[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1291-1419]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 344, the House 
now resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2356.

                              {time}  1048


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2356) to

[[Page 1292]]

amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide bipartisan 
campaign reform, with Mr. LaHood in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is going to be a long debate today, and tonight, and I do 
believe that is good. The legislation we are debating is extremely 
important. The last time this Congress passed significant campaign 
finance reform legislation was 27 years ago. We could be living with 
the consequences of any bill we pass today for decades to come. That is 
important, I think, for the challengers across this Nation, the men and 
women who want to aspire to be able to speak on the floor of this 
House. So what we are doing is important for our energetic give and 
take of public debate.
  Today, as in any debate, a lot of claims are going to be made about 
the various bills and amendments. I think right at the outset, before 
we get under way, we ought to define our terms. We are going to hear a 
lot tonight about a ban--let me repeat that, a ban--on soft money. 
According to Webster's dictionary, to ban means to prohibit the use, 
performance or distribution of. In politics, we often contort language, 
but I would like to make it plain and clear, the bill under 
consideration today, H.R. 2356, the Shays-Meehan bill, does not ban 
soft money under any definition or under any stretch of the 
imagination. I am certain that we will hear otherwise from some of our 
colleagues today, but the fact is anyone who tells you that this 
version, I believe this is the fourth version of what I call an altered 
state of a piece of legislation, that this version of Shays-Meehan bans 
soft money is simply not telling you the truth and is not being 
accurate.
  It could be argued that previous versions of Shays-Meehan did ban 
soft money. H.R. 380, the bill the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) introduced 
last January, and the versions of Shays-Meehan approved by this House 
in years past, did ban soft money donations to political parties. I 
would argue that even those bills were not real, true soft money bans 
because they did nothing to restrict how unions, corporations and 
wealthy individuals spent soft money. Those bills did ban soft money 
donations, but not soft money expenditures. So whether or not earlier 
Shays-Meehan bills really banned soft money could be debated.
  What cannot be debated, however, is the simple fact that this newest 
version of Shays-Meehan fails to ban soft money, again under any 
definition. It cannot even be seriously argued that H.R. 2356 bans soft 
money. Anyone who claims that it does is either deliberately 
misrepresenting the facts, or they just do not know what is in this new 
piece of legislation.
  The difference between H.R. 2356 and the previous versions of Shays-
Meehan is that H.R. 2356 now permits political parties to accept soft 
money donations. Even if this bill were to be adopted today, unions, 
corporations and wealthy individuals could still donate massive amounts 
of soft money to State and local political parties. These donations are 
permitted up to $10,000 and can be made to every State and local party 
in the country. With over 3,000 counties in the United States, this 
means that a corporation or a union, or Enron, because we have talked 
about that a lot in the last couple of weeks for emotional purposes, 
could donate up to $30 million to one political party provided they 
spread it around the country. If somebody wanted to give to both 
parties, they could give up to $60 million, provided they spread it 
around the country.
  We are going to hear a lot of talk about Enron today and how the 
Enron debacle demonstrates the need for campaign finance reform. There 
are two things to say about that. Even if this bill had been law, it 
would not have prevented the Enron collapse. Unfortunately, I have had 
constituents that have called me up and said, is it true what I am 
hearing on TV, what is being insinuated, that people's money could have 
been saved from the terrible things that the corporate top of the 
ladder did to people? This bill, if passed, would not have changed 
that. Let us not fool the American public to make them think that 
people could get their money back. All the money that Enron gave could 
still have been given even if this bill were law.
  Some will say, well, they could not have given it to the national 
parties. Ask yourself, does it really matter? If a company wants to 
influence the political process by spreading a lot of money around, 
does it really matter if the money is given to a national party instead 
of a State party? Are we to believe that if a company was giving 
millions of dollars in contributions to a political party, its 
influence would somehow be diminished because it spread the money 
around to a lot of State parties instead of simply giving it to a 
national party? I do not think so. All this bill does is spread soft 
money around the country. It redirects it. It does not ban it.
  This bill also imposes a number of serious restrictions of political 
speech. It prevents an organization from spending its own money 
promoting a message its members believe in if they happen to mention a 
candidate in the 60 days before an election. That is not America. That 
is not free speech. Whether it is the left, the middle or the right, 
people should not be gagged in this country, and they are gagged under 
this bill.
  Supporters of the bill will argue that they do not restrict free 
speech at all, they simply require that it be funded with hard dollars. 
Let there be no mistake, this bill, the Shays-Meehan bill, burdens free 
expression and free speech. To claim that it is not a burden is to 
simply misrepresent the facts of this bill.
  It has been said that to give people a right to unlimited freedom of 
expression while limiting the amount they can spend promoting their 
message is like telling someone they can drive as far as they want, but 
they can only spend a certain amount on gasoline to get them there. 
Well, telling people they can speak as much as they want so long as 
they use hard money is like telling people they can drive as far as 
they want, but they can only buy one gallon of gas at a time. Even 
worse, it is like telling them they cannot use their own money to buy 
the gas, but can only use money that they are able to raise from people 
they run into along the way. Could it really be argued that such 
burdens did not restrict travel? I do not think so. But proponents of 
the Shays-Meehan legislation want to put similar burdens on free speech 
and then claim they have not restricted free speech. It is obviously 
simply not accurate.
  This is going to be a long debate today. I look forward to it. As we 
proceed, I hope Members will listen to the substance of the provisions 
being put forward. Shays-Meehan has retained the brand name, but the 
quality of the product has totally changed. Today we are going to have 
a good opportunity to debate and consider what this legislation would 
actually do. I look forward to that debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) may each control 7 minutes of the time allocated to me and that 
they may yield such time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have great respect for my chairman, and great affection for him as 
well, but we disagree on this piece of legislation. On the one hand he 
says that Shays-Meehan does not do much. On the other hand his leader, 
the Speaker of the House, says that it is Armageddon for those who rely 
on soft money to perpetuate their power.

[[Page 1293]]

  Mr. Chairman, the long road to victory on campaign finance reform has 
not been paved with ease. But as Woodrow Wilson once remarked, 
``Nothing is worthwhile that is not hard.'' And so it is today in this 
our third vote in 4 years on real, meaningful campaign finance reform.
  We have passed virtually identical versions of this Shays-Meehan bill 
twice before by overwhelming bipartisan votes, 252-179 in 1998 and 252-
177 in 1999. But today's vote, which comes only after a discharge 
petition, led by my friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), 
permitted this issue to come to the floor over the objections of the 
Republican leadership, this day is clearly the most important yet. 
Unlike in years past, the other body already has passed nearly 
identical legislation. Thus, the enactment of meaningful campaign 
finance reform is within our sights this day.
  This issue, like the issue of election reform, which the Senate 
hopefully will soon take up, strikes at the very core of our 
participatory democracy. When the typical American, the man or woman 
who works hard every day, pays their taxes and raises their children, 
hears about campaign contributions and the tens of thousands or even 
hundreds of thousands of dollars, they cannot help but wonder, has 
democracy passed me by? Has democracy been reduced to a form of 
government of and by and for the most affluent?
  Make no mistake, I reject the cynical and, I believe, false notion 
that contributions and policy decisions are inevitably linked. But none 
of us could be so naive as to reject the infrequent reality and the too 
frequent appearance of such a relationship. Every one of us recognizes 
that in public life, appearances are as important many times as 
reality. One five-letter word ought to crystallize the point for us. 
The chairman is right. Enron. None of us knows for certain whether that 
Texas energy company received any special treatment because of its 
enormous campaign contributions, from either party, but I am confident 
that congressional investigations and our regulatory and legal 
processes will get to the bottom of that.
  But there is no denying these facts: When Enron began to implode, its 
calls to officials at the highest level of our national government did 
not go unanswered. And, when the Bush administration began to draft its 
energy policy, it rolled out the red carpet for Enron's participation.
  In and of themselves, these facts mean little. But the American 
people have every reason and every right to wonder, did Enron receive 
special treatment because of its contributions? Even the Supreme Court 
of the United States has recognized that we cannot ignore appearances. 
In Buckley v. Valeo, it upheld campaign contribution limits because 
they serve the government's compelling interest in protecting the 
integrity of elections by preventing even the appearance of 
impropriety.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the appearance that something is 
fundamentally wrong with our campaign finance system has clearly 
reached the boiling point, and thus Shays-Meehan is not only necessary, 
it is essential. This legislation, in short, will ban so-called soft 
money contributions to the national political parties and prohibit soft 
money from being used for sham issue ads by third-party groups that 
most of us would agree are nothing more than campaign ads. While this 
legislation will clearly reorder the ways in which candidates and 
parties finance campaigns, it is a modest but crucial investment in our 
participatory democracy.
  We are the role model for democracy in the world.

                              {time}  1100

  We have learned that we cannot take our democratic values for granted 
and we cannot be so naive as to believe that the appearances do not 
matter. As we seek to expand democracy's reach abroad, it is only 
fitting that we strengthen her foundation at home. That is precisely, 
precisely, what this legislation is intended to do.
  Because it is so critical, I urge every one of my colleagues to 
support this legislation this day. Its time has come.
  Mr. Chairman, I am glad to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), who has been such a leader in this 
effort.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, this House today has a historic opportunity 
to end the influence of big money on public policy making. Today we are 
going to have the opportunity to vote on a bill, the Shays-Meehan bill, 
H.R. 2356, that has been worked on for many months in an effort to try 
to craft a bill that not only will pass this House, but that will be 
acceptable to the United States Senate, where they have already passed 
a strong campaign finance reform bill under the leadership of Senator 
McCain and Senator Feingold.
  Let there be no mistake about what is going on on this floor today: 
we have heard reference in the opening remarks to a bill that will be 
offered that will be purported and suggested to be ``superior'' to the 
Shays-Meehan proposal.
  There should be no mistake about it: whether the bill is better or 
worse, the bill will never see the light of day, because the purpose of 
those who seek to amend or substitute the Shays-Meehan bill today, 
their purpose is to be sure that the bill they pass is not acceptable 
to the Senate, where it will be relegated to a conference committee, 
which will be a black hole of certain death to the bill because the 
Speaker of the House, who has designated this Shays-Meehan legislation 
as Armageddon, would have the authority to appoint the conferees to 
that conference committee. You can be well assured that the conferees 
that are appointed will be opposed to true campaign reform, and once 
again this Congress will have failed to return the power of this House 
to the people of this country and to get it out of the hands of the 
special interests.
  We have passed campaign finance reform in this House before in the 
last Congress and the Senate failed to pass it. This year the Senate 
passed it first, and it is our job to pass it now.
  Support true campaign reform today, the Shays-Meehan bill, and oppose 
these efforts to kill it.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished deputy chief whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
and I look forward to this debate today. I think this debate will in 
all likelihood produce a result, whether that result is out of 
conference or from the floor today. Those who suggest that a conference 
would not work, I think, overlook the desire that the President has, 
that others have, to have campaign finance reform.
  The idea that we would file a bill at 11 o'clock or so last night, 
that I think is substantially different from the bill that was filed a 
year ago, and we would be told on the floor today that really this 
cannot be improved, that any amendment is a killer amendment, or a 
conference is a bad thing, we take very important pieces of legislation 
to conference and usually they benefit from that conference. Certainly 
the White House can be more involved in a conference than they would 
ever be involved in debate on the floor.
  This is a bill that for weeks and months now we have talked about a 
bill that would, I think, the phrase, the term of art, is ban unlimited 
soft money. The truth is, there are plenty of soft-money loopholes in 
this bill. Banning unlimited soft money sounds like you are really 
doing something, when maybe you are not doing that at all.
  There is a loophole of about $60 million, where you could give money 
to all the political organizations in the country, the State parties, 
the county parties, the legislative district parties. This is a huge 
loophole in this bill where soft money is still involved. There is the 
ability to build buildings with soft money. There is the ability to do 
all kinds of things with soft money; and at the same time we hear that 
somehow soft money is corrupting.
  Well, let us accept that premise as we debate today, for at least 
part of the debate. If soft money is bad, it is all bad. We all know 
that money can go

[[Page 1294]]

from account to account. If soft money is corrupting, why would we want 
to have an exception so that the Democratic National Committee could 
build a building with soft money? We do not want them to have a 
building that has been corrupted by the influence of soft money.
  If soft money is corrupting, why would we allow in the bill that was 
filed last night soft money to be used to pay off loans from this 
election cycle? Pages 78 and 79 of this bill, there is a huge problem 
in this bill, because it opens the door wide for soft money today. Not 
only does it not ban soft money in the future, but it opens the door 
absolutely for spending soft money in this election cycle we are in 
right now.
  Maybe that was misdrafted. Maybe that is a mistake. I would like for 
somebody to come to the floor and explained what those pages mean, 
because when you read them, it appears they mean you can borrow hard 
money today, spend it for hard-money purposes, and, on November 6, pay 
off that loan with soft money.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, no, you cannot do that. That is illegal 
under the present law, and it would be illegal if this bill passed. All 
this says is if there are bills that come in after the deadline, you 
can pay those bills in accordance with Federal law. So if there was a 
soft-money bill that could only be paid for with soft money, you could 
pay it before the January 1 date. The same is true for hard money.
  But you could not borrow hard money and then pay it off with soft 
money. That would be illegal.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I know my friend from 
Massachusetts has worked hard on this bill. He has had a bill in the 
past on the floor that is much tougher than this bill, that did have a 
total ban on soft money. It had the ability to audit campaign accounts 
at random. It had some stiff criminal penalties. Those are gone from 
this bill.
  What you intended to do and what you did may have been two different 
things. I am told they are two different things. On November 6, in 
fact, you could take the soft money you had on hand and pay off any 
past debts you had, no matter what purpose those past debts were 
incurred for.
  To open the door totally to soft money in the cycle we are in is even 
worse than postponing the date to begin the bill. We cannot let that 
happen. We cannot talk about a soft-money ban for months and then bring 
a bill to the floor at midnight that does just the opposite. I am very 
concerned about that. I am sure it is going to be widely debated today.
  The gentleman will have plenty of time to look at the specific 
language with his attorneys and respond to the problem that I think 
this bill that was filed last night creates in just being totally at 
odds with what we have said this bill would do or what proponents of 
the bill said it would do for over a year.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, so 
basically the gentleman is saying all of the Members who have opposed 
reform, abolishing soft money, now say they want it in effect right now 
right away? Is that what the gentleman is suggesting?
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, that is not what I am suggesting at all.
  Mr. MEEHAN. If we are going to do a campaign finance bill, the people 
who have opposed reform now say, well, if we are really going to do it, 
let us put it in effect right away?
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there will be an 
amendment that says that. There will be an amendment that says if there 
is bad, let us go ahead and eliminate it, and let us eliminate all of 
it. I will be voting for that amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), a member of the Committee on 
House Administration.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan Shays-
Meehan campaign finance bill.
  Against all odds, with the persistence and tenacity of the sponsors 
and with the skill of my ranking member, I believe that this House 
today is going to rise in a bipartisan fashion and pass this bill, 
oppose the amendments that would cause it to end up, as so many other 
attempts in the past have ended up, not coming to full fruition; and we 
are going to give President Bush, who promised on the campaign trail 
that he was a reformer with results, an opportunity to put the 
Presidential signature on a bill that would indeed ban unlimited soft 
money and move elections back to a democratic process, have elections 
be elections, rather than auctions.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that in our country, the work of the Congress 
today is going to go a long way in terms of restoring confidence in our 
form of government.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, we are strong proponents of campaign 
finance reform. Do not let anybody say we are not. We want to 
dramatically enhance the opportunity for voters to be empowered so they 
can make the right decision. But I think it is important for us to go 
back to the founding.
  In 1787, we saw three of our framers, James Madison, Alexander 
Hamilton and John Jay, write under a nom de plum, in fact, not full 
disclosure, under the name of Publius, the Federalist Papers, and they 
had a very interesting debate about what it is that generates the 
interests of people.
  In Federalist No. 10, James Madison talked about political faction, 
how the opportunity for people to come together and demonstrate their 
interests is something that is a fact of life. In fact, he said in 
Federalist No. 10, ``Faction is to governing like air is to fire.''
  So we have these attempts being made by some to impose 
extraordinarily onerous regulations on the American people, 
jeopardizing their opportunity to come together and pursue a political 
interest that they have, that a shared group has; and I believe that it 
is wrong. I believe it is wrong to impose those kinds of regulations.
  I do believe also, Mr. Chairman, that we need to realize that we have 
a very important constitutional responsibility here, and that is to go 
through the process of lawmaking.
  The way it works is the United States House of Representatives passes 
a bill, the United States Senate passes a bill; they go to a House-
Senate conference to make sure that they can reconcile those 
differences. We have a bicameral legislature. The Senate has already 
passed this measure. The House should work its will, not marching in 
lockstep.
  People have talked about how a conference would jeopardize this 
fragile coalition for reform. Well, what it does is if they try to 
simply go without a conference, they are jeopardizing the opportunity 
for the White House, the President of the United States, who wants to 
bring about meaningful reforms, to have his say; and it is jeopardizing 
the opportunity for us to work our legislative will.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to do everything that we possibly can to ensure 
that we bring about true reform.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, if James Madison could see the $4 million in 
unregulated soft money that went from Enron to both political parties, 
if James Madison could see that 70 percent of the soft money from Enron 
since 1995 went to both political parties, if James Madison could see 
the $1.7 million in the last election cycle, he would be rolling over 
in his grave.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Ms. Rivers), who has been an advocate for campaign 
finance reform since she got to the House of Representatives.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker mentioned the 
Constitution, and I think it is important that we collectively take a 
look at what constitutional case law tells us what Congress can do as 
it addresses campaign finance reform.

