by 
     section 402, is further amended--
       (1) by adding ``and'' at the end of clause (xiii);
       (2) by striking clause (xiv); and
       (3) by redesignating clause (xv) as clause (xiv).

                        TITLE V--EFFECTIVE DATE

     SEC. 501. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as otherwise specifically provided, this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
     elections occurring after January 2001.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) framed this 
debate earlier in the day, I do not think he fully appreciates it but 
he certainly did, when he said we ought to support the Thomas 
substitute tomorrow.
  We will recall the song, tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow is always a day 
away.
  Some of the provisions in my substitute have stretched that day to 
more than a quarter of a century. Of the more than two dozen provisions 
in the Thomas substitute, 13 of them have not been addressed since 
1976.
  Why? The cry has always been for real, for substantive change, change 
that could become law, let us do it tomorrow.
  We are in the middle of this debate in which people who are 
supporting Shays-Meehan have the latest cracker jack approach. Of 
course, earlier it was PACs. Before that it was other bogeymen in terms 
of the system, all of them fundamental threats to the republic, 
notwithstanding the Supreme Court saying that the First Amendment has 
to be upheld.
  We see another assault on the First Amendment.
  What I decided to do, Mr. Chairman, was to examine what the Democrats 
were offering, what the Republicans were offering, what was obviously 
in need of change, pull it together and in about two dozen provisions 
offer change; change that has been needed for more than a quarter of a 
century in some instances but has never, ever, for some reason, been 
able to move.
  Some of my colleagues might find it ironic, but one of the provisions 
in my substitute bans foreign soft money in U.S. elections. Another one 
guarantees the rights of U.S. citizens to contribute to campaigns 
through Political Action Committees. Whether the PAC is a domestic or a 
foreign-owned corporation it has to be in the United States. Many of 
them deal with the current antiquated timing of information. Many of 
them extend from 1976.
  Forty-eight hours in 1976 may have been a relatively long time. 
Mobile phones were not invented. E-mail was not invented. To a very 
great extent, the Internet did not exist. There were 200 sites linked 
through the Advanced Research Project Agency's net, but it certainly 
was not the Internet. C-SPAN did not exist; neither did CNN or ESPN.
  The world has changed in that quarter century, but one thing has not 
changed: Federal election law. Why? Because whenever anyone offered 
reasonable and appropriate change, the plea was always tomorrow.
  If anybody in this Chamber wants to make law tonight, they ought to 
take a look at the Thomas substitute because it is, as it will be 
described, an amalgam of a bunch of good stuff that should have been 
passed a long time ago; but it was always the latest issue that got in 
front of it and the latest issue never made it.
  This issue will not make it. Shays-Meehan will not become law. If 
someone wants to make a political statement, then vote for Shays-
Meehan. If they want to make law, if they want to change current law, 
if they want to shorten 48 hours to 24, if they want to take all those 
people who currently run their financing of their campaigns on their 
computers and then, because of our current laws run a contest in the 
campaign office to find a person with the worst handwriting and have 
them personally fill out the report so that

[[Page 21547]]

when it gets to the FEC it has to be translated and then put on the 
electronic medium, what we say is do it electronically if a campaign 
raises more than $50,000.
  Everybody is doing it on computers anyway. These are the kind of 
changes that we ought to make first. Let us get it right, and then we 
can discuss how we want to change the world.
  It just seems to me that at some time after the invention of compact 
disk players, after the invention of VCRs, after Larry Bird was elected 
NBA rookie of the year in 1980, some of these provisions ought to be 
changed. This is the opportunity.
  If my colleagues want to make a statement, vote for Shays-Meehan; if 
they want to make law, vote for the Thomas substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, we want to make sense today. Mr. Chairman, I 
yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, first I want to applaud the truly bipartisan team so 
ably lead by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) who have brought us yet again 
this year to the success that we have seen today on sticking together 
and doing the right thing.
  I want to thank the Speaker of the House for honoring his commitment 
to allow this legislation to come to the floor with a full and fair 
debate in September of this year, and we will complete this business in 
a few moments.
  I also want to point out, though, that when my party, the Republican 
Party, in which I am proud to be an active member, was in the minority 
here, our party supported most of these same reforms in the minority. 
The truth is, any minority party is going to support reform and any 
majority party is going to oppose reform because it is basically 
essential, they believe, to preserve the current system for their 
benefit, and therein lies the problem.
  This bill is the best effort in 25 years to make major strides 
towards cleaning up the current system. The American people expect us 
to do that.
  I believe that this is a decision for the ages that we will make in a 
few minutes. We do have to beat back the Thomas substitute. It is 
obviously full of things that need to be done, but it is really not 
campaign finance reform itself, in and of itself. It is campaign 
reform. It is corrections. It cleans up the current system, but it does 
not address soft money and the major issues that affect the system 
today that need to be addressed. So it should be an amendment and not a 
substitute.
  So we will have to beat it back and then bring this to final passage. 
The vote, though, again Thomas and then for final passage, is a vote 
really about putting country above party, and that is difficult because 
the pressures within one's party are to support the leadership, to 
support the majority. Clearly, it takes courage, I think, for some of 
us to step out and say this needs to be done.
  Countless former Members of this House and the Senate have come out 
in support of this. It is amazing how many more people support this 
when they are no longer here, when they no longer face the pressures of 
reelection or holding the majority. Then they reflect and say, that 
really needs to be done. Virtually every President that can speak on 
this issue has said this needs to be done. They are serving really as 
the conscience of the American electorate and the leadership of our 
country by saying, yes, I am no longer standing for reelection. I have 
been there. I know the influences of money on critical policy decisions 
that affect our great Nation; and, yes, this needs to be done. So we 
need to listen closely to them as well.
  This bill cuts both ways. I believe it is equally harsh on the 
Republican Party and the Democratic Party.
  The Good Book says, the love of money is the root of all evil.

                              {time}  2230

  There are too many influential decisions made by money in this 
institution. Let us pass Shays-Meehan tonight.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), a member of the committee.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Thomas substitute, 
and I urge my colleagues to vote for this substitute. The legislation 
makes a series of much-needed changes. For instance, there are over 20 
provisions in this legislation that will simplify and strengthen laws 
for FEC reporting and enforcement. In addition, the Thomas substitute 
places a strict ban on foreign soft money. Finally, one of the problems 
with the current campaign finance system is not what we know, but what 
we do not know. This legislation will ensure that more rapid filing 
requirements, electronic filings, will make it easier for the public to 
know who is contributing to which federal candidate.
  This is why I commend Texas Governor George W. Bush who posted all of 
his campaign contributors on his Web site for public view. The most 
important aspect of this debate is information, and we should support 
legislation that gives us more information, not less.
  Once again, it seems that politics will rule the day, though, for 
supporters of Shays-Meehan, a major portion of the Thomas substitute 
was taken from the ranking member of the Committee on House 
Administration, yet politics prevail and he has chosen to oppose the 
bill with the provisions in it that he himself used to support. It is 
pretty clear to me that the proponents of this legislation are more 
concerned about politicizing the issue, rather than actually passing 
legislation which will improve our current situation.
  The Thomas substitute is the only legislation that has a chance to be 
signed into law. If we do not pass this bill out of this House, that 
has a chance to be signed into law, the current abuses will go 
untouched.
  I say to my fellow Members that if they really care about going back 
to their districts and telling their constituents that they supported 
real campaign finance reform, then support the Thomas substitute. This 
legislation places a strict ban on foreign soft money contributions to 
federal candidates. This was the major abuse in the last presidential 
election, and unless we support this legislation, these abuses can 
continue.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Thomas substitute 
which is the only legislation we will consider here tonight that will 
be signed into law.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the only 
obstacle standing between us and passage of the Shays-Meehan bill. 
Unfortunately, this is not a debate on the merits of this amendment, 
because the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and I attempted to 
offer the substance of this amendment as a separate amendment to Shays-
Meehan so that the Members would have an opportunity to vote for this 
Good Housekeeping measure and for Shays-Meehan, and we were deprived of 
that opportunity, and so was the body.
  This amendment is so innocuous that it comprises mostly 
recommendations that were unanimously supported by the FEC 
commissioners. If there is a single Member in this chamber tonight that 
intends to vote against this amendment, raise their hands. Not a single 
Member. This is an amendment that should be taken up on the consent 
calendar that is reserved for technical bills. That is where we should 
be debating the merits of this. We should not be debating it as a way 
to submarine Shays-Meehan.
  The fight has always been about the right to be heard about the 
merits of Shays-Meehan on the floor of the House, and we have almost 
concluded that debate, but let me conclude by citing once again the 
facts, because the facts speak for themselves. In the 1991/1992 
election cycle, $86 million by both political parties was spent in soft