[[Page 1295]]

  Congress can prohibit the use of corporate treasury funds and union 
dues money in Federal elections. Congress can limit contributions to 
candidates, parties and political committees. Congress can pass laws to 
combat actual corruption and the appearance of corruption. Congress can 
require disclosure of the source and size of certain kinds of spending 
and most contributions. Congress can regulate coordinated expenditures, 
though thwart attempts to circumvent existing election law.
  In short, constitutionally Congress has many tools available to it to 
regulate campaign finance reform. The Supreme Court has spoken on this 
issue. Shays-Meehan does no more than what the Supreme Court has 
already endorsed as tools for Congress to use.
  The Shays-Meehan bill is constitutional, and it is absolutely needed. 
I urge support.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who has fought for democracy and 
voting rights probably more than anybody in this body.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Shays-Meehan bill. Now is the time for us to do what is right. It is 
time to remove the corrupting influence of soft money from the 
political process. It is time to open up the political process and let 
the average person come in and participate. It is time to let all of 
our citizens have an equal voice.
  We must pass Shays-Meehan to lessen the people's growing cynicism. 
Soft money and big campaign contributions have polluted the political 
process. When people give $50,000 or $100,000 to candidates, they 
expect something, and, most of the time, they get something for it. We 
are sending the wrong message to the American people. It is time for us 
to enact real reform. It is time to restore the people's faith in their 
government.
  This bill is good for America. It is not just good for the political 
parties, for Democrats and Republicans, it is good for our country.
  There is too much money in politics. Political candidates should not 
be up for sale to the highest bidder. Too many of us spend too much of 
our time dialing for dollars. We should not be elected this way. This 
should not be the essence of our democracy.
  I did not march across the bridge at Selma on March 7, 1965, and 
almost lose my life to become part of a political system so corrupt 
that it pollutes the very idea of what we marched for. That is not why 
President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a better way. Shays-Meehan is a better way. It 
is not a cure-all. It is not a panacea. But it is a significant and 
extraordinary step toward cleaning up the process and fixing this 
broken system.
  We have a mandate. We have a mission. We have an obligation to do 
this on our watch, on our time. We must pass Shays-Meehan today.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay), our whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I do not think there 
is one Member, Democrat, Republican, liberal, or conservative, that is 
corrupt in this House. I think what is corrupting in this House is the 
misinformation, especially the misinformation that we have heard over 
the last few weeks, incredible misinformation; misinformation, for 
instance, that we are in this bill banning soft money, we know that is 
not the truth; misinformation that it is not unconstitutional to stop 
people from exercising their right to be involved in the political 
process.
  Let me just point this out: Those who want to ban soft money, I 
appreciate that and respect it; I do not agree with it. Those who want 
to regulate through government the participation in the political 
process, I respect them trying to do that; I disagree with it. We ought 
to let the voters decide through instant disclosure to be able to tell 
and see while people are collecting their money and spending it to 
decide. We should be empowering voters, not government bureaucrats.
  But those that constantly say they are trying to ban soft money bring 
a bill to this floor that is seriously flawed and, in fact, creates new 
opportunities to raise soft money. It is misinformation like the 
previous speaker to say that hundreds of thousands of dollars are going 
straight to candidates. That is not the definition of soft money. Soft 
money is monies raised from corporations and others that go to 
political parties, and that is what they are attempting to do is to ban 
that money. But they are not doing it in this bill.
  Let me just read the bill. In the bill they first move the effective 
date until after the election, so they do not want to ban it for this 
election, because they have a bunch of it in the bank and they want to 
spend it. But they move it until after the election. Then it says in 
the bill, ``Prior to January 1, the committee may spend such funds to 
retire outstanding debts or obligations, both soft and hard money, that 
are incurred prior to such effective date, election date, so long as 
such debts and obligations were incurred solely in connection with an 
election held on or before November 5.''
  They want to be able to spend the soft money they already raised, and 
do we know how they do it? They want to be able to borrow hard money 
and soft money, and then after the election, between November 5 and 
January 1, there will be a huge stampede to raise all this corrupting 
soft money to pay off their loans. That is in the bill. That does not 
ban soft money. That creates a situation that requires more soft money 
and a huge move towards that soft money that they think is so 
corrupting.
  For the first time, we will be paying off hard money with soft money. 
I repeat that. We are paying off hard money with soft money, completely 
changing the situation and the way that we are doing it.
  Then, then they say that they want to limit the parties' 
participation in the election.
  This bill does not contain real reform. Instead, this bill strips 
citizens of their political rights and unconstitutionally attempts to 
regulate political speech.
  The primary protection of our first amendment is the right of average 
citizens to get together and to freely and fully criticize their 
government. Political speech is the key to political freedom, and 
Shays-Meehan would radically weaken our first amendment right by 
inappropriately and unwisely constraining the right to political 
speech. Shays-Meehan denies Americans, denies American citizens their 
fundamental right to criticize politicians for 2 months before the 
election.
  Now, we all know that the last days before an election are a very 
crucial period of political dialogue. That is when voters are really 
paying attention, and that is the precise reason that this incumbent 
protection scheme that is in the bill will suppress political speech 60 
days before Election Day. Shays-Meehan strengthens incumbents and makes 
it far harder for their constituents to hold them accountable.
  This is a sham. It shuts down the system, Mr. Chairman. It shuts down 
political speech. It shuts down the opportunity to participate in 
elections. In a country the size of the United States, an individual 
citizen has very little chance of joining the political debate without 
banding together with others, so by blocking citizens' groups from 
participating in days leading up to an election, Shays-Meehan removes a 
very vital tool that citizens can use to hold elected officials 
accountable.
  This is Swiss cheese. It is full of holes. It does not do what the 
authors want. It is like a fine wine that does not get better with age, 
it just rots.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, and then I intend 
to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. Chairman, just to correct the inaccuracies of the previous 
speaker, we say 60 days to an election, you have to use hard money 
contributions. We limit no speech. We just say you cannot do it with 
corporate treasury

[[Page 1296]]

money, union dues money, or unlimited money from individuals. The 
effective date begins November 6 because we are 16 months already into 
this election. We already have primaries in process, and our bill 
basically has a 30-day provision in primaries.
  There is absolutely nothing in our bill, it is a red herring, that 
suggests one can use soft money to pay hard money obligations. It is 
against the law. We did not change that law.
  So, with all due respect to one who I think is really the best 
majority whip ever to be in this House, he is just dead wrong on all 
the issues he described.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  A lot of emotion in the House today, and there will be all through 
the day. This is the end of a long process, I believe, and the closer 
we get to finality, the higher the temperature gets. So let us try to 
stay calm and look at these issues.
  A lot of discussion about Enron. I agree: Enron would not have 
changed, I do not think, even if our bill had been signed into law. It 
was an auditing, business scandal. There is no evidence it is a 
campaign finance scandal, but that does not mean that it should not 
point out the need for reform, because other corporations and large 
powerful groups in this country will try to use these large 
contributions to influence us, and they have, and they do, and they 
will, and it needs to stop. It is a loophole. This is the best effort 
in a generation to bring about change.
  There is an old saying that the devil is in the details. It is a 
matter of history now that on this issue, because it affects the 
majorities, it affects the parties, and it affects our own reelection; 
it is not the devil in the details, it is death in the details, and 
that is why the only way to bring this about is to work through these 
debates and to keep some kind of bipartisan coalition together to do 
this.
  Now, it is a weird marriage between certain people here in the House, 
but we need to transcend the divisions between the parties and put the 
voters, the taxpayers, and the people ahead of the parties.
  There are about 250 people in this House that have now agreed over 
and over again on the principles that are in this bill. There is going 
to be a lot of noise about these details that we have worked through to 
bring us to this point. People who say that money is speech need to 
understand, if that is true, there are a lot of people in this country 
that cannot be heard. Money is not speech. We need to stand up for the 
first amendment and treat these groups and these people playing 
politics in elections the same as the candidates themselves. That is 
the underlying message, and that is what this legislation actually 
does. They can talk until they are blue in the face or wrap themselves 
in the first amendment all they want to. This bill is fair to everyone, 
and we need to consider it and pass it today.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in strong opposition to Shays-Meehan today, principally, 
because of the oath of office that I took, flanked by my three small 
children a little over a year ago, right over there. That oath of 
office charged me with upholding and defending the Constitution of the 
United States of America.
  Now, the gentleman from Massachusetts quoted James Madison. James 
Madison, the Father of the Constitution, wrote very simple words: The 
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Now, last 
night I was involved in the debate on the rule, and I went back to our 
home in the Washington area, and my 10-year-old son, who had just 
finished his first unit on the Constitution of the United States, said, 
undoubtedly biased, Dad, you were right, because I just read that 
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
  Now, as much as that meant to me as a dad for my 10-year-old son to 
say that I was right, I truly believe I am right. The Supreme Court 
agrees with me and my 10-year-old son, saying recently that first 
amendment activity applies no less to independent expression by 
individuals or political committees than it does to political parties, 
and the truth is that Shays-Meehan bars individuals and organizations 
from their first amendment rights during 2 months prior to an election.
  I suspect that my friends on my side, and on the other side of the 
aisle, know this may be found to be true, and that is why there has 
been strong opposition in this Chamber and the other to allowing a 
nonseverability provision to this measure.
  Even though I will oppose this bill, Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that 
we can change it, that we can fix it, we can close those soft money 
loopholes. I will support an amendment to ban all soft money from the 
process, which Shays-Meehan does not do, and I will also vote to ban 
the use of soft money for building political party buildings or paying 
off debt this fall.
  The truth is, this bill is good for incumbents, bad for democracy; 
good for bureaucracy, bad for liberty. Vote ``no'' on Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  This bill does not prevent any individual, any individual or any 
groups of individuals, from speaking out 60 days before an election. 
They simply have to use hard money, and the public has a right to know 
where that money comes from under the Supreme Court decision and under 
the Constitution. There is no way it stops anyone.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Eshoo). She and I came to the Congress together in 1993, and she 
has been a forceful, eloquent spokesperson for campaign finance reform.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to salute the authors of 
this bill for their courage, for their vision, and for their tenacity.
  Today is the day in this House of Representatives. I think that the 
eyes of the Nation are really on us. They want to see if we are going 
to step over the line and say that we are going to do something for 
democracy. This is about democracy, and it is about respecting the 
voice of the people.

                              {time}  1130

  Every election both parties try to get people to go out and vote. We 
try to inspire them with our ideas for a better future, not only for 
themselves and our country but for our world. Fewer and fewer and fewer 
people are going out to vote. Why? Because they think their voice does 
not count.
  Today's newspaper says that the voices in the Republican caucus that 
vote for the real Shays-Meehan bill are going to be punished. We cannot 
tolerate this. This is not good for democracy. Have the courage to vote 
for the best in America, for our system that is the bright shining 
light of the world. Vote for the only real meaningful campaign finance 
reform bill, Shays-Meehan, McCain-Feingold. Send it to the President. 
We will be ahead, America. And we will be judged for it.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  If my colleagues will read the New York Post, they adequately point 
out that the New York Times editorial asking people to call their 
Members of Congress would be illegal, illegal under Shays-Meehan, if it 
were put into a radio or TV advertisement 60 days before the election. 
But you can use all the soft money in the world you want for newspaper 
print.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I was actually a little 
taken aback by my friend, the previous speaker, when she talked about 
the voice of the people not being heard because of all this soft money 
in politics. The fact of the matter is when you collate elections, you 
will find out that the more money that gets spent on campaigns, whether 
it is on the ground or on the air, it drives up the turnout, not lowers 
turnouts. We can show you

[[Page 1297]]

election after election where you have bigger spending campaigns and it 
drives turnout and voter interest, and you get better penetration with 
the electorate. So, I think that issue does not wash.
  This legislation is not about candidates. It really does not affect 
the way most individuals will run their own race or raise money as 
Members of Congress. What it does is affect political parties. If you 
believe as I do that political parties have been a very, very important 
part of the American political system, have, in fact, strengthened 
American democracy, a two party system in my judgement is something 
that has stabilized American democracy and keeps us much different from 
other countries.
  This drives a lot of money away from the political parties and puts 
them out into the system to interest groups, basically the right and 
the left. Political parties tend to center the American political 
debate, which I think is a good thing.
  For moderation, this legislation is the death knell because instead 
of candidates, independent members within each party being able to 
appeal to their political party, they have to appeal to interest groups 
to help make up funding gaps that may occur in these particular 
elections.
  But what concerns me the most is the bait and switch we see in this 
legislation before us. Written under the dead of night, we see a new 
substitute, Shays-Meehan IV, V, VI, I do not know which number this is. 
I refer specifically to title IV, severability effective date, section 
402 section B(1) where it says, ``Prior to January 1, 2003 the 
committee,'' meaning the political party committees, NRCC, DCCC, ``can 
spend funds for retiring outstanding debts or obligations incurred 
prior to such effective date, so long as the debts were incurred solely 
in connection with an election date on or before November 5, 2002.''
  What this means is under this legislation which displaces existing 
legislation pertaining to this, and there is no other language in this 
substitute that would replace the language in existing law, it means 
that political parties could borrow hard dollars in this year's 
election cycle and replace them with soft dollars that they could 
raise. So soft dollars can basically pay for hard-dollar borrowing.
  This is exactly opposite of what this legislation is intended to do. 
I do not know if the authors understand what is written in this. We 
have counsel opinions that we will enter into the Record later.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, this legislation does not allow somebody to 
borrow hard money and then pay it back in soft money. In fact, no one 
can raise any soft money under this bill after the next election. So 
what the gentleman is saying just simply is not true.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, one could use their 
building fund which is specifically protected under this to 
collateralize a loan which is soft dollars, which can collateralize a 
loan and come back and pay it back. That is what we can do under this 
legislation. I will be happy to have further discussions with the 
gentleman. I hope it is his intent to say that hard dollars have to be 
replaced with hard dollars. I hope that we can get additional 
statements on the record. But this language does not say that.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I will explain to the gentleman that this bill was not written in the 
dead of night. It was introduced last year. It was brought before the 
House before 10 o'clock. And it is very clear what it does. It enforces 
the 1907 law and the 1947 law and the 1974 law, all of which are 
constitutional.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gracious gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, today the House of Representatives has a 
historic opportunity to take a stand, a strong stand against the 
corrupting influence of big money campaign contributions with passage 
of the Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Reform Bill. I just really must 
applaud the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for their tireless efforts for a more 
responsive and responsible campaign finance system.
  The Senate has taken action. It is now up to this body to once again 
pass real reforming that will bring an end to the corruption and 
cynicism that surrounds public service because of the obscene amounts 
of money and soft money that have found its way into the political 
process.
  Think about it. Soft money has been at the heart of every political 
or corporate scandal over the past decade. Enron is currently the 
poster child for campaign finance reform; but even before Enron became 
a household word, the need for reform was just as great. Political fund 
raising records were shattered during the 2000 elections and soft-money 
contributions rose to more than $450 million, nearly double the $231 
million raised in the 1995-96 cycle, more than five times raised in 
1991-92.
  It invites corruption. It erodes confidence in government. Let us 
pass Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) has 6\1/4\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 2\3/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) has 
4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman and from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of campaign reform and in 
opposition to Shays-Meehan. There is no doubt we do need to change some 
things about the campaign process. We should, number one, have full and 
complete reporting disclosure. There is no reason why it could not be 
on the Internet; whenever dollars are contributed within 24 hours, it 
would be reported. We should require that every dollar spent in the 
political process should be voluntarily spent, voluntarily contributed. 
Right now every dollar I raise is a check written by somebody who has 
contributed to my campaign. Yet there are millions of union workers who 
have to have their money, their contributions automatically withdrawn 
from their pay check and used to support candidates for which they do 
not vote for or support.
  Thomas Jefferson said, ``It is tyrannical and sinful to force a man 
to contribute to political views for which he disagrees.''
  Shays-Meehan does nothing to reform this tyranny. It also does do 
some reforms. It does reform the campaign laws. It forms campaign 
dollars into pork for special interests. Let me name one of them. This 
bill restricts soft money and third parties from using their monies for 
free speech through the broadcast media 60 days before election. No 
soft money for 60 days in television, radio, or cable; but it does 
allow it in the print media.
  Well, it is no wonder that the New York Times, USA Today, even the 
Winfield Courier, Winfield, KS, supports Shays-Meehan because it 
affects their bottom line. It is pork for papers, pork for newspapers. 
Well, that kind of reform is not what we need in the political process.
  It also does not regulate gutter politics. In 1996 unregulated, 
unreported dollars were used in my campaign to make phone calls to 
women in the Fourth Congressional District in Kansas to say I allowed 
my daughter to pose for sexually provocative photos. My daughter was 14 
years old at that time. She was crushed. She was devastated. She could 
not go to school. And there is nothing in this bill that you are 
proposing for reform to stop that kind of gutter politics.
  It does not reform the campaign laws where you need to reform it. 
Instead, you come up with this pork for papers and other inequities and 
limits in free speech. So I think it is a very inadequate bill, Mr. 
Chairman. It merely

[[Page 1298]]

shifts where the political dollars will be spent. It does not regulate 
completely, especially in the area of gutter politics. And it gives 
special interests, the newspapers, a financial benefit through the 
campaign process. Pork for newspapers.
  I suggest that we vote against the Shays-Meehan bill, and I say we 
vote for the Armey substitute and bring true reform to the campaign 
process.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Shays-Meehan Campaign 
Finance Reform.
  This was the first bill I co-sponsored after emerging from the most 
expensive House race in the history of this institution. This bill 
basically comes down to a single question and a single proposition, and 
that is, do we wish to allow special interests to spend unlimited 
amounts of money anonymously right before an election, or do we believe 
the American people are entitled to know who is spending the money to 
influence the outcomes of elections right when the election is coming 
up?
  That is what this all boils down to. There is no first amendment 
issue here. Everything is permitted. All speech is permitted under 
Shays-Meehan. The question is does it need to be disclosed who is 
paying the freight. And notwithstanding all the protests from the 
opposition that is making the arguments today this bill is too strong. 
It is too weak. It goes too far. It does not go far enough. Me thinks 
the opposition doth protest too much.
  The fact of the matter is the opposition to Shays-Meehan like it the 
way it is. They want special interests to be able to spend what they 
will, when they will, and not disclose who they are. That is wrong and 
today we have the chance to change it. Support Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) 
for yielding me time.
  We are told the purpose of this legislation is to lessen the 
influence of corporations on the political process.
  We are told that James Madison would not recognize the system we have 
today. I would submit that James Madison would be appalled if he knew 
of the blatant inconsistencies we have in the bill.
  Corporations cannot spend their treasury money in the last 60 days of 
an election. However, if you consider that the parent company of CNN 
spent $2 billion in soft money last year, yet they will be able to 
speak during the last 60 days of an election unabated. They have a 
media exemption. The parent company of ABC spent $1 million last year 
in soft money to both parties; NBC nearly a half million dollars; CBS, 
23,000; Fox nearly 700,000. Yet these entities will be able to speak 
within the last 60 days like nobody else.
  If you wonder why the big media corporations support this legislation 
it is because they will be the only one ones standing after this is 
passed. If that is not inconsistent, what is? Now, are the supporters 
of this legislation blind to this? I would submit they are not.
  Just a few months ago supporters of this legislation were pushing for 
hearings on the fact that one of the parent companies of NBC tried to 
weigh in with NBC on when to call the election for one of the 
candidates in Florida. If that is not a conflict of interest, what is? 
We have got to recognize that you cannot treat one corporation 
differently than another.
  This is just one of the problems with the bill, and I would urge a 
``no'' vote.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I just point out we are trying to enforce the 1907 law banning the 
corporate treasury money, the 1947 law banning union dues money, and 
the 1974 law which bans unlimited sums by one individual in a 
collective campaign and to enforce all three laws. You can still 
advertise 60 days prior to an election with hard money.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Leach).
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Shays-Meehan bill 
with some reluctance. It is too little, too late, too compromised. 
Nonetheless it represent a credible step to constraining one of the 
worst abuses in our current system, the rising tide of soft money.
  At issue is the shape of American democracy; at issue also is the 
shape of our political parties. There is a question of balance of power 
between the parties, but shape matters too. Do we want our parties 
dependent on the big and powerful or the individual citizen?
  The system needs reform; so do the parties. In a new-fangled world, 
what is needed is old-fashioned politics, old-fashioned political 
parties, old-fashioned people-oriented representation. The case for 
Shays-Meehan is imperfect, but it is also compelling.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), who has been a leader on campaign 
finance reform since he first arrived in January 1997.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Shays-Meehan bipartisan campaign finance reform bill. There has been a 
lot of debate, a lot of speculation on the floor of the House today as 
to who benefits under the bill. Is it Republicans, Democrats, labor 
unions, corporations, the media? The truth of the matter is we really 
do not know how this law is going to be used in the endless contest 
between the parties and all the competing interest groups; but the one 
thing we do know about this bill is it will reduce the amount of money 
that has infected and taken over politics, and it will begin to shift 
control back to the people for whose benefit this institution was 
founded. It will give them more control over the outcome of elections.
  This bill is not a panacea. It is not perfect. What it attempts to do 
is to close the two most gaping loopholes that exist in our campaign 
finance system today, the uncontrolled issue ads that are influencing 
the outcome of elections today and soft money.
  The story that was just told I found incredibly offensive about the 
ad that was used against a Republican Member of Congress, making up 
blatant lies about a member of his family. One of the best things we 
could do to protect the voters against that kind of trash is to force 
people to put their names on these ads because right now there are 
people running ads in this country on every end of the political 
spectrum that refuse to put their names on their ads.
  We had a hearing in which some of these groups said, if you force us 
to put our names on these political ads, we will not run the ads. Our 
response was what is wrong with that, if you are not willing to 
publicly associate yourself with the inflammatory and often deceitful 
content?
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, does the current Shays-Meehan bill require 
the signature or the identification of the sponsor?
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the Shays-
Meehan proposal subjects those people who attempt to influence the 
outcome of an election to the same requirements that congressional 
candidates face now when they spend money to influence the election. 
There will be meaningful full disclosure that will allow the voters to 
judge who is making the statement and I believe will force people to 
discontinue making these inflammatory, deceitful actions.
  The second point that this bill addresses is incredible proliferation 
of soft money. I think it is fair to say there are thousands of people 
who are being forced or choosing to make campaign contributions of 
unlimited amounts to both political parties, and this is not for good 
government.
  Soft money was created to support political parties to encourage 
people to get the vote out and that will continue under Shays-Meehan. 
It was not intended to take over control.