[[Page 21548]]

money; in 1996, $260 million; in 1970 and 1978, $193 million, more than 
twice the previous presidential campaign cycle. And in the 2000 
election cycle, it is estimated between $500 million and $750 million 
in soft money. These are unlimited contributions that are not being 
made for good government.
  The facts speak for themselves. Let us defeat this amendment, let us 
pass it on the consent calendar, and let us pass Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to give an example 
of the kinds of things that we propose in the Thomas substitute that 
simply have been overlooked for more than a quarter of a century. When 
one makes reports, there is no requirement to show secondary payments. 
In many campaign reports, they simply list their key campaign support 
committee, $50,000. We have no idea where that money has been spent, 
and there is no requirement under federal law to break it down.
  What we say we ought to do is to require record keeping and 
disclosure by political committees in terms of who got the actual 
payment: the secondary payers, the subcontractors. This is absolutely 
essential to have an understanding of the flow of money. They say they 
want to follow the money. They say they want to make sure everyone 
knows who pays whom. It simply is not done in Shays-Meehan. This is a 
long overdue change.
  It also requires post-election reports to include cumulative 
information on contributions and expenditures. Those are the kinds of 
things that will give people a true picture of who contributes and who 
spends. It is not in theirs; it is in ours.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. English).
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Thomas 
substitute to H.R. 417.
  This substitute amendment makes meaningful reforms to the current 
system that are balanced, constitutional and have an actual chance of 
being signed into law. The banning of foreign soft money improved 
enforcement ability of the FEC and increased candidate and party 
disclosure by means of electronic filing and public Internet posting 
are all much-needed reforms that both parties agree are necessary.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Thomas substitute, because 
although it is limited in scope, it provides a fair and balanced reform 
to the current system and has the potential to pass the Senate this 
year and become law. By contrast with the Shays-Meehan placebo, the 
Thomas substitute would make changes that would not unduly favor one 
party or one philosophy over another after facing judicial scrutiny. 
Unlike Shays-Meehan, the Thomas substitute will not add to the 
overwhelming advantage that incumbents have over challengers.
  Shays-Meehan is ultimately an incumbent protection bill. It will 
reduce competition in congressional elections and further sap the 
vitality of our political process.
  Although proponents of Shays-Meehan claim it is the only reform 
package that has a chance of being enacted, the reality is that the 
Senate is likely to block the Shays-Meehan bill much as it did last 
year when a nearly identical measure was reported out of the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to send something to the Senate 
that we have a chance of putting into law this year and deserves to be 
put into law and deals with real abuses in a very balanced and 
constitutional way. I urge a vote for the Thomas substitute for all of 
those who are true supporters of campaign finance reform.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, of this amendment it can be said, seldom 
have so few worked so hard to do so little. Who could be against the 
little that this substitute proposes? Only those of us who are 
committed to doing more, who realize that the modest changes proposed 
by the Shays-Meehan approach are the minimum necessary to bring any 
real change to this Congress.
  Those intent on blocking reform have carefully crafted the rule 
governing the procedure for this debate so that the approval of any 
alternative, even one as meager as that advanced by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas), will serve to nullify real reform. The sole 
purpose of this substitute is not some newly discovered interest in 
correcting some minor provisions in the Federal Election Code, but it 
is to defeat true reform, an objective its author has made clear by his 
repeated votes against cleaning up this mess.
  Without a vote for genuine campaign finance reform tonight, special 
interests will continue to have a strangle hold on this body. The 
pharmaceutical companies will decide whether seniors get access to 
prescription drugs. The tobacco companies will decide whether we do 
anything about nicotine addiction among our young people. The special 
interests will continue to write a tax code that is replete with 
loopholes that burden the rest of the American people.
  We need a clean sweep of this campaign finance system, not some 
modest housekeeping touch-up; not mere toothless tinkering with a 
clearly very broken system. Reject this amendment and adopt true 
reform.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 14 minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has 9 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, let me remind the House that oftentimes 
when people talk about tomorrow, the other day that they refer to is 
yesterday. And in this particular case, there was a yesterday not too 
long ago when the substance of the Thomas legislation was offered as an 
amendment to Shays-Meehan in committee and the majority decided that 
they did not want to have it be a part of the Shays-Meehan package.
  The plain English of where we are tonight is embodied in the rule 
that the majority created to govern this debate, that is that this is 
not an amendment to Shays-Meehan, this is a substitute. All too often 
some are eager to take a substitute over the real McCoy or, in this 
case, the real Shays-Meehan.
  A substitute just will not do, because what we have come to 
understand even here in this House is that the time has come to reform 
our campaign finance laws. It is embodied in this bipartisan approach, 
and the only way that we can get to the Shays-Meehan approach, which a 
majority of us agree on, is that we have to move the substitutes aside 
and focus on the real reform that is embodied in the base bill that we 
will have a chance to vote on once we dispose of the Thomas amendment.
  Now, I have a great deal of respect for the chairman of my committee, 
and I think that the suggestions that are offered are something that 
all of us can work towards, and that is why I offered it as an 
amendment to Shays-Meehan. Maybe now, after we dispose of it tonight, 
we will find another way on another day when we can get to it, but 
those who want to point at tomorrow as some far off day have to look at 
their own actions when they had the opportunity to take these 
suggestions and embody them in the vehicle that this House passed last 
year and will pass again tonight.
  When we want to clean up the creek, we have to get the hogs out of 
the water first. We, in order to get to Shays-Meehan, have to remove 
these substitutes out of our way. We have to keep our eyes on the 
prize. I would ask my colleagues to say no to the Thomas substitute so 
that we can focus in on real campaign reform.
  Mr. THOMAS. Tomorrow, tomorrow.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).