[[Page 1299]]

  I just want to conclude by saying the amount of soft money was $86 
million in 1992, $260 million in 1996; over half of a billion dollars 
in the year 2000, a half a billion dollars. We need to put a stop to 
that. We need to adopt this bill. It is for the good of the people. It 
is not for the good of a particular political party, and I urge my 
colleagues to adopt the Shays-Meehan bill.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder).
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis), who just spoke on his points. He made them all so 
equally well in committee. The question I asked is does this bill 
require that identification, and there is no evidence to me that it 
does.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a leader in campaign finance reform.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) 
has declared that this bill represents ``Armageddon'', the ``life or 
death'' of the Republican Party and the loss of control of the House. 
But the strange thing is that last session I heard one Member of the 
Democratic leadership make essentially the same claim in reverse, that 
Democrats would be assured defeat by passage of such legislation. Both 
cannot be right. Indeed, both are wrong.
  The truth is that a political party that cannot survive without 
unlimited amounts of unregulated contributions and hate ads does not 
deserve to govern. A vote for the bipartisan Shays-Meehan bill does not 
test loyalty to a party. It tests loyalty to meaningful democracy.
  Did my colleagues hear the story about the lobbyist who gave a 
million dollars to a political party in soft money donations and 
demanded absolutely nothing in return? Well, neither has anyone else. 
To avoid government of, by, and for the highest bidder, accept no 
substitute. There is only one alternative, the Shays-Meehan bipartisan 
proposal.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) for yielding me the time, and I do rise in support of the Shays-
Meehan legislation.
  I rise in support of this because I have watched elections in this 
country for a long time now, and I have seen the evolution from 
individuals running for office with knowledge as to who their 
contributors were to advertisements which are being run by outside 
groups without any acknowledgment as to exactly who they are. There 
might be names on the ad, but that was the extent of it. Who 
contributed to it, exactly what it is they represent, all these 
nebulous figures out there, we cannot do anything about; and I think 
frankly we have to do it, and the best way to do it is to ban soft 
money.
  I wish we were banning soft money entirely. We know we are not at the 
State level, but we are at the Federal level; and I think it is a step 
in the right direction and something we should do. I think that the 
hard money, so that we know who gave it, it is limited as to how much 
it is, is the way to go as far as future elections are concerned.
  I would also point out, and I have heard this question a lot, that 
this legislation does not ban voter guides in terms of how people voted 
and what the story may be with respect to that; and it also does not 
limit free speech. It only speaks to the source of money that pays for 
the speech.
  For all these reasons, I would encourage everyone to support the 
Shays-Meehan legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would announce the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ney) has 1\3/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays) has 30 seconds remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Meehan) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  This is going to be a long day. I think it will be a good day. I 
think we will have disagreements, but I think we can do it with 
graciousness.
  We are going to have three substitutes that come before us, the 
gentleman from Texas's (Mr. Armey) substitute, the gentleman from 
Ohio's (Mr. Ney) substitute, and the Shays-Meehan substitute. We are 
asking for a ``no'' vote on the first two substitutes and passage of 
the Shays-Meehan substitute; and then we will have 13 amendments 
brought before the House if, in fact, the Shays-Meehan substitute is 
the one that stands.
  We are trying to enforce the 1907 law banning corporate treasury 
money, the 1947 money banning union dues money, and enforce the 1974 
law banning unlimited sums of money. That is what our attempt is.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  We have a historic opportunity today, a historic opportunity to pass 
real campaign finance reform; and I want to thank the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) for the hard work he has put into this and my 
partner, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has worked 
diligently over the years. There are so many Republicans, the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) who did such a wonderful job on the floor. We are 
going to hear more from the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) as this 
debate goes on. So many Democrats who have stood together for campaign 
finance reform, our colleagues in the other body.
  What makes this unique is we understand campaign finance reform will 
die if we let this go to a conference committee. So we have 
preconferenced this bill over a period of the last year, making sure 
that Democrats and Republicans have equal footing, making sure that the 
Senate and the House negotiate in good faith so that we now have a 
wonderful opportunity to pass this bill and send it over to the Senate 
where it will still need 60 votes.
  Then we are going to send it over to the President, and the President 
has made it very clear to the Republican leadership and anyone else in 
this House, do not count on me to veto this bill. Why is it the 
President made it clear? Because this President knows what we all know, 
that there is a cloud over the Capitol and the White House because of 
this Enron scandal, and the American people are demanding that that 
cloud be removed by removing this soft money system that has had such a 
corrupting influence on the decisions that we make day in and day out, 
making good people do bad things. They want this removed and the 
President wants this removed, I am sure. I am sure that is why he will 
sign this bill.
  Let us join together today and have a good debate. But let everyone 
know, the other side that is trying to kill this bill does not have a 
philosophical perspective. They do not have a set of principles that 
are determining what amendments they offer. What they offer is anything 
they can think of to defeat this bill, anything that they can think of 
to send this bill to conference. It has gotten so wild over the other 
side that they are actually putting in a substitute that is a bill that 
we were working on a few years ago before we preconferenced.
  We have a unique opportunity. Let us join together and pass Shays-
Meehan.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry? Mr. Chairman, the 
Member says other Members have no principles. Is he not attacking them, 
and is that not grounds for having words taken down, by questioning the 
motivation of why Members vote?
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston) will read the quote, though, he will find that it was not----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) has expired.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if a Member says or casts aspersions as 
to

[[Page 1300]]

why other Members are voting, is that not a personal attack and, 
therefore, the words that we would have taken down ordinarily, by 
questioning their motivation?
  The CHAIRMAN. It is not proper for a Member to arraign the motives of 
another Member.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry?
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) yield for 
that purpose?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, no, sir.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is recognized.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) to respond to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, what I was referring to was the principles 
on the concept of campaign finance reform, the principles of the 
concept. That is what I referred to. That is what we are debating. It 
is not personal, it is substantive; and we are going to debate it till 
3 a.m. if we need to, and we are going to win in the end.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of our 
time to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the 
Democratic whip.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for yielding me the time and for his leadership on 
this important campaign finance reform and on electoral reform as well. 
I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), my colleague, 
for his tremendous leadership and that of the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for his, and the distinguished leadership of 
our leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), for bringing us 
to this very, very important and historic day.
  Today, we have an opportunity to achieve a great victory for the 
American people, to bring democracy back to them. Every one of us who 
serves in the Congress takes an oath of office to protect and defend 
the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and 
domestic. The corrosive and corrupting effect of special interests' big 
money in the political process is indeed a danger to our participatory 
democracy.
  This beautiful city in which we serve 200 years ago was built on a 
swamp and a swamp it is again today, a swamp of special interest money. 
Today we have the opportunity to drain that swamp. We have the 
opportunity to bring a more wholesome attitude to the Washington 
atmosphere, to Washington, D.C. We have an opportunity to create a new 
architecture of political fund-raising in our country which devolves to 
the grassroots, to the people from which power comes and where it 
belongs.

                              {time}  1200

  We have an opportunity today to send a valentine to the American 
people; to tell them they are important to us; that what they think 
matters to us; that they should have faith in government and they 
should have hope that the issues that they care about will have a fair 
shake and not be eclipsed by the blizzard, by the blizzard of special 
interest money in Washington, DC.
  A vote for the bipartisan Shays-Meehan bill, the only real campaign 
finance reform bill, will end, will end the corrosive influence of 
special interest money and level the playing field so that all 
Americans can participate and be heard.
  Mr. Chairman, imagine a situation where we clear the deck, where we 
make a clean sweep and we start fresh for the American people, where 
the money that is raised is at the grassroots level, and we train a 
cadre of young people interested in politics, interested in government, 
a more wholesome situation for our country. I urge a ``yes'' vote for 
Shays-Meehan and a ``no'' on all the poison pills.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I 
want to thank my distinguished ranking member for giving me a few more 
minutes here.
  Let me say this and say it in the right way. This is well-intentioned 
by individuals. And this is regardless of the last comment, because I 
do not think we need to be saying that because we do not support 
something, that there is something ethically challenged about an 
individual. So this is well-intentioned, it is just not well-crafted.
  And we hear the words ``vote your conscience,'' but of course the 
implication today that we have heard is that if we do not vote for 
Shays-Meehan, then there is something wrong with our conscience. And I 
do not believe that about the other side.
  Let me just say that this bill does gag millions of union workers in 
this country. Soft money can be spent on newspaper ads, but the money 
of those workers, their hard-earned money, cannot be spent where they 
want to direct it, into radio or TV. It does gag people who work in 
business. It does gag the rights of free speech, unless of course, 
again, the money is spent on a newspaper ad. That is just not the 
American way.
  The amendments we will see today are good-intentioned amendments. 
This is not the same bill. Enron could have spent $60 million under 
Shays-Meehan. We know that. They can pay off building funds under 
Shays-Meehan by using it as a collateral backup for hard money that can 
be paid off after the election.
  And, by the way, why is this not effective immediately? Last year, 
before the Committee on House Administration, people banged their fist 
and said, we have to do the whole thing by May, or we need a discharge 
petition. We accommodated it and moved it to around the first of July. 
It had to be done right there on the spot. Now all of a sudden we can 
do it after the election.
  Challengers in this country are going to have a hard time figuring 
this bill out. This is an incumbent protection bill. It is not crafted 
the right way. The amendments we will see today are good substantive 
amendments that will not kill this bill, but will make this bill 
acceptable.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2356, the Shays-
Meehan Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Bill.
  First, I congratulate our colleagues from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for their diligence and persistence on this 
issue over the years. I remind my colleagues that legislation very 
similar to the bill under consideration today has passed the House 
twice before.
  I also applaud the courage of the 218 Members, particularly our 20 
Republican friends, who signed the discharge petition that finally 
allows the House to work its will on campaign finance reform. It is an 
unusual procedure, but was necessary in this case.
  The 2000 elections were the most expensive ever, coming in at almost 
$3 billion. This is appalling. The system is broken. The American 
people are justified in lacking confidence that their priorities are 
considered as seriously as those of the big donors.
  The influence of money in American politics is a problem as old as 
the Nation. It is discouraging to remember that the broken campaign 
finance system that Shays-Meehan would replace was itself once seen as 
a reform, designed to limit undue influence by large unregulated and 
undisclosed campaign contributions, but that big money soon found its 
way around the reforms through soft money and ``independent'' 
advertising.
  The principles behind any meaningful reform are clear:
  National parties, congressional committees, and Federal candidates 
must get along without soliciting or spending soft money. Under the 
Shays-Meehan bill, limited soft money will remain available to state 
and local parties for necessary voter registration and get-out-the-vote 
activities, but not to support Federal candidates.
  Campaign advertisements masquerading as issue advocacy must be 
regulated. Shays-Meehan will require that broadcast communications that 
mention a Federal candidate must be paid for with hard money--which 
includes corporate and union PAC funds--within 60 days of a general or 
30 days of a primary election.
  There are other important provisions, including enhanced disclosure 
of the financial sponsorship of electioneering communications, new FEC 
rules for coordinated communications, and limiting the cost of 
broadcast advertising

[[Page 1301]]

by candidates to reduce the onerous cost of running for Federal office 
today.
  But basically, Mr. Chairman, the Shays-Meehan bill will replace a 
badly broken system with one that will limit the influence of soft 
money and ``issue'' advertising in Federal campaigns and begin to 
restore the faith of the American people in our campaign system.
  Under the rule, several ``poison pill'' amendments will be offered to 
defeat the Shays-Meehan bill, either by gutting it or by sending it to 
near certain death in conference. One of the most alarming is the 
amendment to ban campaign contributions by legal permanent residents of 
the United States. These are people who live, work, and pay taxes in 
this country, and making contributions to candidates and parties is 
they only way they can influence the makeup of the government and 
public policy until they achieve citizenship and the vote. They are 
committed to America and should not be silenced.
  Shays-Meehan is a reform that is long overdue. I urge my colleagues 
to reject the ``poison pills'' and to vote for Bipartisan Campaign 
Finance Reform.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 2356, the Shays-Meehan Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 
2001. This legislation provides desperately needed reform to our 
current campaign system. As a proud cosponsor, and one of the 218 
Members to sign the discharge petition needed to force a vote on this 
bill, I believe we can finally remedy many of the ongoing concerns 
associated with hard and soft money in our political system.
  In the past, proposed election law revisions raised First Amendment 
objections, created new loopholes in the current law, or negatively 
affected get-out-the-vote (GOTV) efforts and voter registration. I 
believe H.R. 2356 overcomes these concerns and gets at the heart of 
election reform--special interests in Washington. This legislation bans 
soft money to national parties, reins in campaign attack ads that 
masquerade as issue ads, and addresses GOTV concerns. A strong 
consensus of my constituents on Long Island have consistently voiced 
their support for this important piece of legislation. Their 
disenchantment with the current system results in fewer Americans 
exercising their right to vote. Congress has the opportunity to address 
the concerns over the corrupting influence of money in politics and 
public policy and pass real campaign finance reform.
  Shays-Meehan is the real campaign finance reform bill that closes 
loopholes in our current system. It's time to pass this legislation and 
reform a political system that is awash in money. I urge my colleagues 
to support this important measure.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concerns 
with the campaign finance legislation introduced by Representatives 
Shays and Meehan. This legislation is derived from the same mindset 
that produced our current campaign finance laws that so-called 
reformers object to: money is bad, all politicians are corrupt, and the 
American people are not capable of hearing several points of view and 
making a rational decision.
  The supporters of the Shays-Meehan bill would have you think that 
those of us with other ideas for reform do not really support reform. 
This claim is ridiculous. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, I support real 
reform with no loopholes and full disclosure--not just lip service to 
reform.
  Attempting to avoid a conference with the Senate is not the path to 
true reform. A conference would provide the opportunity to work out the 
imperfections in this bill and ensure that the reforms are truly 
effective and constitutional.
  While I respect and share the intentions of the sponsors of this 
bill, today's legislation suffers from numerous defects, not the least 
of which is that several parts are patently unconstitutional. And what 
happened with the 1970s-era campaign finance reform will happen with 
this bill--parts will be stricken by the courts, opening new loopholes 
and creating a greater mess.
  This bill fails to effectively ban soft money as supporters claim by 
allowing up to $60 million in soft money per donor nationwide via the 
states. Plus, it is conveniently scheduled to go into effect the day 
after the November 2002 elections.
  Furthermore, this legislation does nothing to protect union employees 
who do not want their dues used to support political causes they 
personally oppose.
  I also have serious concerns that this bill restricts political 
speech at the time that voters are listening just before elections. It 
transfers the constitutional right to discuss issues from the people to 
the media. The media will decide who and what will be heard and who 
will hear it and when. It empowers the media and special interests to 
use independent expenditures to influence campaign while limiting 
average Americans.
  When citizens send their resources to an issue-advocacy organization 
to promote a cause they believe in, they and the organization they are 
supporting are exercising both their right to free association and 
their right to free speech. Shays-Meehan seeks to curtail those right 
by imposing these harsh restrictions on grassroots issue discussion. It 
is essential that all Americans, not only rich individuals and PACs 
have the right to advocate positions.
  Mr. Chairman, let's pass real campaign finance reform that holds 
federal lawmakers accountable to their constituents by requiring full 
and frequent disclosure, decreasing the role of soft money, removing 
unrealistic contribution limits, and opening our political process to 
the many voices that exist in this country.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2356, the 
Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. Concerns over the corrupting 
influence of money on politics have long been an issue of national 
debate, centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and 
reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. I believe rising 
election costs have led to uncontrolled spending, with too much time 
spent raising funds and the appearance that elections and public policy 
are bought and sold. Debate has also focused on the role of interest 
groups in campaign funding, especially through political action 
committees. I believe one way to fix our campaign finance system is 
through more regulation with spending limits.
  I have been pushing campaign finance reform since coming to Congress 
and introduced my own legislation H.R. 462, the Campaign Finance System 
Reform Act, during the 105th Congress. This legislation set voluntary 
spending limits at $600,000 per election cycle, banned public financing 
of campaigns through the use of matching funds, and required that 100 
percent of funds raised must come from the congressional district in 
which the candidate is running.
  In July 2001, the House Republican leadership initially scheduled a 
debate on campaign finance reform. However, the rule crafted was unfair 
because it broke the Shays-Meehan bill into 14 separate parts to be 
voted on individually. Following the defeat of this rule, the 
Republican leadership announced it would not bring the bill back to the 
floor for consideration. A discharge petition was circulated, forcing 
the bill back to the House floor for debate.
  The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act is the only legislation 
before the House which effectively deals with the dual problems of soft 
money and sham issue advertisements. This bill would ban the massive 
use of soft money contributions to political parties, thus closing the 
soft money loophole and restoring public confidence in our system. 
These donations totaled nearly $500 million in the last election. Much 
of this money was used to fund negative commercials, called issue ads, 
that evade spending limits that apply to each candidate's official 
campaign.
  Some opponents say this bill will inhibit voter participation. 
However, this bill seeks to increase voter turnout by allowing state 
parties to collect limited amounts of soft money to be used for voter 
participation and get-out-the-vote activities. Under the bill, state 
and local parties would have sufficient funds for get-out-the vote 
activities, but could not divert this soft money into sham issue ads.
  The Ney-Wynn substitute is an honest but not sufficient attempt at 
reform and is at this point solely a way for the Republican leadership 
to kill the Shays-Meehan and McCain-Feingold reform bills. This 
substitute does nothing to curb wealthy special interests on the 
political process by allowing unlimited soft money contributions to 
state and local parties creating a huge loophole that undermines 
reform. Furthermore, Ney-Wynn does nothing to halt issue ads.
  Mr. Chairman, I have pushed for a fair vote on this important issue 
and have put forth legislation which will truly reform the system. I 
acknowledge this legislation is not perfect. However, this legislation 
is an opportunity to enact reforms that are critical at this time. For 
these reasons, I support this legislation and encourage my colleagues 
to do the same.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of meaningful 
campaign finance reform.
  I strongly support serious reform of the campaign finance system. We 
must eliminate the corrupting influence of special interest money from 
our political system and restore the faith of the American people in 
our public institutions. Neither party can claim total innocence of 
Washington misdeeds, and I believe the people of North Carolina sent me 
to Congress to work in a bipartisan manner to serve the public 
interest. That is what I try to do every day as a United States 
Representative.