                              {time}  2245

  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, since I was elected to Congress, I have 
been so surprised at so much that has gone on in our campaign finance 
regulation or reform debates. All over we hear people talk about the 
influence of money. That surprises me. First of all, we all know that 
it is already illegal to trade campaign promises for money that would 
come into our campaigns. Even after we are elected, it is illegal

[[Page 21549]]

to vote because somebody gave us money in the campaign.
  I am probably one of the most expensive campaigns year in and year 
out that are run in this House, $1.8 million in my last election. I 
almost cannot cast a vote on the House floor without looking a good 
number of my supporters in the eye and saying, I am sorry, I do not 
agree with you on this issue. I cannot support you. I am going to vote 
against you. They knew I would do that when they supported me. They 
supported me because they believed that I would know the issue, that we 
shared a common perspective about public policy, and that I would 
always do my best.
  If I ever got into specifics, there would always be groups on both 
side of every issue. I find it very comfortable to look people in the 
eye and say, this is an area where I do not agree with you. So I always 
have to wonder, people who talk about influence peddling, about being 
compromised by the contributions that are received, do they have 
trouble voting their conscience because of the people that give to 
them? Do they find that they cannot exercise what they really believe 
is in the best interests of their constituents because they get 
campaign contributions?
  I believe if Members have that problem, that nothing we do on the 
floor of the House tonight will change that and give these Members a 
backbone, because the fact is that if the Republican party comes in and 
does soft money ads for me and I feel that I would be compromised, a 
human being that would write me a check for $1,000 would intimidate me 
even more.
  So the fact is that we can shut off all the soft money, we can shut 
off what my party does. But if we have people on this floor in the vote 
in the next hour that feel intimidated by campaign contributions, 
contributions of $200 of $500 or of $1,000 are going to make them shake 
when they have to vote against the people who gave them that.
  So whether or not Members are influenced by money is a matter of 
their conscience. It is a matter of their backbone. It is a matter of 
their courage. It is a matter of believing that Members are here always 
to rise above any one person's best interests and do what is right for 
this country.
  I believe that this bill, the Shays-Meehan bill, would profoundly 
increase the corruption of money in politics because right now the 
majority of campaigns are run with hard money, money that we go from 
person to person and ask for, money that every voter knows where I got 
the money from and knows every way I spent it.
  We all know why Shays-Meehan refused to tie the constitutionality of 
soft money from parties and special interest groups, but what we will 
do is we will have the millions of people that seek to influence 
elections, care about who is elected, care that somebody that 
represents their perspective is elected instead of giving it to the 
parties, they are going to find some independent group.
  Next year if China decides that they care about who is elected, if 
China decides that they care about influencing the election, they will 
not be able to give it to the Democratic National Committee. Instead, 
they are going to have to find Mainstream America or some other special 
interest group that never has to say where one penny comes from, never 
says where one penny goes, and we will not know that that is who 
influenced the election.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the formor Governor and a Member 
of the House.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding time to me.
  I would like to thank other people, including the chairman, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) for the wonderful job he has done 