[[Page 1302]]

  At the beginning of the105th Congress, my freshman class agreed that 
we would work on a bipartisan basis to reform the way that campaigns 
for public office are funded in this country. Since then 5 years have 
passed and we have yet to see any campaign finance reform signed into 
law.
  Today we have a chance to pass legislation sponsored by 
Representatives Shays and Meehan that is almost identical to Senate-
passed legislation sponsored by Senators McCain and Feingold. If we are 
able to pass this legislation without too much change we can send this 
legislation directly to President Bush who has promised to sign it. I 
sincerely regret that the Republican Leadership is working to alter, 
weaken and undermine the responsible campaign finance reform 
legislation sponsored by my colleagues Representatives Shays and Meehan 
in order to send it to a Conference where it is sure to die yet again. 
The people of this country are discouraged by this type of cynical 
behavior from this Congress and will not be fooled by this attempt to 
bury campaign finance reform legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people deserve a campaign election system 
with integrity. I sincerely hope that meaningful campaign finance 
reform will be signed into law before the end of the 107th Congress.
  Mr. STARK Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2356, 
the Shays-Meehan Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001. Campaign 
Finance reform is long overdue and I am very pleased, after such a long 
struggle with those who oppose reform, to see this bill on the floor 
today.
  Money has become far too important to our campaigns and reform is 
certainly necessary. In my opinion, we should do away with our private 
campaign financing system altogether and publicly fund political 
campaigns. This would level the playing field so that anyone could 
participate in the political process.
  Though the Shays-Meehan bill doesn't go that far, it certainly makes 
dramatic improvements. This bill has several important provisions to 
improve our campaign finance laws: it bans soft money from national 
parties; it reins in campaign advertisements which claim to be ``issue 
advocacy'' ads; it enhances disclosure of political expenses; and it 
provides the Federal Election Commission with stronger tools to enforce 
campaign finance laws.
  By passing this bill today, we as leaders can finally recognize what 
the American public has known for years: there is too much money in 
politics. In the last election, the average winning House candidate 
raised $919,649 toward his or her election. The average winning Senate 
candidate raised $7,345,468. With this much money in politics, it is 
virtually impossible for elected officials to remain unaffected by the 
disproportionate influence of those who wield tremendous wealth. If 
only we were raising these millions of dollars to provide health 
insurance for our nation's children. Now that would be a worthy 
expenditure of funds.
  If our government is truly to remain ``of, by and for the people,'' 
then we must ensure that the people, not corporate donors, are 
responsible for electing their leaders. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform 
Act of 2001 will go a long way toward ensuring this goal. I will vote 
for this very important bill and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Shays-Meehan substitute. This is historic legislation, one of the most 
important reform bills in a generation.
  I also wish to thank Mr. Shays and Mr. Meehan for their hard work and 
dedication to ensuring that we have a fair process and the opportunity 
to make meaningful reforms to our campaign finance laws this year. I 
also congratulate Mr. turner and the Blue Dogs on a successful 
discharge petition.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican and Democratic parties raised nearly 
half a billion dollars in soft money during the 1999-2000 election 
cycle. Of this amount, over 473 million was given by 147 individuals in 
amounts of $500,000 or more. This influx of unregulated soft money, no 
matter where it comes from, taints us all individually, and 
collectively works to increase the public's cynicism and destroy faith 
in Congress.
  Today we have the opportunity to pass a complete ban on federal soft 
money and reign in sham issue ads. Shays-Meehan is the only bill before 
us today that will accomplish these goals. It is important to note that 
this bill also protects the ability of state and local parties to 
promote voter registration and get out the vote activities on election 
day, and assure the fullest possible participation in our democracy. I 
urge all Members to support Shays-Meehan and vote down all poison pill 
amendments.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shays-
Meehan Campaign Finance Reform Act and urge my colleagues to vote 
against all ``poison pill'' amendments that will be offered today. I am 
proud to cosponsor this bipartisan legislation, which represents the 
best, real opportunity to reform our broken campaign finance system.
  The issue of campaign finance reform cuts to the essence of 
democracy. Our unique American political system will not survive 
without the participation of the average American citizen. 
Unfortunately, more and more Americans are dropping out--with each 
election, fewer Americans are voting. They are doing so because they no 
longer believe that their vote matters. As they see more and more money 
pouring into campaigns, they believe that their voice is being drowned 
out by wealthy special interests.
  Despite the cynicism of the American public, Congress has failed to 
enact significant campaign finance reform legislation since 1974. In 
that year, in the wake of the Watergate Scandal, Congress imposed tough 
spending limits on direct, ``hard money'' contributions to candidates. 
Unfortunately, no at that time forsaw how two loopholes in the law 
would lead to a gross corruption of our political system.
  The first loophole is ``soft'' money--the unregulated and unlimited 
contributions to the political parties from corporations, labor unions, 
or wealthy individuals. ``Soft'' money allows wealthy special interests 
to skirt around ``hard'' money limits and dump unlimited sums of money 
into a campaign.
  The unfolding Enron scandal provides a clear example of the 
pernicious influence of soft money. In the 2000 election cycle, Enron 
executives contributed $1.7 million--70 percent of which came in the 
form of soft money. Most Americans see a clear link between these 
contributions and Enron's quest for special treatment by Congress. 
Clearly, the Enron scandal has eroded the public's confidence in their 
government.
  Soft money is used to finance the second loophole in campaign finance 
law: sham issue advertisements. This loophole allows special interests 
to spend huge sums of money on campaign ads advocating either the 
defeat or election of a candidate. As long as these ads do not use the 
magic words ``vote for'' or ``vote against,'' they are deemed ``issue 
advocacy'' under current law and therefore not subject to campaign 
spending limits or disclosure requirements.
  During the 2000 elections, the television and radio airwaves were 
flooded with these sham issue ads--many of which were negative attack 
ads. Americans who see or hear these ads have no idea who pays for them 
because no disclosure is required. They drown out the voice of the 
average American citizen, and even sometimes of the candidates 
themselves. Without reform, we can certainly expect a huge increase in 
these sham issue ads.
  The Shays-Meehan bill begins to restore public confidence in our 
electoral system by closing these two egregious loopholes. The bill 
bans all contributions of soft money to federal campaigns. 
Specifically, it bans national party committees from soliciting, 
receiving, directing or spending soft money.
  Shays-Meehan also closes the ``issue advocacy'' loophole. It broadens 
the presently absurd definition of electioneering activity, or 
``express'' advocacy, to include any communication that refers, in 
support or opposition, to a candidate. This would not prevent public 
organizations from running advertisements, but would ensure that ads 
clearly designed to influence an election are regulated under federal 
law. We have laws clearly designed to regulate and disclose campaign 
donations and expenditures, and no one should be allowed to evade them. 
Shays-Meehan would ensure that everyone involved in influencing 
elections plays by the same rules.
  Opponents have argued that the Shays-Meehan bill undermines the First 
Amendment right of free speech. However, the Supreme Court has ruled 
that Congress has a broad ability to protect the political process from 
corruption and the appearance of corruption. It has upheld as 
constitutional the ability to limit contributions by individuals and 
political committees to candidates. The Supreme Court has also clearly 
permitted Congress to distinguish between issue advocacy on the one 
hand, and electioneering or ``express advocacy'' on the other.
  The Meehan-Shays proposal will not cure our campaign finance system 
of all it evils--and I certainly support more far reaching restrictions 
on campaign contributions and expenditures. However, the bill will take 
a modest but significant first step toward restoring integrity in our 
political system. It will limit the influence of wealthy special 
interests and help to restore the voice of average American citizens in 
our political process. In short, enactment of this legislation is 
essential to the survival of American democracy.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the Enron bankruptcy and the subsequent 
revelations regarding Enron's political influence have once again 
brought campaign finance to the forefront of

[[Page 1303]]

the congressional agenda. Ironically, many of the strongest proponents 
of campaign finance reform are among those who receive the largest 
donations from special interests seeking state favors. In fact, some 
legislators who were involved in the government-created savings and 
loan scandal of the late eighties and early nineties today pose as born 
again advocates of ``good government'' via campaign finance reform!
  Mr. Chairman, this so-called ``reform'' legislation is clearly 
unconstitutional. Many have pointed out that the First amendment 
unquestionably grants individuals and businesses the free and 
unfettered right to advertise, lobby, and contribute to politicians as 
they choose. Campaign reform legislation blows a huge hole in these 
First amendment protections by criminalizing criticism of elected 
officials. Thus, passage of this bill will import into American law the 
totalitarian concept that government officials should be able to use 
their power to silence their critics.
  The case against this provision was best stated by Herb Titus, one of 
America's leading constitutional scholars, in his paper Campaign-
Finance Reform: A Constitutional Analysis: ``At the heart of the 
guarantee of the freedom of speech is the prohibition against any law 
designed to protect the reputation of the government to the end that 
the people have confidence in their current governors. As seditious 
libel laws protecting the reputation of the government 
unconstitutionally abridge the freedom of speech, so also do campaign-
finance reform laws.''
  The damage this bill does to the First amendment is certainly a 
sufficient reason to oppose it. However, as Professor Titus 
demonstrates in his analysis of the bill, the most important reason to 
oppose this bill is that the Constitution does not grant Congress the 
power to regulate campaigns. In fact, article II expressly authorizes 
the regulation of elections, so the omission of campaigns is glaring.
  This legislation thus represents an attempt by Congress to fix a 
problem created by excessive government intervention in the economy 
with another infringement on the people's constitutional liberties. The 
real problem is not that government lacks power to control campaign 
financing, but that the federal government has excessive power over our 
economy and lives.
  It is the power of the welfare-regulatory state which creates a 
tremendous incentive to protect one's own interests by ``investing'' in 
politicians. Since the problem is not a lack of federal laws, or rules 
regulating campaign spending, more laws won't help. We hardly suffer 
from too much freedom. Any effort to solve the campaign finance problem 
with more laws will only make things worse by further undermining the 
principles of liberty and private property ownership.
  Attempts to address the problems of special interest influence 
through new unconstitutional rules and regulations address only the 
symptoms while ignoring the root cause of the problem. Tough 
enforcement of spending rules will merely drive the influence 
underground, since the stakes are too high and much is to be gained by 
exerting influence over government-legally or not. The more open and 
legal campaign expenditures are, the easier it is for voters to know 
who's buying influence from whom.
  There is a tremendous incentive for every special interest group to 
influence government. Every individual, bank, or corporation that does 
business with government invests plenty in influencing government. 
Lobbyists spend over a hundred million dollars per month trying to 
influence Congress. Taxpayer dollars are endlessly spent by bureaucrats 
in their effort to convince Congress to protect their own empires. 
Government has tremendous influence over the economy and financial 
markets through interest rate controls, contracts, regulations, loans, 
and grants. Corporations and others are ``forced'' to participate in 
the process out of greed as well as self-defense--since that's the way 
the system works. Equalizing competition and balancing power--such as 
between labor and business--is a common practice. As long as this 
system remains in place, the incentive to buy influence will continue.
  Many reformers recognize this, and either like the system or believe 
that it's futile to bring about changes. They argue that curtailing 
influence is the only option left, even if it involves compromising 
freedom of political speech by regulating political money.
  It's naive to believe stricter rules will make a difference. If 
members of Congress resisted the temptation to support unconstitutional 
legislation to benefit special interests, this whole discussion would 
be unnecessary. Because members do yield to the pressure, the reformers 
believe that more rules regulating political speech will solve the 
problem.
  The reformers argue that it's only the fault of those trying to 
influence government and not the fault of the members of Congress who 
yield to the pressure, or the system that generates the abuse. This 
allows members to avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts, and 
instead places the blame on those who exert pressure on Congress 
through the political process--which is a basic right bestowed on all 
Americans. The reformer's argument is ``Stop us before we succumb to 
the special interest groups.''
  Politicans unable to accept this responsibility clamor for a system 
that diminishes the need for them to persuade individuals and groups to 
donate money to their campaigns. Instead of persuasion, they endorse 
coercing taxpayers to finance campaigns.
  This only changes the special interest groups that control government 
policy. Instead of voluntary groups making their own decisions with 
their own money, politicians and bureaucrats dictate how political 
campaigns will be financed. Not only will politicians and bureaucrats 
gain influence over elections, other nondeserving people will benefit. 
Clearly, incumbents will greatly benefit by more controls over campaign 
spending--a benefit to which the reformers will never admit.
  Mr. Chairman, the freedoms of the American people should not be 
restricted because some politicians cannot control themselves. We need 
to get money out of government. Only then will money not be important 
in politics. Campaign finance laws, such as those before us today, will 
not make politicians more ethical, but they will make it harder for 
average Americans to influence Washington. The case against this bill 
was eloquently made by Herb Titus in the paper referenced above: 
``Campaign-finance reform is truly a wolf in sheep's clothing. 
Promising reform, it hides incumbent perquisites. Promising 
competition, it favors monopoly. Promising integrity, it fosters 
corruption. Real campaign-finance reform calls for a return to 
America's original constitutional principles of limited and 
decentralized government power, thereby preserving the power of the 
people.''
  I urge my colleagues to listen to Professor Titus and reject this 
unconstitutional proposal. Instead, I hope my colleagues will work to 
reduce special interest influence in Washington and restore integrity 
to politics by reducing the federal government to its constitutional 
limits.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, big money is a cancer on our political 
system that must be removed or we risk devolving into an oligarchy like 
so many other republics before us. It is the constant money chase and 
submission to the special interests that corrupts our system and makes 
our constituents lose faith in their government. It's why there is such 
disinterest in politics back home and such low voter turnout. Our 
constituents don't think we care about them. They think we only care 
about raising money. They believe that their participation, their 
voices, cannot count against the power of big money, and recent 
experience says they are right.
  Once upon a time, when someone wanted to run for office, the first 
question we used to ask was what kind of political support can you 
generate. Now the first question we ask is how much money can you 
raise. Better yet, we find a rich candidate who'll finance his or her 
own campaign. It's impossible to run on good ideas alone anymore, you 
need millions of dollars to go with them. With this system we risk 
electing candidates less attuned to their communities than to their big 
contributors.
  This is not a perfect bill, but it is a good first step. If we do not 
take this 1st step today, the history books may eventually say that 
like the Roman Republic, the United States had a good 200 to 250-year 
run at democracy, and then it degenerated into an oligarchy like all 
the rest. Don't let that happen. Pass Shays-Meehan and begin to restore 
integrity to our political process.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, today we are being asked to vote for a 
campaign finance reform bill. And, like most in this body, I see that 
we are currently at a place where special interest money is threatening 
our democracy. Votes should not and cannot be influenced by money. But 
in our fervor to achieve reform, let us not blindly support any piece 
of legislation that dons a reform mask. Rather, we owe it to our 
constituents to strip away the disguises and pass legislation that will 
actually accomplish the ends that it claims to achieve.
  While I applaud the ends of the Shays-Meehan legislation--to get 
special interest money out of politics--I cannot support the means. 
What good is closing one loophole only to create 50 more in the 
process? Today, I implore my colleagues to look at the facts and take a 
moment to understand what this legislation does. Please, look past the 
smoke and mirrors and understand the many problems with the Shays-
Meehan bill.

[[Page 1304]]

  Good intentions do not equal good legislation and passing bad 
legislation does not fix a problem--it merely creates more problems. 
Americans deserve better than the pretense of reform and I would hate 
to see this bill pass the House today, only to revisit the issue next 
year after we wake up to realize the monster we have created.
  The Shays-Meehan legislation does not remove soft money from 
politics. Rather, it bans this contribution at the federal level, only 
to allow a union or a corporation to give up to $10,000 at the county 
and state level. This means that a single union or corporation will be 
able to give more than $30 million per election. In my estimation, not 
only does this not help the problem, it actually makes it worse. 
Instead of having a single national party collecting soft money, we 
will have 50 state parties collecting it. Their offices will line the 
streets of DC with union and corporate lobbyists throwing a parade with 
$10,000 checks raining down like tickertape for every state party. Is 
this closing a loophole or making a mockery of our system?
  Accountability is the key to reform. The problem with soft money is 
that it is hard to know where it is spent. When voters cannot discern 
where elected officials are getting the money to finance their campaign 
efforts, there is no accountability. By restricting the way that unions 
and corporations can participate in the political process openly, these 
interest groups will resort to issue advocacy and independent 
expenditures, activities that do not fall under any laws. Unlimited and 
unregulated resources can be devoted to these types of expenditures. 
With the passage of Shays-Meehan, accountability is out the window. We 
will push campaign-related activities made on behalf of candidates by 
outside groups into an abyss of unregulated anonymous money.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that is 
going to put more loopholes in a campaign finance system that has 
enough problems on its own. We need good legislation that still allows 
for political participation and that demands accountability. it is for 
this reason that I support the Ney-Wynn substitute. This legislation 
does not prohibit participation or force disclosure into oblivion. 
Rather, it sets reasonable caps on soft money contributions to national 
parties. Ney-Wynn allows national parties to perform one of their key 
functions of get-out-the-vote efforts and voter registration drives. 
These are efforts that are financed by soft money. Ney-Wynn allows soft 
money to national parties, but only to be used for these purposes. 
Furthermore, it regulates the types of independent expenditures that 
can be made by unions and corporations, specifically limiting 
television ads for longer than the mere 60 days as mandated under 
Shays-Meehan.
  Ney-Wynn reforms our system of financing campaigns without loopholes 
but with sound policy. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to closely 
examine these two pieces of legislation. Bad legislation with a nice 
name is still bad legislation. The Ney-Wynn substitute contains real 
reform and real reform is what we need.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, since taking office, I have been a dedicated 
supporter of campaign finance reform, and I commend my friends--
Representatives Shays and Meehan--for their persistence on this issue. 
During my first term, every day the House was in session, I gave a 
statement on the floor in support of campaign finance reform. I hope 
that the House will have the courage to pass true reform measures 
today.
  Without question, there is too much money in our current political 
system. Running for office has become increasingly expensive, forcing 
candidates to spend unacceptable amounts of time fundraising, and 
discouraging qualified challengers from running for office because they 
cannot afford the price of admission. What should be a competition of 
ideas has become a battle of wealth.
  In 2000, the national party committees raised $495 million in 
unregulated soft money, almost twice the amount raised in 1996. At this 
rate, it will not be long before billion dollar campaigns are 
commonplace. Though opponents of reform say the public does not care 
about this issue, the residents of Wisconsin's Third District tell me 
otherwise. They see where our system is headed and demand reform from 
Congress, Shays-Meehan heeds their mandate by banning soft money 
donations to the national parties, and imposing tight limits on the 
collection and use of soft money by State and local parties.
  Unfortunately, those of us that would like to see genuine changes in 
the campaign finance system must contend with the false reform 
legislation supported by the House leadership. This legislation does 
not truly change the current system and does nothing to stem the rising 
tide of soft money that circumvents and erodes it. For example, under 
the Ney-Wynn substitute, Enron and its executives would still have been 
able to give 76 percent of the money they gave in 2000 to national 
parties.
  Right now we stand on the brink of historic reform. Reform that will 
put the power of democracy back in the hands of ordinary Americans. 
Reform that will force politicians and political parties to get back to 
the grassroots level. Mr. Chairman, the American people have waited 
long enough. Now is the time for positive bipartisan action on this 
bill.
  This bill is not the panacea to what ails our political system; it is 
not perfect, but it is a significant step in the right direction by 
banning the largest political contributions that ordinary citizens 
cannot give. A vote for Shays-Meehan today is a vote to better empower 
the American people and to begin to level the playing field of access 
in our political system.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I rise today in the strongest 
possible support of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill to 
ban ``soft money.''
  Individual rights are the hallmark of our country.
  As nations across the globe struggle to end oppressive dictatorships, 
our political system shines as a beacon of equality. Every person, 
regardless of race, income, or religion is afforded a vote and every 
vote is equal.
  Unfortunately, the bedrock of our democracy is compromised by the 
constant assault of financial contributions to the political system. 
Instead of one person, one vote, campaign contributions are taking our 
system towards a one dollar, one vote system.
  Every aspect of our life is impacted by the influence big 
contributions are having over elected officials.
  Enron is a case study in how huge corporate contributions undermine 
the public's confidence in our democracy.
  The shadow of doubt grows each day that Vice President Cheney refuses 
to release meeting records related to the development of the Bush 
administration's energy policy. We need to reform campaign finance law 
to ensure that corporations and special interest groups are not able to 
purchase political influence, turning Congress and the Presidency into 
a ``cash and carry'' operation.
  A recent article in the Washington Post tells a story which should 
send a chill down the spine of every American who cherishes our 
democratic system. According to the February 10, 2002, Washington Post 
article, ``Hard Money, Strong Arms and `Matrix': How Enron Dealt with 
Congress, Bureaucracy,'' Enron turned campaign finance contributions 
into a science. According to the article,

       With each proposed change in federal regulations, lobbyists 
     punch details into a computer, allowing Enron economists in 
     Houston to calculate just how much a rule change would cost. 
     If the final figure was too high, executives used it as the 
     cue to stoke their vast influence machine, mobilizing 
     lobbyists and dialing up politicians who had accepted some of 
     Enron's million in campaign contributions.
       To raise campaign cash, Enron relied not just on individual 
     contribution but also on a well-funded political action 
     committee that distributed money to candidates of both 
     parties . . . Since 1990, Enron's political committees have 
     given federal candidates and parties more than $1 million.

  Mr. Chairman, campaign finance reform comes down to just one, very 
important thing--protecting our democracy.
  Because of large, unregulated contributions, known as ``soft money,'' 
special interests and corporations often get special representation by 
elected officials, special representation that often is in conflict 
with the larger public interest.
  Critical issues in our society are directly affected by the undo 
influence of narrow special interests, particularly when there is money 
at stake. Energy companies, for example, can negotiate a $30 billion 
tax cut while the Bush Administration submits a budget to Congress that 
actually cuts the total level of funding for the historic education 
reforms that just one month ago he signed into law.
  Pick any issue that you care about. Campaign finance reform is needed 
to allow those issues to have their day in Congress and the White 
House. Issues such as health care, making child care affordable and of 
high quality, protecting the environment, protecting Social Security or 
providing a real prescription drug benefit through Medicare and care 
for Seniors.
  Instead of a system that gives the greatest deference to those in 
greatest need, the voices of narrow special interests use large 
unregulated political contributions to drown out the voices of our 
average citizens. Things have got to change.
  Today, the House of Representatives will again take up legislation to 
significantly reform our campaign finance laws.
  Last year, the Republican leadership resorted to parliamentary tricks 
to water down bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation

[[Page 1305]]

which had passed the Senate. However, supporters of clean campaigns 
were not deterred. It took 218 Members of the House, including me, to 
sign a ``discharge petition'' that forced the Republican leadership to 
bring this important matter before the entire Congress again for a 
vote.
  While we are assured a vote today, opponents of reform, including the 
Republican leadership of this House, are working hard to once again use 
parliamentary tricks to block or weaken meaningful campaign finance 
reform.
  My hope is that the collapse of Enron is the straw that will break 
the back of opposition to real campaign finance reform. We need reform 
that will shine the light on the shadows of doubt left by the Enron 
scandal.
  We need to pass the Shays-Meehan soft money ban today so that 
tomorrow our children can have a brighter future.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a principal sponsor of the 
campaign finance legislation before the House. I want to explain what 
this legislation seeks to accomplish and why banning soft money is 
critical for our democracy. Last year, the Senate courageously passed 
the McCain-Feingold bill. It is now time for this House to take a 
similar stand and finally put an end to the deluge of soft money 
contributions that weakens our democracy.
  Our system is awash in soft money, and everyone is degraded as a 
result. Not surprisingly, in poll after poll, voters express their 
cynicism about politics and their dismay with the current campaign 
finance system. Disgusted with the overriding influence of money in 
Washington, citizens, in ever-increasing numbers, are not exercising 
their precious right to vote in federal elections.
  Our flawed campaign finance system is also taking its toll on 
qualified and principled candidates for political office. Since soft 
money contributions are essentially limitless, we and other elected 
officials are under unrelenting pressure to raise more and more money, 
thus increasing the potential for actual and apparent corruption. In 
increasing numbers, good people decide not to run, or drop out of 
public life, because they cannot stomach the hunt for huge donations 
and all that comes with it. Those elected officials who stay spend far 
too much time fundraising and not enough time listening to their 
constituents and doing their jobs.
  The reform legislation we introduce today strengthens First Amendment 
values. It will ensure that elected officials are more responsive to 
the voices of their constituents and do not appear beholden only to big 
money. As your own constituents would surely tell you, stemming the 
tide of soft money would improve their access to government--and 
enhance their First Amendment rights--by allowing them to participate 
in the process. And it will keep good people interested in serving in 
Government. Neither the First Amendment nor or Nation is served by 
large soft money donations that drive citizens away from voting in 
elections and candidates away from running in them. So, this is not 
only a campaign finance reform bill, it is a democracy revitalization 
bill.
  Let's look at the growth of soft money in our campaigns. According to 
Common Cause, in 1988, the two parties raised a total of $45 million in 
soft money. In 1992, the figure rose dramatically to $84.4 million. In 
1996, soft money contributions ballooned to $235.9 million--almost a 
quarter of a billion dollars. In this past presidential election, the 
total amount of soft money raised by both parties climbed still further 
to a staggering $463.1 million--nearly double the soft money 
contributions of the previous presidential election and ten times the 
amount raised only a decade ago.
  These vast amounts could not have been raised directly for a 
candidate's campaign under current law, which subjects individual 
contributions to an aggregate $25,000 annual limit and a $1,000 per 
candidate per election limit. Despite these clear caps on legal 
contributions, individuals are contributing up to $100,000 and 
$250,000. Moreover, unions and corporations--entities that are barred 
from giving directly to candidates from their general treasuries--are 
responsible for many of these contributions.
  Opponents of reform argue that this flood of soft money does not 
corrupt our politicians and does not even appear to corrupt the 
political process. They argue that soft money contributions are 
technically made to political parties, and not to candidates, and thus 
any exchange of favors for contributions is unlikely. Soft money may 
not be used to advocate expressly for a candidate, they argue, so there 
is less chance that soft money donors will actually influence 
candidates, or at least appear to influence them.
  That argument elevates form over the substance most Americans 
ruefully see. First, even though the money often goes to parties, it's 
the candidates themselves and their surrogates who solicit soft money. 
The candidates know who makes these huge contributions and what these 
contributors expect. Candidates not only solicit these funds 
themselves, they meet with big donors who have important issues pending 
before the government; and sometimes, the candidates' or the party's 
position appear to change after such meetings. Additionally, the soft 
money candidates raise for their political parties is often directed 
back into their campaigns. This creates the appearance of corruption 
that pervades politics today--on both sides of the aisle. Let me 
discuss some powerful reminders of this distressing fact about our 
democracy.
  Let's take the already infamous Enron story as an example: in the 
1999/2000 election cycle Enron contributed over $2 million in soft 
money to the national parties--$1.4 million to the Republicans, and 
$600,000 to the Democrats. These large soft money gifts have cost a 
pall of doubt over the many elected federal officials who raised or 
received Enron's money. The Enron example proves that the appearance of 
impropriety has the same corrosive effect as actual impropriety. 
Federal officeholders, knowing that their reputations are being tainted 
and their good character being questioned by receipt of Enron 
contributions are rushing headlong to return contributions they were 
only too willing to accept before the scandal broke. The actions and 
motives of government officials who did deal with, or could have dealt 
with Enron, are being called into question. For example, The New Yorker 
asks whether Administration officials, who might have taken actions 
that would have cushioned the impact of Enron's fall on employees and 
the economy, declined to act precisely because they were afraid the 
public would conclude their actions were motivated by the large soft 
money contributions Enron gave to the Republican Party. The Washington 
Post asks whether the policy views of a Senator as esteemed for probity 
as Senator Lieberman are subject to question because of his receipt of 
contributions. Even in the investigations into Enron do not yield 
convincing proof of a particular quid pro quo, the Enron contributions 
have brought leaders of both parties into disrepute in the eyes of the 
public.
  Let's also recall the Hudson Casino story. A few years ago, three 
bands of Wisconsin Indian tribes wanted to open a casino in Hudson, WI, 
near the Minnesota border. A neighboring set of Minnesota tribes 
opposed the plan, because the Wisconsin casino would compete with their 
profitable casino. These Minnesota tribes gave large sums of soft money 
to the Democratic National Committee. This gave them instant access to 
the Chairman of the DNC, who promised to get the Administration to 
help. He immediately called a high-ranking White House official, who in 
turn contacted the Department of the Interior--immediately after the 
Minnesota tribes had made substantial contributions to the DNC. This 
chain of events, and Interior's rejection of the Wisconsin application, 
created the strong appearance of impropriety even though Interior 
career staff had decided the case on the merits. This led to an 
independent counsel investigation and two debilitating congressional 
investigations into whether the government was for sale.
  The tobacco industry provides another example. As the Thompson 
Committee Minority Report makes clear, in the 1996 election cycle, the 
tobacco industry gave roughly $10.1 million in political contributions, 
of which $6.8 million was soft money. In previous election cycles, the 
industry divided its campaign contributions equally between the 
parties, but in 1996 over 80 percent went to the Republicans. The GOP 
collected $5.8 million in soft money from tobacco interests and tobacco 
PACs. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical 
Association noted that ``House members receiving the most tobacco money 
were 14.4 times as likely to vote with the industry as members 
receiving the least; in the Senate the number was 42.2. In the 104th 
Congress, the Republican majority defeated legislation that would have 
raised taxes on tobacco and preserved millions of dollars in subsidies 
for the industry. Again the appearance of improper influence is 
overwhelming.
  Finally, we have Roger Tamraz. He served as a Republican Eagle in the 
1980s during Republican Administrations and a Democratic Trustee in the 
1990s during a Democratic Administration. In 1996, Tamraz has already 
contributed $200,000 to the Democratic National Committee, and made it 
clear he was considering donating an additional $400,000. These 
promises enabled him to hold six private meetings with the President to 
discuss Mr. Tamraz's proposed oil pipeline project in the Caucasus. 
Although the National Security Council, which strong opposed this plan, 
ultimately prevailed, a series of calls were made to employees of the 
Department of Energy

[[Page 1306]]

and the National Security Council making it very clear that a change in 
policy would mean ``a lot of money for the DNC.'' Tamraz unabashedly 
explained why he gave--to gain access to officials in power. At the 
Thompson Committee hearings Tamraz spoke plainly--``I think next time 
I'll give $600,000. . . . [Y]ou set the rules, and we are following the 
rules. . . . This is politics as usual. What is new?''
  Sadly, there are other blockbuster stories like these. But, as 
Representative Eric Fingerhut wisely reminded us a few years ago, 
people often focus just on ``the grand-slam example of the influence of 
these interests. But you can [also] find a million singles . . . 
regulator change, banking committee legislation . . . a change in when 
you get audited. . . . Think of the committee and you can think of the 
interest group or the company that will have an interest. . . .'' Let's 
all be honest with ourselves: we have all been in situations where we 
would rather fit in an appointment with a contributor than risk losing 
his or her donation. When, as a result of a Member's efforts, someone 
makes a significant donation to the party, and then the donor calls the 
Member a month later and wants to meet, it's very difficult to say no, 
and few of us do say no.
  A majority of the Supreme Court correctly observed in its Colorado 
Republican II decision, which upheld limits on the coordinated 
expenditures of political parties, that the parties ``act as agents for 
spending on behalf of those who seek to produce obligated 
officeholders.'' The Supreme Court quoted former Senator Paul Simon, 
who explained: ``I believe people contribute to party committees on 
both sides of the aisle for the same reason that Federal Express [and 
other industries do], because they want favors.'' The former Senator 
also recounted a debate over a bill favored by Federal Express during 
which a colleague exclaimed ``we've got to pay attention to who is 
buttering our bread.'' The Supreme Court concluded in Colorado 
Republican II that it would be myopic to refuse ``to see how the power 
of money actually works in the political structure.''
  Mr. Chairman, the massive soft money loophole that has eviscerated 
the campaign finance laws is having an insidious effect on the health 
of our democracy. Our democracy is dependent for its vitality on 
citizen participation and engagement--citizens who care, citizens who 
vote, citizens who run for and serve in office. But look what is 
happening.
  The current system has turned voters off--they are increasingly 
cynical about politics and politicians, and fewer are exercising their 
right to vote. In poll after poll, voters express their cynicism about 
politics and the campaign finance system. A recent Time magazine poll 
found that in 1961, 76 percent of Americans said they trusted the 
government; in 2001, only 19 percent expressed the same trust. A 1997 
New York Times poll found that 89 percent of Americans believe the 
country's campaign finance system is in need of fundamental changes, 75 
percent polled believe that their public officials make or change 
policy decisions as a result of money received from major contributors. 
A Fox News poll from May 2001 found that over 80 percent of the public 
believes that big companies and PACs have too much control in 
Washington.
  As former Senator George Mitchell has said: ``The public has come to 
believe that members of Congress are not responsive to their 
constituents, but rather are responsive to those who contribute the 
funds that help members of Congress get elected. It is a corrupting 
view, in that it corrupts the trust and confidence that people must 
have in a democratic society. . . .'' Former Senator Wyche Fowler 
echoed these views: ``The public has now lost confidence in [Congress]. 
Because the public now thinks that it is money--and only money--that 
makes the decisions.''
  This general distrust has discouraged our future leaders--the young 
generation--from going to the polls. In 1972, the first time 18-year-
olds could vote, 50 percent of 18-24 year-olds cast a vote. By 1996, 
that number had fallen to 32 percent. There is much evidence--and our 
own experience with our constituents confirms--that one of the major 
reasons citizens increasingly fail to vote is their perception that 
their vote makes no difference because of the role of money in politics 
and the influence of special interest groups. In one survey asking 
young people why they do not vote, a plurality said ``they don't think 
their vote makes a difference''; 64 percent agreed that ``government is 
run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, not for the 
benefit of all.'' In another recent poll, 57 percent expressed 
dissatisfaction with the political system. Many emphasized that 
politicians can't be trusted, that money plays too large a role in 
politics, and that special interest groups disproportionately influence 
policy.
  It is vital to the continued health of our democracy that the 
citizenry remain alert and involved and participate by, among other 
things, voting in federal elections. The need to reverse the lack of 
confidence voters feel in their elected officials and their resulting 
lack of engagement in the political process is a compelling 
justification for banning soft money contributions. The Supreme Court 
would seem to agree. In its recent Shrink Missouri decision it said: 
``[l]eave the perception of impropriety unanswered, and the cynical 
assumption that large donors call the tune could jeopardize the 
willingness of voters to take part in democratic governance.'' Our 
Supreme Court has consistently held that view for over 25 years. In 
Buckley, the Court observed that even where the influence of money does 
not rise to the level of bribery, it can work subtly to erode public 
confidence in the system to the detriment of our democracy.
  It is also important to the health of our democracy that qualified 
people come forward to run in elections and to serve as elected 
representatives. Having the best candidates is good not only in and of 
itself for obvious reasons but will increase citizen participation in 
elections. Unfortunately, in recent years, some of our finest 
legislators across the nation--such as Senator Nunn--have left public 
service, bemoaning our system of financing campaigns. The average 
senator has to raise $11,600 every week during his or her six years in 
office in order to be reelected. Former Senator DeConcini of Arizona 
put it: ``You walk around on eggshells. One of the reasons I got out of 
the race was that I didn't want to raise the money.'' As Thomas Mann of 
the Brookings Institution has explained: ``The threat to the health of 
the American democracy stems rather from what candidates and their 
supporters must do to raise the sums needed to complete successfully. 
The cost of mounting a major campaign is a huge disincentive to 
candidacy for people of ordinary means who lack the stomach for nonstop 
fund raising.''
  The soft-money ban that forms the core of this legislation aims to 
restore public faith in our democracy. By enacting this legislation, we 
will, in Senator McCain's words, ``change the public's widespread 
belief that politicians have no greater purpose than [their] own 
reelection.'' We have a historic opportunity here not only to end the 
appearance of corruption, but to reinvigorate our democracy by making 
individual citizens' votes count, and by encouraging the most qualified 
candidates to run for election.
  Mr. Chairman, since the 1971 passage of the Federal Election Campaign 
Act and the Buckley decision, there have been strict limits on 
contributions given by individuals and political action committees to 
federal candidates. But, as many have recognized, the soft-money 
loophole undermines these curbs. As the Washington Post put it: ``The 
national party organizations are used to raise and spend on behalf of 
their candidates funds that the candidates are forbidden to raise and 
spend themselves. It's a fictional distinction.'' Although FECA 
provides clear contribution limits, candidates and parties easily 
circumvent FECA's hard money restrictions by raising soft money. In its 
most recent decision on campaign finance, the Supreme Court observed 
that our political parties are ``in a position to be used to circumvent 
contribution limits that apply to individuals and PACs, and thereby to 
exacerbate the threat of corruption and apparent corruption that those 
contribution limits are aimed at reducing.'' In a recent memorandum of 
Soft Money Rulemaking, the Federal Election Commission's General 
Counsel found that ``national party committees rely in large part on 
the access they can provide to federal officials, or on the more direct 
influence of federal officeholders and candidates, to solicit large 
sums from corporations, labor unions, and other donors that provide 
most of their soft money.''
  Mr. Chairman, it is vital for our democracy that we act today to ban 
soft money. Soft money has reintroduced into the Federal campaign 
finance system the very kinds of contributions that the federal laws 
intended to exclude--namely donations from corporations, unions, as 
well as large individual contributions. Soft money is not just a 
loophole, it is the loophole that ate the law. Let's send a clear 
message today that our democracy--and our integrity--is not for sale.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, this evening's legislation is near and 
dear to my heart. I began my political career in college working on 
election reform. Two years later, I was the author of Oregon's 
legislation establishing campaign spending limits. It was my proposal 
that prohibited the insidious practice of holding legislation hostage 
until individuals and interest groups in effect paid ``ransom'' to 
legislative barons. So, in recent years, I have been