throughout this day and evening in dealing with this legislation.
  I would like to thank the Speaker of the House. Some of us may not 
have liked the rule originally, but without what he did in allowing it 
to come to the floor, we would not be here.
  I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), not 
necessarily because they may pass this bill tonight, and I hope they 
will, I support the legislation, but because of the manner in which 
they have prepared for this and handled this debate.
  I also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), who I think 
actually has a good piece of legislation here, although maybe not in 
the right process in terms of how we should do it; and the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), obviously, and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle), and everyone else who sponsored the 
amendments.
  Every once in a while there is an enlightening debate. This is one 
that has been bipartisan. All of us have learned a lot. We have had a 
chance to listen in on it. For that, I think we should all be thankful.
  We really have to know what we are doing here. We have to be very 
careful. There is nothing in my mind that is objectionable at all in 
the Thomas substitute, but it is just that, it is a substitute. It 
means that it is the end of Shays-Meehan.
  We have been voting all night to protect Shays-Meehan, because it is 
important that we get it passed. We have to remember that when we cast 
this vote. We could easily go back and pick up the Thomas substitute. 
We could have done it as an amendment, as a matter of fact, if the 
Committee on Rules had allowed it, and certainly could do it in the 
future.
  We have heard a lot of different presentations here tonight. I do not 
know what the influence of money really is, but I do get frankly quite 
concerned when I read that large corporations and large labor unions 
and people of various interests with legislation before this body are 
all of a sudden giving to the parties amounts of money that are in 
excess of $100,000, $200,000, even in some cases $300,000. It has to 
make everybody stop and think, they are giving it for some reason. It 
is not because they are necessarily interested in charity, they are 
interested in their own bottom line.
  I think this body is made up of people of full ethics, people who are 
good people, but I think we have to make this change. I would encourage 
each and every one of us to support Shays-Meehan. I think it will pass 
the Senate and will become the law of this country.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), president of the freshman class 
on our side.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Thomas substitute, as it 
does not represent real reform. Mr. Chairman, our campaign system is 
broken and needs urgent reforms and not nip and tuck around-the-edge 
solutions offered by the honorable chairman, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas).
  Although the Thomas substitute contains some important reforms of the 
Federal Elections Commission, it does nothing to reform our political 
system, nothing to rein in those deceptive issue ads, nothing to 
eliminate the old powerful role of soft money in our political 
campaigns, and nothing to restore the faith of Americans in our 
political system.
  We are here today to debate the campaign finance reform, real 
campaign finance reform. the Thomas substitute is not campaign finance 
reform. There was only one bill on the floor this evening which will 
accomplish these tasks, the Shays-Meehan reform bill.
  Reform is demanded by our constituents. Let us vote for real reform 
today. Oppose the Thomas substitute and support the Shays-Meehan reform 
bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maryland is very proud to 
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), who 
is back in the Chamber and who has done such an extraordinary job on 
this piece of legislation through the years.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  It has been a long evening. In fact, it has been a long battle going 
back over the last few years. We have been able