[[Page 1307]]

saddened that narrow and, I think inappropriate, readings of the Oregon 
and U.S. Constitution have restricted the ability of the political 
process to police itself.
  Our current campaign financing system is doubly troubling for me 
because it symbolizes not only what is wrong with campaigns but also 
what is wrong with the decision-making process in Congress. It is 
appalling the lengths to which the political process has been twisted 
and the huge sums of money that are spent opposing reasonable 
legislation and moderate candidates. The extreme, hard-edged and too-
often hidden opponents of the public interest which are financed by 
soft money and anonymous contributions create a situation where the 
sheer volume of expenditure drowns out rational discourse.
  A campaign finance system where large contributors and special 
interest groups have the loudest voice threatens the foundation of our 
democracy. It calls into question the integrity of our elections and of 
our government. We have a responsibility to strengthen our democracy by 
eliminating the influence of soft money. Large soft-money donations and 
anonymous political attack ads have a corrosive influence on the 
political process. Soft money is bad for the people who give it, bad 
for the people who receive it and bad for the American people.
  I have supported the Shays-Meehan legislation since I came to 
Congress. We need to reduce the amount of time that is taken away from 
legislative business in order to pursue the mad chase for campaign 
dollars. The legislation before us is the best way to start. Keeping an 
open and accountable campaign finance system in this country is an 
ongoing struggle which too seldom commands the attention of either the 
Congress or the public in ways that it should. Today we've broken 
through that barrier.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, for ten years, I have supported every 
meaningful bill on campaign finance reform. Today, the House has a 
chance to make history by passing a bill that can become law.
  Many say this bill does not go far enough--and they are right. But it 
is a bill the Senate has passed--and passing it today avoids a 
conference, which could well become a graveyard.
  I say, let's take this important step.
  I have experienced the impact of soft money ads designed to distort 
my record. Approximately $4 million worth of these ads targeted me in 
the 2000 election cycle. This practice drives good people out of 
politics and discourages voters. Indeed, the whole point is to depress 
voting.
  I say enough.
  Shays-Meehan can pass today. The time has come.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2356, 
the bipartisan Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform legislation. It is 
time that we take the soft money out of our political system.
  In fact, not only do I support eliminating soft money, but I support 
full public financing for campaigns. I am hopeful that once Shays-
Meehan passes and is signed into law that we can focus our efforts on 
passing legislation to provide for public financing.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of Shays-Meehan and a signer of the 
discharge petition to bring this important legislation to the floor 
today. I want to thank the sponsors of this legislation especially for 
committing to voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities, which 
are essential for the election of minority candidates.
  The Enron scandal has shown us once again the importance of passing 
meaningful campaign finance reform. While Enron and Arthur Andersen 
executives and the corporations donated over $11 million to political 
campaigns since 1989, workers at Enron lost their jobs and their life 
savings. This is an outrage and once again shows the need for corporate 
responsibility and of course for passage of Shays-Meehan.
  Let's get the money out of politics. That's what campaign finance 
reform is all about. That means banning soft money and certainly not 
increasing hard money. Let's defeat these amendments that take us in 
the wrong direction, those that take us away from real reform.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for a clean Shays-Meehan bill and to 
defeat all poison pill amendments.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Bipartisan 
Campaign Reform Act as presented by my distinguished colleagues Mr. 
Meehan and Mr. Shays. This bill represents a watershed in our 
democracy. Today, we can remove from campaigns the shadow of special 
interests and move toward an electoral system in which every American 
will have an equal voice in our democratic process.
  For too long, our nation's campaigns have been tainted by soft money 
sleight-of-hand, campaigns in which large amounts of money are 
solicited from a few contributors and mysteriously distributed.
  For too long, we have winked as soft money came in by the truckload 
for ``party-enhancing activities'' when it was common knowledge that it 
really was used for ``issue ads'' that came uncomfortably close to 
supporting candidates.
  Many took advantage of the soft money loophole to gain inordinate 
access to our country's leaders and lowered our nation's political 
parties to little more than middlemen for moving soft money for 
corporations and wealthy individuals.
  In the past few weeks, in my capacity on the Energy and Commerce 
Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I have had 
the opportunity to observe how some corporations have attempted to 
escape scrutiny in part by taking advantage of the loopholes in our 
campaign system. I have seen how the company's dealings have raised 
questions in the minds of Americans about how soft money can be used to 
gain access, influence, and power.
  Our democracy cannot operate at its best without openness. This 
legislation will shine light onto the campaign finance process, 
bringing disclosure, structure, and accountability. This legislation 
disarms both political parties, limiting soft money from both 
corporations and unions. It increases the amount of hard money that can 
be contributed and allows adequate funds for our state parties to 
conduct vital get out the vote activities.
  I would like to commend my colleagues for their persistence and 
perseverance in their effort to get their bill passed. They have 
compromised on important measures in order to gain bi-partisan support. 
Their efforts to move this legislation forward are a tribute to those 
who have fought and died for a free and just nation, to those who have 
struggled for an open and honest political system. I urge my colleagues 
to not let this moment pass us by, to vote for the Shays/Meehan bill 
and for a reformed campaign finance system that will clean up our 
campaigns and give our political process back to the people.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, as one who has consistently supported the 
Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Reform bill (H.R. 2356) and who signed 
its discharge petition, I rise in strong support of this critical 
reform legislation. I also would like to recognize the leadership of 
Chris Shays and Marty Meehan, as well as my Texas colleague, Jim 
Turner, on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, our campaign finance laws must be reformed to reduce 
the influence of money in politics and restore the balance originally 
achieved by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 (FECA). Since 
coming to Congress in 1995, I have come to believe that our political 
process faces the very real risk of being hijacked by the prevalence of 
``soft money'' contributions. In the last election cycle alone, the two 
major parties took in nearly $500 million in soft money. Certainly, 
such huge, unregulated ``soft money'' contributions to political 
parties threaten to corrupt the integrity of our political process. Mr. 
Chairman, Shays-Meehan represents an extraordinary opportunity to give 
voice to citizens whose individual voices are increasingly being 
drowned out by unregulated issue ads that purport to provide voter 
education but are actually not-so-veiled efforts at influencing the 
public's views of a certain political candidate.
  H.R. 2356 strikes a critical balance between the need to protect our 
rights to free speech, guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, and the 
need to make meaningful reforms to our political system. Shays-Meehan 
would ban the raising of soft money by national parties and federal 
candidates that is currently outside the restrictions and prohibitions 
of the federal regulatory framework. H.R. 2356 would, however, allow 
State and local parties to accept annual donations of $10,000 per 
individual for get-out-the-vote and voter-registration efforts in 
federal elections, so long as such efforts do not mention a federal 
candidate. Additionally, Shays-Meehan places new limits on aggregate 
individual contributions to national political parties and candidates 
for president and Congress at $95,000. Of that, no more than $57,500 of 
that could be given to party organizations, and $37,500 to candidates. 
I am also pleased that H.R. 2356 requires greater FEC disclosure 
requirements for independent expenditures of more than $1,000 made 
within 20 days of an election. I do not believe disclosure, in and of 
itself, stifles Free Speech.
  Though I support Shays-Meehan, I recognize that it is not perfect. 
One troubling aspect is how it raises the hard money limit on 
contributions to Senate candidates to $2,000 but maintains the $1,000 
for hard money limit contributions to House candidates. The last time

[[Page 1308]]

we were slated to consider Shays-Meehan in the House, I submitted an 
amendment to the House Rules Committee to maintain the hard money limit 
of $1,000 for all candidates for Federal elective offices. Though I 
strongly believe that my amendment would have enhanced Shays-Meehan, it 
was blocked by the Republican leadership. Alternatively, the 
Republicans will propose raising the level of hard dollars that House 
candidates can raise to $2,000 per cycle. While I strongly oppose the 
disparity between the House and Senate, I do not support raising hard 
money limits to $2,000, as proposed in the Wamp amendment. I cannot see 
how injecting more hard money into our political system advances the 
goals of the underlying bill, Mr. Chairman, be assured that once Shays-
Meehan clears the House, I will continue to work at having the 
disparity in hard money limits to be fully addressed.
  Additionally, I would note that I have some concerns over how the 
measure restricts independent advertisements within 60 days of an 
election by unions, corporations and nonprofits but allows political 
action committees (PACs) associated with unions and corporations to 
donate soft money for such ads so long as the ads do not expressly 
advocate support or opposition for a candidate. Though I believe that a 
blanket prohibition on direct expenditures by unions, corporations and 
nonprofits may raise some constitutional questions, I support this 
provision because it will create greater transparency in the crucial 
days before an election.
  Finally, in recent days, I have heard from a number of local Texas 
broadcasters who voiced serious concerns about how Shays-Meehan's 
lowest unit charge (LUC) provision will impact their abilities to sell 
broadcast ads. Under Shays-Meehan, stations would be compelled to sell 
air time to Federal candidates at the best advertising rate of last 180 
days. Having campaigned in a major media market, I appreciate the goal 
of this provision--to ensure that candidates are not priced out of 
television, a powerful medium to reach voters. That being said, I am 
concerned that extending special treatment exclusively to federal 
candidates would result in state and local candidates, and for that 
matter local small businesses, becoming priced out of the market. For 
this reason, I am supporting an amendment offered by my colleague, Gene 
Green, to maintain the current LUC rules which qualify political 
candidates to the same rate as the broadcaster's most favored 
commercial advertiser.
  Mr. Chairman, despite my concerns about individual provisions, the 
train has left the station on this issue, leaving members with two 
choices. They can hop aboard or get out of the way. Mr. Chairman, at 
this time it is critical that this body beat back the efforts of those 
among us who would try to derail the process, by offering amendments 
that are sure to divide the fragile coalition for reform. While Shays-
Meehan may not be perfect, it does represent our best chance at 
instituting the broadest reform of our Nation's campaign finance laws 
in a quarter century. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to 
get behind this effort and approve Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I absolutely support H.R. 2356, the Bipartisan 
Campaign Finance Reform Act.
  Our current campaign finance system contributes now to a culture of 
cynicism. It hurts our institutions, it hurts our government, and it is 
an attack on the integrity of our political process.
  Our Congress must be unbought and unbossed.
  That's why I want to stop the flood of unregulated and unreported 
money in campaigns. I want to eliminate the undue influence of special 
interests in elections. I want to encourage strong grassroots 
participation. And I would like to return power to where it belongs--
with the people.
  The Shays-Meehan bill does this: It bans soft money raised by 
national parties and by candidates for Federal office. It ends issue 
ads, which are really attack ads under the guide of ``issues.'' And, it 
clarifies what election activities non-profits can do on behalf of our 
candidates for Federal office.
  We must ban soft money. It is nothing more than a backdoor way to 
avoid the contribution limits that are now placed on candidates. Soft 
money is influencing our process almost as much as direct contributions 
to candidates do. In fact, Republicans and Democrats raised over $460 
million in 2000 in soft money. And let's face it, special interest 
groups that contribute large sums of this soft money have an influence 
on the political process.
  This is why we need to pass Shays-Meehan.
  In 2000, we spent $3 billion on election activities. That is too much 
time and too much money spent on fundraising when it could be spent on 
doing what is important--passing legislation to improve our health 
care, our education system, and our economic stability.
  We must do more to address the fact that the largest voting block in 
America is the no-shows. Campaign Finance Reform can deal with this 
cynicism.
  I urge my colleagues in the strongest way to pass Shays-Meehan. It 
will be one of the best things we can do for democracy.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Shays-
Meehan Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Bill. We must take action now 
to clean our political financing system, eliminate corrupting special 
interests, and enhance accountability. As we have seen in years past, 
the role of soft money on our campaign system extends far beyond our 
nation's borders. Not only are corporations and unions able to pump 
exorbitant amounts of soft money into Federal campaigns under current 
law, but so too are foreign nationals across the globe.
  In the last ten years, China has stood out as the most infamous 
contributor of soft money funds, particularly during the 1996 election 
cycle. Beginning in 1995, reports indicate that Chinese officials 
planned on channeling more than $2 million in to U.S. presidential and 
congressional campaigns. By supporting Shays-Meehan, we have a genuine 
opportunity to shut down this source of funds that has become 
synonymous with the 1996 Presidential election. Foreign nationals in 
China took advantage of the massive soft money loophole to funnel 
illegal funds into Federal political campaigns through campaign 
committees, and as current law states, nothing will stop them from 
repeating these practices. Because there are no current disclosure 
requirements for the funding sources of issue ads, foreign governments 
could finance advertising efforts with complete anonymity.
  We must pass comprehensive legislation that eliminates this soft 
money loophole and the growing potential influence of nations such as 
China. The Shays-Meehan bill will completely ban soft money fund-
raising for national parties. If the Shays-Meehan bill had been in 
effect in 1996, China's negative role in influencing campaigns could 
have been avoided.
  In the wake of September 11, global security is one of the highest 
priorities for the United States. We must not undermine our nation's 
federal election process by leaving a gaping loophole for foreign 
nationals to exert their potentially harmful influence. The sooner we 
pass the Shays-Meehan campaign finance bill, the sooner we will be able 
to eliminate the negative influence of governments on our nation's 
democratic process.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this will be one of the most 
important votes of the year--in fact, it likely will be one of the most 
important for years to come.
  The legislation before us addresses one of the most serious threats 
to the continued health of our democracy--the perception that the 
national government is for sale to the highest bidder.
  I say perception, because I think all of us are motivated by a 
sincere desire to make decisions that are in the best interests of our 
country and that are based on the best information available. I know 
that my judgment is not for sale, and I am confident that goes for 
every one of our colleagues as well.
  But I also understand why many people think otherwise.
  They know that since 1988 both parties have increasingly used funds 
that are supposed to go for party-building--so-called ``soft money''--
to instead support or oppose candidates through the unsubtle subterfuge 
of so-called ``issue ads'' and similar devices. And they know that past 
attempts to stop that subterfuge have been stopped by a veto or by 
obstruction
  So, it is not surprising that many people think that money talks so 
loudly that they cannot be heard.
  All too often, that is the perception--and as we all know, when it 
comes to public opinion perception is reality. I want to change that 
perception by changing its cause--the ``soft money'' loopholes in 
current law. I believe we need to get rid of unlimited ``soft money'' 
contributions and act to open the election process to all.
  This is not a new position for me. Starting with my first year as a 
Member of Congress, I have been a cosponsor of the Shays-Meehan 
campaign finance legislation. I have consistently voted in support of 
similar legislation since 1999. I signed the discharge petition that 
has brought the bill to the floor today.
  And I supported the Shays-Meehan substitute and opposed amendments to 
it because I want the House to pass a bill as similar as possible to 
the McCain-Feingold bill that has already passed the Senate. I think 
that was essential because otherwise there would have been too great a 
risk that the bill will die in conference.

[[Page 1309]]

  I am well aware that this legislation is not perfect. But no 
legislation is perfect, and this bill makes crucial improvements in 
campaign-finance laws. It deserves and needs to be enacted.
  And so now, as we come to the time for a final decision, I urge all 
our colleagues to join me in voting for passage of this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read for 
amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 2356 is as follows:

                               H.R. 2356

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Bipartisan 
     Campaign Reform Act of 2001''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

            TITLE I--REDUCTION OF SPECIAL INTEREST INFLUENCE

Sec. 101. Soft money of political parties.
Sec. 102. Increased contribution limits for State committees of 
              political parties and aggregate contribution limit for 
              individuals.
Sec. 103. Reporting requirements.

              TITLE II--NONCANDIDATE CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES

               Subtitle A--Electioneering Communications

Sec. 201. Disclosure of electioneering communications.
Sec. 202. Coordinated communications as contributions.
Sec. 203. Prohibition of corporate and labor disbursements for 
              electioneering communications.
Sec. 204. Rules relating to certain targeted electioneering 
              communications.

          Subtitle B--Independent and Coordinated Expenditures

Sec. 211. Definition of independent expenditure.
Sec. 212. Reporting requirements for certain independent expenditures.
Sec. 213. Independent versus coordinated expenditures by party.
Sec. 214. Coordination with candidates or political parties.

                        TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 301. Use of contributed amounts for certain purposes.
Sec. 302. Prohibition of fundraising on Federal property.
Sec. 303. Strengthening foreign money ban.
Sec. 304. Modification of individual contribution limits in response to 
              expenditures from personal funds.
Sec. 305. Television media rates.
Sec. 306. Limitation on availability of lowest unit charge for Federal 
              candidates attacking opposition.
Sec. 307. Software for filing reports and prompt disclosure of 
              contributions.
Sec. 308. Modification of contribution limits.
Sec. 309. Donations to Presidential inaugural committee.
Sec. 310. Prohibition on fraudulent solicitation of funds.
Sec. 311. Study and report on Clean Money Clean Elections laws.
Sec. 312. Clarity standards for identification of sponsors of election-
              related advertising.
Sec. 313. Increase in penalties.
Sec. 314. Statute of limitations.
Sec. 315. Sentencing guidelines.
Sec. 316. Increase in penalties imposed for violations of conduit 
              contribution ban.
Sec. 317. Restriction on increased contribution limits by taking into 
              account candidate's available funds.
Sec. 318. Clarification of right of nationals of the United States to 
              make political contributions.
Sec. 319. Prohibition of contributions by minors.
Sec. 320. Definition of contributions made through intermediary or 
              conduit for purposes of applying contribution limits.
Sec. 321. Prohibiting authorized committees from forming joint 
              fundraising committees with political party committees.
Sec. 322. Regulations to prohibit efforts to evade requirements.

                 TITLE IV--SEVERABILITY; EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 401. Severability.
Sec. 402. Effective date.
Sec. 403. Judicial review.

               TITLE V--ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Internet access to records.
Sec. 502. Maintenance of website of election reports.
Sec. 503. Additional monthly and quarterly disclosure reports.
Sec. 504. Public access to broadcasting records.

            TITLE I--REDUCTION OF SPECIAL INTEREST INFLUENCE

     SEC. 101. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

       (a) In General.--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:

     ``SEC. 323. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

       ``(a) National Committees.--
       ``(1) In general.--A national committee of a political 
     party (including a national congressional campaign committee 
     of a political party) may not solicit, receive, or direct to 
     another person a contribution, donation, or transfer of funds 
     or any other thing of value, or spend any funds, that are not 
     subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 
     requirements of this Act.
       ``(2) Applicability.-- The prohibition established by 
     paragraph (1) applies to any such national committee, any 
     officer or agent acting on behalf of such a national 
     committee, and any entity that is directly or indirectly 
     established, financed, maintained, or controlled by such a 
     national committee.
       ``(b) State, District, and Local Committees.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), an 
     amount that is expended or disbursed for Federal election 
     activity by a State, district, or local committee of a 
     political party (including an entity that is directly or 
     indirectly established, financed, maintained, or controlled 
     by a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     and an officer or agent acting on behalf of such committee or 
     entity), or by an association or similar group of candidates 
     for State or local office or individuals holding State or 
     local office, shall be made from funds subject to the 
     limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this 
     Act.
       ``(2) Applicability.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding clause (i) or (ii) of 
     section 301(20)(A), and subject to subparagraph (B), 
     paragraph (1) shall not apply to any amount expended or 
     disbursed by a State, district, or local committee of a 
     political party in existence as of the date of the enactment 
     of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 for an activity 
     described in either such clause to the extent the amounts 
     expended or disbursed for such activity are allocated under 
     regulations prescribed by the Commission which require not 
     less than 50 percent of the amounts expended or disbursed be 
     paid from a Federal allocation account consisting solely of 
     contributions subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and 
     reporting requirements of this Act (not including funds 
     specifically authorized to be spent under subparagraph 
     (B)(iii)).
       ``(B) Conditions.--Subparagraph (A) shall only apply if--
       ``(i) the activity does not refer to a clearly identified 
     candidate for Federal office;
       ``(ii) the amounts expended or disbursed are not for the 
     costs of any broadcasting, cable, or satellite communication, 
     other than a communication which refers solely to a clearly 
     identified candidate for State or local office;
       ``(iii) the amounts expended or disbursed which are not 
     from a Federal allocation account described in subparagraph 
     (A) are paid from amounts which are donated in accordance 
     with State law and which meet the requirements of 
     subparagraph (C), except that no person (including any person 
     established, financed, maintained, or controlled by such 
     person) may donate more than $10,000 to a State, district, or 
     local committee of a political party in a calendar year for 
     such expenditures or disbursements; and
       ``(iv) the amounts expended or disbursed are made solely 
     from funds raised by the State, local, or district committee 
     which makes such expenditure or disbursement, and do not 
     include any funds provided to such committee from--

       ``(I) any other State, local, or district committee of any 
     State party,
       ``(II) the national committee of a political party 
     (including a national congressional campaign committee of a 
     political party),
       ``(III) any officer or agent acting on behalf of any 
     committee described in subclause (I) or (II), or
       ``(IV) any entity directly or indirectly established, 
     financed, maintained, or controlled by any committee 
     described in subclause (I) or (II).