[[Page 21550]]

to work, Democrats and Republicans, to form a bipartisan coalition, and 
I would like to take this opportunity to thank so many of the Members 
of this House who have made it possible.
  I think back to the debate last year, when many of the Members had 
the Commission bill, and how cooperative they were to join with the 
sponsors of Shays-Meehan to unite our effort to add the Commission bill 
to the Shays-Meehan bill.
  I think of how critical it was when the Democratic leadership, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Bonior), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and others, 
joined with this effort and have whipped so effectively the Democratic 
Members of this House. I want to thank them for their efforts.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
(Mrs. Roukema), and all of the Members of the Republican party who have 
worked so diligently. I thank all of them, as well.
  The hour is late. I think it is clear from the way the votes have 
been going that the Members of this House are ready to take the 
extraordinary step to pass bipartisan, bicameral campaign finance 
reform. As I said earlier, it only happens once in a generation. It is 
an extremely difficult issue to get Members of both sides of the aisle 
to work together on, but we have done it.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has a substitute that, 
frankly, we could pass in a suspension on Monday or Tuesday of next 
week. It is not real campaign finance reform, but under the rule, if 
Members vote for this, it will kill our opportunity, our golden 
opportunity, this evening.
  So I think it is clear to the membership that they have to vote no on 
the Thomas substitute, and if the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas) and others are willing, we should take it up at a later date, 
pass it under a suspension. I am sure it would get 350 to 420 votes.
  But now is the time, the hour is late, to pass campaign finance 
reform. I thank all of the Members who have been involved in this 
debate. I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his 
leadership on the committee. I again thank the Members for their 
extraordinary effort on this historic vote for real, comprehensive 
campaign finance reform.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would tell the chairman, it is amazing how many people are willing 
to do something that could become law tomorrow.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) from the committee.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California, the 
sponsor of the substitute, for yielding time to me. My only regret is 
he did such a masterful job of introducing his substitute that he has 
left very little to say. It is clearly a very good substitute. It is a 
very good piece of legislation and something we should pass.
  Mr. Chairman, let me add just a few comments about that. First of 
all, let us be pragmatic. As Members have heard a number of Members 
say, we passed this bill, the Shays-Meehan bill, last year. The Senate 
did not. We may pass it tonight. The Senate is unlikely to pass it. Let 
us pass something that will make a difference. Let us be pragmatic and 
vote for the Thomas substitute, and get something passed that will in 
fact make a difference.
  Furthermore, it is badly needed. I was just chatting with a member of 
my staff tonight. Less than 10 years ago he was working for a Member of 
Congress and they were answering all their mail with Selectric 
typewriters. My comment was, no wonder that Member lost his election. 
The times passed him by.
  The times have passed our current election law by and we have not 
corrected it. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) gave a list of 
all things that should be changed. I was astounded when I was elected 
to this House and found a totally antiquated computer system, and 
Speaker Gingrich asked me to work with the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas) in updating it.
  We have done that. Today all the Members of the House enjoy a 
marvelous computer system. They are on the Internet, they have 
websites. Yet, they are not willing to vote for a bill that will make a 
difference, that will put the FEC online, put all our contributions 
online immediately, in a direct fashion, and bring the system up to 
date.
  Let us be pragmatic. Let us vote for something that will work. Let us 
update current election law. Let us vote for the Thomas substitute and 
get this done.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the problem with the Thomas 
substitute is not its wording, it is its motivation. It is a cynical 
ploy to kill substantive campaign finance reform.
  We live in the greatest democracy in the history of western 
civilization, but it is not a true democracy as long as the wealthiest 
people and organizations in this country can have undue influence upon 
the elections and the votes of this body. We need substantive campaign 
finance reform, and we know it is what the people want. There is only 
one reason we do not do it, and it is the wrong reason.