       ``(C) Prohibiting involvement of national parties, federal 
     candidates and officeholders, and state parties acting 
     jointly.--Notwithstanding subsection (e) (other than 
     subsection (e)(3)), amounts specifically authorized to be 
     spent under subparagraph (B)(iii) meet the requirements of 
     this subparagraph only if the amounts--
       ``(i) are not solicited, received, directed, transferred, 
     or spent by or in the name of any person described in 
     subsection (a) or (e); and
       ``(ii) are not solicited, received, or directed through 
     fundraising activities conducted jointly by 2 or more State, 
     local, or district committees of any political party or their 
     agents, or by a State, local, or district committee of a 
     political party on behalf of the State, local, or district 
     committee of a political party or its agent in one or more 
     other States.

[[Page 1310]]

       ``(c) Fundraising Costs.--An amount spent by a person 
     described in subsection (a) or (b) to raise funds that are 
     used, in whole or in part, for expenditures and disbursements 
     for a Federal election activity shall be made from funds 
     subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 
     requirements of this Act.
       ``(d) Tax-Exempt Organizations.--A national, State, 
     district, or local committee of a political party (including 
     a national congressional campaign committee of a political 
     party), an entity that is directly or indirectly established, 
     financed, maintained, or controlled by any such national, 
     State, district, or local committee or its agent, and an 
     officer or agent acting on behalf of any such party committee 
     or entity, shall not solicit any funds for, or make or direct 
     any donations to--
       ``(1) an organization that is described in section 501(c) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation 
     under section 501(a) of such Code (or has submitted an 
     application for determination of tax exempt status under such 
     section) and that makes expenditures or disbursements in 
     connection with an election for Federal office (including 
     expenditures or disbursements for Federal election activity); 
     or
       ``(2) an organization described in section 527 of such Code 
     (other than a political committee, a State, district, or 
     local committee of a political party, or the authorized 
     campaign committee of a candidate for State or local office).
       ``(e) Federal Candidates.--
       ``(1) In general.--A candidate, individual holding Federal 
     office, agent of a candidate or an individual holding Federal 
     office, or an entity directly or indirectly established, 
     financed, maintained or controlled by or acting on behalf of 
     1 or more candidates or individuals holding Federal office, 
     shall not--
       ``(A) solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend funds in 
     connection with an election for Federal office, including 
     funds for any Federal election activity, unless the funds are 
     subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 
     requirements of this Act; or
       ``(B) solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend funds in 
     connection with any election other than an election for 
     Federal office or disburse funds in connection with such an 
     election unless the funds--
       ``(i) are not in excess of the amounts permitted with 
     respect to contributions to candidates and political 
     committees under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 
     315(a); and
       ``(ii) are not from sources prohibited by this Act from 
     making contributions in connection with an election for 
     Federal office.
       ``(2) State law.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to the 
     solicitation, receipt, or spending of funds by an individual 
     described in such paragraph who is also a candidate for a 
     State or local office solely in connection with such election 
     for State or local office if the solicitation, receipt, or 
     spending of funds is permitted under State law and refers 
     only to such State or local candidate, or to any other 
     candidate for the State or local office sought by such 
     candidate, or both.
       ``(3) Fundraising events.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1) or 
     subsection (b)(2)(C), a candidate or an individual holding 
     Federal office may attend, speak, or be a featured guest at a 
     fundraising event for a State, district, or local committee 
     of a political party.
       ``(4) Limitation applicable for purposes of solicitation of 
     donations by individuals to certain organizations.--In the 
     case of the solicitation of funds by any person described in 
     paragraph (1) on behalf of any entity described in subsection 
     (d) which is made specifically for funds to be used for 
     activities described in clauses (i) and (ii) of section 
     301(20)(A), or made for any such entity which engages 
     primarily in activities described in such clauses, the 
     limitation applicable for purposes of a donation of funds by 
     an individual shall be the limitation set forth in section 
     315(a)(1)(D).
       ``(5) Treatment of amounts used to influence or challenge 
     state reapportionment.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     prevent or limit an individual described in paragraph (1) 
     from soliciting or spending funds to be used exclusively for 
     the purpose of influencing the reapportionment decisions of a 
     State or the financing of litigation which relates 
     exclusively to the reapportionment decisions made by a State.
       ``(f) State Candidates.--
       ``(1) In general.--A candidate for State or local office, 
     individual holding State or local office, or an agent of such 
     a candidate or individual may not spend any funds for a 
     communication described in section 301(20)(A)(iii) unless the 
     funds are subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and 
     reporting requirements of this Act.
       ``(2) Exception for certain communications.--Paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply to an individual described in such paragraph 
     if the communication involved is in connection with an 
     election for such State or local office and refers only to 
     such individual or to any other candidate for the State or 
     local office held or sought by such individual, or both.''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 301 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431) is amended by adding at 
     the end thereof the following:
       ``(20) Federal election activity.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `Federal election activity' 
     means--
       ``(i) voter registration activity during the period that 
     begins on the date that is 120 days before the date a 
     regularly scheduled Federal election is held and ends on the 
     date of the election;
       ``(ii) voter identification, get-out-the-vote activity, or 
     generic campaign activity conducted in connection with an 
     election in which a candidate for Federal office appears on 
     the ballot (regardless of whether a candidate for State or 
     local office also appears on the ballot);
       ``(iii) a public communication that refers to a clearly 
     identified candidate for Federal office (regardless of 
     whether a candidate for State or local office is also 
     mentioned or identified) and that promotes or supports a 
     candidate for that office, or attacks or opposes a candidate 
     for that office (regardless of whether the communication 
     expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate); or
       ``(iv) services provided during any month by an employee of 
     a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     who spends more than 25 percent of that individual's 
     compensated time during that month on activities in 
     connection with a Federal election.
       ``(B) Excluded activity.--The term `Federal election 
     activity' does not include an amount expended or disbursed by 
     a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     for--
       ``(i) a public communication that refers solely to a 
     clearly identified candidate for State or local office, if 
     the communication is not a Federal election activity 
     described in subparagraph (A)(i) or (ii);
       ``(ii) a contribution to a candidate for State or local 
     office, provided the contribution is not designated or used 
     to pay for a Federal election activity described in 
     subparagraph (A);
       ``(iii) the costs of a State, district, or local political 
     convention;
       ``(iv) the costs of grassroots campaign materials, 
     including buttons, bumper stickers, and yard signs, that name 
     or depict only a candidate for State or local office; and
       ``(v) the cost of constructing or purchasing an office 
     facility or equipment for a State, district, or local 
     committee.
       ``(21) Generic campaign activity.--The term `generic 
     campaign activity' means a campaign activity that promotes a 
     political party and does not promote a candidate or non-
     Federal candidate.
       ``(22) Public communication.--The term `public 
     communication' means a communication by means of any 
     broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, newspaper, 
     magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or 
     telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of 
     general public political advertising.
       ``(23) Mass mailing.--The term `mass mailing' means a 
     mailing by United States mail or facsimile of more than 500 
     pieces of mail matter of an identical or substantially 
     similar nature within any 30-day period.
       ``(24) Telephone bank.--The term `telephone bank' means 
     more than 500 telephone calls of an identical or 
     substantially similar nature within any 30-day period.''.

     SEC. 102. INCREASED CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR STATE COMMITTEES 
                   OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND AGGREGATE CONTRIBUTION 
                   LIMIT FOR INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) Contribution Limit for State Committees of Political 
     Parties.--Section 315(a)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (C)--
       (A) by inserting ``(other than a committee described in 
     subparagraph (D))'' after ``committee''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) to a political committee established and maintained 
     by a State committee of a political party in any calendar 
     year which, in the aggregate, exceed $10,000.''.
       (b) Aggregate Contribution Limit for Individual.--Section 
     315(a)(3) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)) is amended by striking ``$25,000'' and 
     inserting ``$30,000''.

     SEC. 103. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Reporting Requirements.--Section 304 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Political Committees.--
       ``(1) National and congressional political committees.--The 
     national committee of a political party, any national 
     congressional campaign committee of a political party, and 
     any subordinate committee of either, shall report all 
     receipts and disbursements during the reporting period.
       ``(2) Other political committees to which section 323 
     applies.--
       ``(A) In general.--In addition to any other reporting 
     requirements applicable under this Act, a political committee 
     (not described in paragraph (1)) to which section 323(b)(1) 
     applies shall report all receipts and disbursements made for 
     activities described in section 301(20)(A).
       ``(B) Specific disclosure by state and local parties of 
     certain nonfederal

[[Page 1311]]

     amounts permitted to be spent on federal election activity.--
     Each report by a political committee under subparagraph (A) 
     of receipts and disbursements made for activities described 
     in section 301(20)(A) shall include a disclosure of all 
     receipts and disbursements made section 323(b)(2)(A) and (B).
       ``(3) Itemization.--If a political committee has receipts 
     or disbursements to which this subsection applies from or to 
     any person aggregating in excess of $200 for any calendar 
     year, the political committee shall separately itemize its 
     reporting for such person in the same manner as required in 
     paragraphs (3)(A), (5), and (6) of subsection (b).
       ``(4) Reporting periods.--Reports required to be filed 
     under this subsection shall be filed for the same time 
     periods required for political committees under subsection 
     (a)(4)(B).''.
       (b) Building Fund Exception to the Definition of 
     Contribution.--Section 301(8)(B) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)(B)) is amended--
       (1) by striking clause (viii); and
       (2) by redesignating clauses (ix) through (xv) as clauses 
     (viii) through (xiv), respectively.

              TITLE II--NONCANDIDATE CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES

               Subtitle A--Electioneering Communications

     SEC. 201. DISCLOSURE OF ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 304 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434), as amended by section 
     103, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Disclosure of Electioneering Communications.--
       ``(1) Statement required.--Every person who makes a 
     disbursement for the direct costs of producing and airing 
     electioneering communications in an aggregate amount in 
     excess of $10,000 during any calendar year shall, within 24 
     hours of each disclosure date, file with the Commission a 
     statement containing the information described in paragraph 
     (2).
       ``(2) Contents of statement.--Each statement required to be 
     filed under this subsection shall be made under penalty of 
     perjury and shall contain the following information:
       ``(A) The identification of the person making the 
     disbursement, of any person sharing or exercising direction 
     or control over the activities of such person, and of the 
     custodian of the books and accounts of the person making the 
     disbursement.
       ``(B) The principal place of business of the person making 
     the disbursement, if not an individual.
       ``(C) The amount of each disbursement of more than $200 
     during the period covered by the statement and the 
     identification of the person to whom the disbursement was 
     made.
       ``(D) The elections to which the electioneering 
     communications pertain and the names (if known) of the 
     candidates identified or to be identified.
       ``(E) If the disbursements were paid out of a segregated 
     bank account which consists of funds contributed solely by 
     individuals who are United States citizens or nationals or 
     lawfully admitted for permanent residence as defined in 
     section 1101(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(a)(2)) directly to this account for 
     electioneering communications, the names and addresses of all 
     contributors who contributed an aggregate amount of $1,000 or 
     more to that account during the period beginning on the first 
     day of the preceding calendar year and ending on the 
     disclosure date. Nothing in this subparagraph is to be 
     construed as a prohibition on the use of funds in such a 
     segregated account for a purpose other than electioneering 
     communications.
       ``(F) If the disbursements were paid out of funds not 
     described in subparagraph (E), the names and addresses of all 
     contributors who contributed an aggregate amount of $1,000 or 
     more to the person making the disbursement during the period 
     beginning on the first day of the preceding calendar year and 
     ending on the disclosure date.
       ``(3) Electioneering communication.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--(i) The term `electioneering 
     communication' means any broadcast, cable, or satellite 
     communication which--
       ``(I) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal 
     office;
       ``(II) is made within--

       ``(aa) 60 days before a general, special, or runoff 
     election for the office sought by the candidate; or
       ``(bb) 30 days before a primary or preference election, or 
     a convention or caucus of a political party that has 
     authority to nominate a candidate, for the office sought by 
     the candidate; and

       ``(III) in the case of a communication which refers to a 
     candidate for an office other than President or Vice 
     President, is targeted to the relevant electorate.
       ``(ii) If clause (i) is held to be constitutionally 
     insufficient by final judicial decision to support the 
     regulation provided herein, then the term `electioneering 
     communication' means any broadcast, cable, or satellite 
     communication which promotes or supports a candidate for that 
     office, or attacks or opposes a candidate for that office 
     (regardless of whether the communication expressly advocates 
     a vote for or against a candidate) and which also is 
     suggestive of no plausible meaning other than an exhortation 
     to vote for or against a specific candidate. Nothing in this 
     subparagraph shall be construed to affect the interpretation 
     or application of section 100.22(b) of title 11, Code of 
     Federal Regulations.
       ``(B) Exceptions.--The term `electioneering communication' 
     does not include--
       ``(i) a communication appearing in a news story, 
     commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities 
     of any broadcasting station, unless such facilities are owned 
     or controlled by any political party, political committee, or 
     candidate;
       ``(ii) a communication which constitutes an expenditure or 
     an independent expenditure under this Act;
       ``(iii) a communication which constitutes a candidate 
     debate or forum conducted pursuant to regulations adopted by 
     the Commission, or which solely promotes such a debate or 
     forum and is made by or on behalf of the person sponsoring 
     the debate or forum; or
       ``(iv) any other communication exempted under such 
     regulations as the Commission may promulgate (consistent with 
     the requirements of this paragraph) to ensure the appropriate 
     implementation of this paragraph, except that under any such 
     regulation a communication may not be exempted if it meets 
     the requirements of this paragraph and is described in 
     section 301(20)(A)(iii).
       ``(C) Targeting to relevant electorate.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph, a communication which refers to a clearly 
     identified candidate for Federal office is `targeted to the 
     relevant electorate' if the communication can be received by 
     50,000 or more persons--
       ``(i) in the district the candidate seeks to represent, in 
     the case of a candidate for Representative in, or Delegate or 
     Resident Commissioner to, the Congress; or
       ``(ii) in the State the candidate seeks to represent, in 
     the case of a candidate for Senator.
       ``(4) Disclosure date.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `disclosure date' means--
       ``(A) the first date during any calendar year by which a 
     person has made disbursements for the direct costs of 
     producing or airing electioneering communications aggregating 
     in excess of $10,000; and
       ``(B) any other date during such calendar year by which a 
     person has made disbursements for the direct costs of 
     producing or airing electioneering communications aggregating 
     in excess of $10,000 since the most recent disclosure date 
     for such calendar year.
       ``(5) Contracts to disburse.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, a person shall be treated as having made a 
     disbursement if the person has executed a contract to make 
     the disbursement.
       ``(6) Coordination with other requirements.--Any 
     requirement to report under this subsection shall be in 
     addition to any other reporting requirement under this Act.
       ``(7) Coordination with internal revenue code.--Nothing in 
     this subsection may be construed to establish, modify, or 
     otherwise affect the definition of political activities or 
     electioneering activities (including the definition of 
     participating in, intervening in, or influencing or 
     attempting to influence a political campaign on behalf of or 
     in opposition to any candidate for public office) for 
     purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
       (b) Responsibilities of Federal Communications 
     Commission.--The Federal Communications Commission shall 
     compile and maintain any information the Federal Election 
     Commission may require to carry out section 304(f) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (as added by subsection 
     (a)), and shall make such information available to the public 
     on the Federal Communication Commission's website.

     SEC. 202. COORDINATED COMMUNICATIONS AS CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 315(a)(7) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(7)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) if--
       ``(i) any person makes, or contracts to make, any 
     disbursement for any electioneering communication (within the 
     meaning of section 304(f)(3)); and
       ``(ii) such disbursement is coordinated with a candidate or 
     an authorized committee of such candidate, a Federal, State, 
     or local political party or committee thereof, or an agent or 
     official of any such candidate, party, or committee;

     such disbursement or contracting shall be treated as a 
     contribution to the candidate supported by the electioneering 
     communication or that candidate's party and as an expenditure 
     by that candidate or that candidate's party; and''.

     SEC. 203. PROHIBITION OF CORPORATE AND LABOR DISBURSEMENTS 
                   FOR ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 316(b)(2) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2)) is amended by 
     inserting ``or for any applicable electioneering 
     communication'' before ``, but shall not include''.

[[Page 1312]]

       (b) Applicable Electioneering Communication.--Section 316 
     of such Act is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Rules Relating to Electioneering Communications.--
       ``(1) Applicable electioneering communication.--For 
     purposes of this section, the term `applicable electioneering 
     communication' means an electioneering communication (within 
     the meaning of section 304(f)(3)) which is made by any entity 
     described in subsection (a) of this section or by any other 
     person using funds donated by an entity described in 
     subsection (a) of this section.
       ``(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the term 
     `applicable electioneering communication' does not include a 
     communication by a section 501(c)(4) organization or a 
     political organization (as defined in section 527(e)(1) of 
     such Code) made under section 304(f)(2)(E) or (F) of this Act 
     if the communication is paid for exclusively by funds 
     provided directly by individuals who are United States 
     citizens or nationals or lawfully admitted for permanent 
     residence as defined in section 1101(a)(2) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(2)). For purposes of 
     the preceding sentence, the term `provided directly by 
     individuals' does not include funds the source of which is an 
     entity described in subsection (a) of this section.
       ``(3) Special operating rules.--
       ``(A) Definition under paragraph (1).--An electioneering 
     communication shall be treated as made by an entity described 
     in subsection (a) if an entity described in subsection (a) 
     directly or indirectly disburses any amount for any of the 
     costs of the communication.
       ``(B) Exception under paragraph (2).--A section 501(c)(4) 
     organization that derives amounts from business activities or 
     receives funds from any entity described in subsection (a) 
     shall be considered to have paid for any communication out of 
     such amounts unless such organization paid for the 
     communication out of a segregated account to which only 
     individuals can contribute, as described in section 
     304(f)(2)(E).
       ``(4) Definitions and rules.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) the term `section 501(c)(4) organization' means--
       ``(i) an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under 
     section 501(a) of such Code; or
       ``(ii) an organization which has submitted an application 
     to the Internal Revenue Service for determination of its 
     status as an organization described in clause (i); and
       ``(B) a person shall be treated as having made a 
     disbursement if the person has executed a contract to make 
     the disbursement.
       ``(5) Coordination with internal revenue code.--Nothing in 
     this subsection shall be construed to authorize an 
     organization exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to carry out any activity which 
     is prohibited under such Code.''.