                              {time}  2300

  Since we began debating campaign finance reform years ago, millions 
of people, for example, have died as a result of tobacco smoking. We 
would not address the targeting of teenage smokers. Why? Not because 
many Members had tobacco growers in their district. That was not the 
reason. It is because we have tobacco money in our pockets.
  I could give any number of reasons, whether it be health care reform, 
insurance reform, tort reform, any number of issues. Do what the 
American people want. Restore a true democracy. Vote for Shays-Meehan 
and reject the Thomas substitute.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) who has worked so hard, so diligently, and so 
effectively on behalf of this legislation.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, when I woke up this morning, I tried to 
prepare myself for the fact that we might lose. There were seven 
amendments that would kill us, and there are three substitutes that 
would replace us.
  I thought it is up to each and every one of us just to make our 
decisions, and we can live with the results. But we are so close. We 
have to defeat this substitute. It is a good amendment as a perfecting 
amendment. As a substitute, it kills us. So we have to kill it.
  I just would want to say to all of my colleagues that this has been a 
bipartisan effort, and it has been a tremendous pleasure. I remember 
working with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) when we tried to 
pass congressional accountability. It took us 6 years. We did not say 
after the second year we were going to give up. We did it on a 
bipartisan basis. I was proud of how we passed it. We got Congress 
under all of the laws.
  We are going to have campaign finance reform. I hope it is in the 
form we are suggesting, but we are going to see it happen. We are not 
going to give up on the Senate.
  We have got to ban soft money. It is just a perversion that is 
distorting the whole system. It is allowing corporations and labor 
unions to give unlimited sums and work their will in a way that should 
not happen.
  We have got to call those sham issue ads what they are, campaign ads, 
so we have disclosure and not have corporate money and union dues money 
flowing in.
  We need FEC enforcement and disclosure which our bill does, and then 
we have a commission to look at some of the things that we do not do.
  This is a sensible bill. It is not a radical bill. We have only 
passed it once. I hope we do it again and send it to the Senate. Then 
we have a year to work on the Senate to try to get them to do the right 
thing. Fifty-two have already agreed, and hopefully we will get that 
60.

[[Page 21551]]


  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Mica), a member of the committee.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, my favorite book is entitled the Miracle at 
Philadelphia. It is a story of the development of this book called the 
Constitution of the United States. I highly recommend it to my 
colleagues. It outlines the development of the structure of our 
government that gives us the ability to debate, to act, this wonderful 
framework under which this Congress operates.
  This week, 212 years ago, our Founding Fathers finished this 
document. When they finished the structure, the next thing that they 
did was they immediately passed 10 rights, fundamental rights for the 
people of this country.
  The first right, not the second, third, fourth or tenth, is the 
freedom of speech. There is only one thing wrong with Shays-Meehan. It 
shreds the Constitution and that first precious amendment. That is the 
basic flaw with Shays-Meehan.
  So our committee brought together reforms recommended by everyone, by 
the FEC, and others, things that are doable, things that are within the 
law, within the Constitution, and within the framework of our 
government. That is what we presented.
  Let me read what the ACLU says about this Thomas substitute:

       This substitute is far superior to Shays-Meehan in many 
     respects because of the absence of provisions that offend the 
     constitutional rights and that H.R. 417, Shays-Meehan, 
     contains the harshest and most unconstitutional controls on 
     issue advocacy groups.

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) congratulated 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan). The congratulations 
should have been listened to carefully. He said he has done a great job 
through the years. We can continue to do this. We can continue to make 
wonderful statements. We can continue to come up with a new idea, which 
is the most recent threat to the republic. It used to be PACs. Now it 
is soft money. It will be something else in the future. It will always 
be just beyond the horizon. It will always be an issue. That is fairly 
clear.
  I tell the gentleman from Virginia, I did not offer this substitute 
for cynical reasons. I offered it in case anybody really wanted to 
change the law. That is our chance tonight.
  The Democrats had a majority in the House, had a majority in the 
Senate, and had the Presidency from 1992 to 1994. What did they do? 
They did not change the law.
  We have an opportunity tonight in fundamental and real ways to change 
the election laws of this country. My colleagues can do it by voting 
for the Thomas substitute. If my colleagues want to make a political 
statement, as we have done year after year after year, I am sure the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) will take those 
congratulations of his efforts over the years. I would much rather 
change the law. We can do it tonight. Vote ``yes'' on the Thomas 
substitute.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, so we come to this hour. There will be a subsequent 
vote on final passage of Shays-Meehan, but this is the critical vote. 
This vote will determine whether years of hard work and commitment will 
be realized through the effective passage of legislation to reform 
campaign finance.
  Yes, there is another day for the Thomas substitute. It is a 
noncontroversial piece of legislation. But it is not campaign finance 
reform, although it has some aspects of that. It is, in fact, reform of 
the process of the FEC. That process needs reforming. I would even ask 
perhaps for unanimous consent that we place this on the consent 
calendar tomorrow. I will not do that, but I suggest that it could 
happen.
  Now, at this late hour, before day's end, before the clock strikes 
12, we can pass meaningful campaign finance reform. But in order to do 
that, we must reject the Thomas legislation, which, as the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Davis) clearly posited, was a device to defeat a bill 
that the Chairman does not like. I accept that. But no one ought to 
misunderstand what the Thomas substitute is, a device to defeat Shays-
Meehan.
  It ought, therefore, to be rejected, so that we can honestly fulfill 
the Speaker's pledge, which was a pledge to vote on Shays-Meehan, not 
merely to bring it to the floor so that opponents could, by some 
procedural device, dispose of it before we had a chance to vote on it. 
But let us, as we were elected to do, make a decision. Let us vote on 
Shays-Meehan, and say to the American people ``This is where we stand 
on preventing soft money, on precluding sham ads, and on providing for 
a system that is more open and more fair to the American public,'' so 
that the cynicism that now abounds can, to some degree at least, be 
diminished, and the American public can have more faith in their 
political system and, yes, in us.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Thomas substitute and a ``yes'' vote on 
Shays-Meehan, which is meaningful, important, campaign finance reform.

                              {time}  2310

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173, 
noes 256, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 421]

                               AYES--173

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Walden
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--256

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks

[[Page 21552]]


     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Hastings (FL)
     Kingston
     Pryce (OH)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shaw

                              {time}  2330

  Mr. WYNN and Mr. GOODLING changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hobson, Chairman 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. 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, 
pursuant to House Resolution 283, he reported the bill back to the 
House with sundry amendments 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 any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the 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 (Mr. LaHood). 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.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 252, 
nays 177, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 422]

                               YEAS--252

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     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
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--177

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Vitter
     Walden
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page 21553]]



                             NOT VOTING--5

     Hastings (FL)
     Kingston
     Pryce (OH)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shaw

                              {time}  2347

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

                          ____________________