     SEC. 204. RULES RELATING TO CERTAIN TARGETED ELECTIONEERING 
                   COMMUNICATIONS.

       Section 316(c) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 441b), as added by section 203, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Special rules for targeted communications.--
       ``(A) Exception does not apply.--Paragraph (2) shall not 
     apply in the case of a targeted communication that is made by 
     an organization described in such paragraph.
       ``(B) Targeted communication.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the term `targeted communication' means an 
     electioneering communication (as defined in section 
     304(f)(3)) that is distributed from a television or radio 
     broadcast station or provider of cable or satellite 
     television service and, in the case of a communication which 
     refers to a candidate for an office other than President or 
     Vice President, is targeted to the relevant electorate.
       ``(C) Definition.--For purposes of this paragraph, a 
     communication is `targeted to the relevant electorate' if it 
     meets the requirements described in section 304(f)(3)(C).''.

          Subtitle B--Independent and Coordinated Expenditures

     SEC. 211. DEFINITION OF INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE.

       Section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 U.S.C. 
     431) is amended by striking paragraph (17) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(17) Independent expenditure.--The term `independent 
     expenditure' means an expenditure by a person--
       ``(A) expressly advocating the election or defeat of a 
     clearly identified candidate; and
       ``(B) that is not made in concert or cooperation with, at 
     the request or suggestion of, or pursuant to any general or 
     particular understanding with, such candidate, the 
     candidate's authorized political committee, or their agents, 
     or a political party committee or its agents.''.

     SEC. 212. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN INDEPENDENT 
                   EXPENDITURES.

       (a) In General.--Section 304 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) (as amended by section 
     201) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(2), by striking the undesignated 
     matter after subparagraph (C); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Time for Reporting Certain Expenditures.--
       ``(1) Expenditures aggregating $1,000.--
       ``(A) Initial report.--A person (including a political 
     committee) that makes or contracts to make independent 
     expenditures aggregating $1,000 or more after the 20th day, 
     but more than 24 hours, before the date of an election shall 
     file a report describing the expenditures within 24 hours.
       ``(B) Additional reports.--After a person files a report 
     under subparagraph (A), the person shall file an additional 
     report within 24 hours after each time the person makes or 
     contracts to make independent expenditures aggregating an 
     additional $1,000 with respect to the same election as that 
     to which the initial report relates.
       ``(2) Expenditures aggregating $10,000.--
       ``(A) Initial report.--A person (including a political 
     committee) that makes or contracts to make independent 
     expenditures aggregating $10,000 or more at any time up to 
     and including the 20th day before the date of an election 
     shall file a report describing the expenditures within 48 
     hours.
       ``(B) Additional reports.--After a person files a report 
     under subparagraph (A), the person shall file an additional 
     report within 48 hours after each time the person makes or 
     contracts to make independent expenditures aggregating an 
     additional $10,000 with respect to the same election as that 
     to which the initial report relates.
       ``(3) Place of filing; contents.--A report under this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) shall be filed with the Commission; and
       ``(B) shall contain the information required by subsection 
     (b)(6)(B)(iii), including the name of each candidate whom an 
     expenditure is intended to support or oppose.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 304(a)(5) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 434(a)(5)) is amended by striking ``, or the second 
     sentence of subsection (c)(2)''.

     SEC. 213. INDEPENDENT VERSUS COORDINATED EXPENDITURES BY 
                   PARTY.

       Section 315(d) of the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 
     U.S.C. 441a(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and (3)'' and inserting 
     ``, (3), and (4)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Independent versus coordinated expenditures by 
     party.--
       ``(A) In general.--On or after the date on which a 
     political party nominates a candidate, a committee of the 
     political party shall not make both expenditures under this 
     subsection and independent expenditures (as defined in 
     section 301(17)) with respect to the candidate during the 
     election cycle.
       ``(B) Certification.--Before making a coordinated 
     expenditure under this subsection with respect to a 
     candidate, a committee of a political party shall file with 
     the Commission a certification, signed by the treasurer of 
     the committee, that the committee, on or after the date 
     described in subparagraph (A), has not and shall not make any 
     independent expenditure with respect to the candidate during 
     the same election cycle.
       ``(C) Application.--For purposes of this paragraph, all 
     political committees established and maintained by a national 
     political party (including all congressional campaign 
     committees) and all political committees established and 
     maintained by a State political party (including any 
     subordinate committee of a State committee) shall be 
     considered to be a single political committee.
       ``(D) Transfers.--A committee of a political party that 
     submits a certification under subparagraph (B) with respect 
     to a candidate shall not, during an election cycle, transfer 
     any funds to, assign authority to make coordinated 
     expenditures under this subsection to, or receive a transfer 
     of funds from, a committee of the political party that has 
     made or intends to make an independent expenditure with 
     respect to the candidate.''.

     SEC. 214. COORDINATION WITH CANDIDATES OR POLITICAL PARTIES.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Coordinated expenditure or disbursement treated as 
     contribution.--Section 301(8) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A)(i);
       (B) by striking ``purpose.'' in subparagraph (A)(ii) and 
     inserting ``purpose;''; and
       (C) by adding at the end of subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(iii) any coordinated expenditure or other disbursement 
     made by any person in connection with a candidate's election, 
     regardless of whether the expenditure or disbursement is for 
     a communication that contains express advocacy; or
       ``(iv) any coordinated expenditure or other disbursement 
     made in coordination with a national committee, State 
     committee, or other political committee of a political party 
     by a person (other than a candidate or a candidate's 
     authorized committee) in connection with an election, 
     regardless of whether the expenditure or disbursement is for 
     a communication that contains express advocacy.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 315(a)(7) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(7)) is 
     amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:

[[Page 1313]]

       ``(B) a coordinated expenditure or disbursement described 
     in--
       ``(i) section 301(8)(A)(iii) shall be considered to be a 
     contribution to the candidate and an expenditure by the 
     candidate; and
       ``(ii) section 301(8)(A)(iv) shall be considered to be a 
     contribution to, and an expenditure by, the political party 
     committee; and''.
       (b) Definition of Coordination.--Section 301(8) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A)(iii) and (iv), the 
     term `coordinated expenditure or other disbursement' means a 
     payment made in concert or cooperation with, at the request 
     or suggestion of, or pursuant to any general or particular 
     understanding with, such candidate, the candidate's 
     authorized political committee, or their agents, or a 
     political party committee or its agents.''.
       (c) Regulations by the Federal Election Commission.--(1) 
     Within 90 days of the effective date of this Act, the Federal 
     Election Commission shall promulgate new regulations to 
     enforce the statutory standard set by section 301(8)(C) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (as added by 
     subsection (b)) and section 301(17)(B) of such Act (as 
     amended by section 211). The regulations shall not require 
     collaboration or agreement to establish coordination. In 
     addition to any subject determined by the Commission, the 
     regulations shall address--
       (A) payments for the republication of campaign materials;
       (B) payments for the use of a common vendor;
       (C) payments for communications directed or made by persons 
     who previously served as an employee of a candidate or a 
     political party; and
       (D) payments for communications made by a person after 
     substantial discussion about the communication with a 
     candidate or a political party.
       (2) The regulations on coordination adopted by the Federal 
     Election Commission and published in the Federal Register at 
     page 76138 of volume 65, Federal Register, on December 6, 
     2000, are repealed as of 90 days after the effective date of 
     this Act.
       (d) Meaning of Contribution or Expenditure for the Purposes 
     of Section 316.--Section 316(b)(2) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``shall include'' and inserting ``includes a 
     contribution or expenditure, as those terms are defined in 
     section 301, and also includes''.

                        TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 301. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by striking section 313 and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 313. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.

       ``(a) Permitted Uses.--A contribution accepted by a 
     candidate, and any other donation received by an individual 
     as support for activities of the individual as a holder of 
     Federal office, may be used by the candidate or individual--
       ``(1) for otherwise authorized expenditures in connection 
     with the campaign for Federal office of the candidate or 
     individual;
       ``(2) for ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in 
     connection with duties of the individual as a holder of 
     Federal office;
       ``(3) for contributions to an organization described in 
     section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
       ``(4) for transfers to a national, State, or local 
     committee of a political party.
       ``(b) Prohibited Use.--
       ``(1) In general.--A contribution or donation described in 
     subsection (a) shall not be converted by any person to 
     personal use.
       ``(2) Conversion.--For the purposes of paragraph (1), a 
     contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted 
     to personal use if the contribution or amount is used to 
     fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person 
     that would exist irrespective of the candidate's election 
     campaign or individual's duties as a holder of Federal 
     office, including--
       ``(A) a home mortgage, rent, or utility payment;
       ``(B) a clothing purchase;
       ``(C) a noncampaign-related automobile expense;
       ``(D) a country club membership;
       ``(E) a vacation or other noncampaign-related trip;
       ``(F) a household food item;
       ``(G) a tuition payment;
       ``(H) admission to a sporting event, concert, theater, or 
     other form of entertainment not associated with an election 
     campaign; and
       ``(I) dues, fees, and other payments to a health club or 
     recreational facility.''.

     SEC. 302. PROHIBITION OF FUNDRAISING ON FEDERAL PROPERTY.

       Section 607 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Prohibition.--
       ``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person to 
     solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of 
     value in connection with a Federal, State, or local election 
     from a person who is located in a room or building occupied 
     in the discharge of official duties by an officer or employee 
     of the United States. It shall be unlawful for an individual 
     who is an officer or employee of the Federal Government, 
     including the President, Vice President, and Members of 
     Congress, to solicit or receive a donation of money or other 
     thing of value in connection with a Federal, State, or local 
     election, while in any room or building occupied in the 
     discharge of official duties by an officer or employee of the 
     United States, from any person.
       ``(2) Penalty.--A person who violates this section shall be 
     fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned more than 3 years, or 
     both.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``or Executive Office 
     of the President'' after ``Congress'' .

     SEC. 303. STRENGTHENING FOREIGN MONEY BAN.

       Section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441e) is amended--
       (1) by striking the heading and inserting the following: 
     ``contributions and donations by foreign nationals''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for--
       ``(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make--
       ``(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of 
     value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a 
     contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, 
     State, or local election;
       ``(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a 
     political party; or
       ``(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or 
     disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the 
     meaning of section 304(f)(3)); or
       ``(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a 
     contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) 
     of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.''.

     SEC. 304. MODIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTION LIMITS IN 
                   RESPONSE TO EXPENDITURES FROM PERSONAL FUNDS.

       (a) Increased Limits for Individuals.--
       (1) In general.--Section 315 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``No person'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in subsection (i), no 
     person''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Increased Limit To Allow Response to Expenditures 
     From Personal Funds.--
       ``(1) Increase.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), if the 
     opposition personal funds amount with respect to a candidate 
     for election to the office of Senator exceeds the threshold 
     amount, the limit under subsection (a)(1)(A) (in this 
     subsection referred to as the `applicable limit') with 
     respect to that candidate shall be the increased limit.
       ``(B) Threshold amount.--
       ``(i) State-by-state competitive and fair campaign 
     formula.--In this subsection, the threshold amount with 
     respect to an election cycle of a candidate described in 
     subparagraph (A) is an amount equal to the sum of--

       ``(I) $150,000; and
       ``(II) $0.04 multiplied by the voting age population.

       ``(ii) Voting age population.--In this subparagraph, the 
     term `voting age population' means in the case of a candidate 
     for the office of Senator, the voting age population of the 
     State of the candidate (as certified under section 315(e)).
       ``(C) Increased limit.--Except as provided in clause (ii), 
     for purposes of subparagraph (A), if the opposition personal 
     funds amount is over--
       ``(i) 2 times the threshold amount, but not over 4 times 
     that amount--

       ``(I) the increased limit shall be 3 times the applicable 
     limit; and
       ``(II) the limit under subsection (a)(3) shall not apply 
     with respect to any contribution made with respect to a 
     candidate if such contribution is made under the increased 
     limit of subparagraph (A) during a period in which the 
     candidate may accept such a contribution;

       ``(ii) 4 times the threshold amount, but not over 10 times 
     that amount--

       ``(I) the increased limit shall be 6 times the applicable 
     limit; and
       ``(II) the limit under subsection (a)(3) shall not apply 
     with respect to any contribution made with respect to a 
     candidate if such contribution is made under the increased 
     limit of subparagraph (A) during a period in which the 
     candidate may accept such a contribution; and

       ``(iii) 10 times the threshold amount--

       ``(I) the increased limit shall be 6 times the applicable 
     limit;
       ``(II) the limit under subsection (a)(3) shall not apply 
     with respect to any contribution made with respect to a 
     candidate if such contribution is made under the increased 
     limit of subparagraph (A) during a period in which the 
     candidate may accept such a contribution; and
       ``(III) the limits under subsection (d) with respect to any 
     expenditure by a State or national committee of a political 
     party shall not apply.

       ``(D) Opposition personal funds amount.--The opposition 
     personal funds

[[Page 1314]]

     amount is an amount equal to the excess (if any) of--
       ``(i) the greatest aggregate amount of expenditures from 
     personal funds (as defined in section 304(a)(6)(B)) that an 
     opposing candidate in the same election makes; over
       ``(ii) the aggregate amount of expenditures from personal 
     funds made by the candidate with respect to the election.
       ``(2) Time to accept contributions under increased limit.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), a candidate 
     and the candidate's authorized committee shall not accept any 
     contribution, and a party committee shall not make any 
     expenditure, under the increased limit under paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) until the candidate has received notification of the 
     opposition personal funds amount under section 304(a)(6)(B); 
     and
       ``(ii) to the extent that such contribution, when added to 
     the aggregate amount of contributions previously accepted and 
     party expenditures previously made under the increased limits 
     under this subsection for the election cycle, exceeds 110 
     percent of the opposition personal funds amount.
       ``(B) Effect of withdrawal of an opposing candidate.--A 
     candidate and a candidate's authorized committee shall not 
     accept any contribution and a party shall not make any 
     expenditure under the increased limit after the date on which 
     an opposing candidate ceases to be a candidate to the extent 
     that the amount of such increased limit is attributable to 
     such an opposing candidate.
       ``(3) Disposal of excess contributions.--
       ``(A) In general.--The aggregate amount of contributions 
     accepted by a candidate or a candidate's authorized committee 
     under the increased limit under paragraph (1) and not 
     otherwise expended in connection with the election with 
     respect to which such contributions relate shall, not later 
     than 50 days after the date of such election, be used in the 
     manner described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Return to contributors.--A candidate or a candidate's 
     authorized committee shall return the excess contribution to 
     the person who made the contribution.
       ``(j) Limitation on Repayment of Personal Loans.--Any 
     candidate who incurs personal loans made after the date of 
     enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 in 
     connection with the candidate's campaign for election shall 
     not repay (directly or indirectly), to the extent such loans 
     exceed $250,000, such loans from any contributions made to 
     such candidate or any authorized committee of such candidate 
     after the date of such election.''.
       (b) Notification of Expenditures From Personal Funds.--
     Section 304(a)(6) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(6)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (E); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) Notification of expenditure from personal funds.--
       ``(i) Definition of expenditure from personal funds.--In 
     this subparagraph, the term `expenditure from personal funds' 
     means--
       ``(I) an expenditure made by a candidate using personal 
     funds; and
       ``(II) a contribution or loan made by a candidate using 
     personal funds or a loan secured using such funds to the 
     candidate's authorized committee.
       ``(ii) Declaration of intent.--Not later than the date that 
     is 15 days after the date on which an individual becomes a 
     candidate for the office of Senator, the candidate shall file 
     a declaration stating the total amount of expenditures from 
     personal funds that the candidate intends to make, or to 
     obligate to make, with respect to the election that will 
     exceed the State-by-State competitive and fair campaign 
     formula with--
       ``(I) the Commission; and
       ``(II) each candidate in the same election.
       ``(iii) Initial notification.--Not later than 24 hours 
     after a candidate described in clause (ii) makes or obligates 
     to make an aggregate amount of expenditures from personal 
     funds in excess of 2 times the threshold amount in connection 
     with any election, the candidate shall file a notification 
     with--
       ``(I) the Commission; and
       ``(II) each candidate in the same election.
       ``(iv) Additional notification.--After a candidate files an 
     initial notification under clause (iii), the candidate shall 
     file an additional notification each time expenditures from 
     personal funds are made or obligated to be made in an 
     aggregate amount that exceed $10,000 with--
       ``(I) the Commission; and
       ``(II) each candidate in the same election.
     Such notification shall be filed not later than 24 hours 
     after the expenditure is made.
       ``(v) Contents.--A notification under clause (iii) or (iv) 
     shall include--
       ``(I) the name of the candidate and the office sought by 
     the candidate;
       ``(II) the date and amount of each expenditure; and
       ``(III) the total amount of expenditures from personal 
     funds that the candidate has made, or obligated to make, with 
     respect to an election as of the date of the expenditure that 
     is the subject of the notification.
       ``(C) Notification of disposal of excess contributions.--In 
     the next regularly scheduled report after the date of the 
     election for which a candidate seeks nomination for election 
     to, or election to, Federal office, the candidate or the 
     candidate's authorized committee shall submit to the 
     Commission a report indicating the source and amount of any 
     excess contributions (as determined under paragraph (1) of 
     section 315(i)) and the manner in which the candidate or the 
     candidate's authorized committee used such funds.
       ``(D) Enforcement.--For provisions providing for the 
     enforcement of the reporting requirements under this 
     paragraph, see section 309.''.
       (c) Definitions.--Section 301 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431), as amended by section 
     101(a), is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(25) Election cycle.--The term `election cycle' means the 
     period beginning on the day after the date of the most recent 
     election for the specific office or seat that a candidate is 
     seeking and ending on the date of the next election for that 
     office or seat. For purposes of the preceding sentence, a 
     primary election and a general election shall be considered 
     to be separate elections.
       ``(26) Personal funds.--The term `personal funds' means an 
     amount that is derived from--
       ``(A) any asset that, under applicable State law, at the 
     time the individual became a candidate, the candidate had 
     legal right of access to or control over, and with respect to 
     which the candidate had--
       ``(i) legal and rightful title; or
       ``(ii) an equitable interest;
       ``(B) income received during the current election cycle of 
     the candidate, including--
       ``(i) a salary and other earned income from bona fide 
     employment;
       ``(ii) dividends and proceeds from the sale of the 
     candidate's stocks or other investments;
       ``(iii) bequests to the candidate;
       ``(iv) income from trusts established before the beginning 
     of the election cycle;
       ``(v) income from trusts established by bequest after the 
     beginning of the election cycle of which the candidate is the 
     beneficiary;
       ``(vi) gifts of a personal nature that had been customarily 
     received by the candidate prior to the beginning of the 
     election cycle; and
       ``(vii) proceeds from lotteries and similar legal games of 
     chance; and
       ``(C) a portion of assets that are jointly owned by the 
     candidate and the candidate's spouse equal to the candidate's 
     share of the asset under the instrument of conveyance or 
     ownership, but if no specific share is indicated by an 
     instrument of conveyance or ownership, the value of \1/2\ of 
     the property.''.

     SEC. 305. TELEVISION MEDIA RATES.

       (a) Lowest Unit Charge.--Subsection (b) of section 315 of 
     the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 315) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(b) The charges'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Charges.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     charges'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Television.--The charges made for the use of any 
     television broadcast station, or by a provider of cable or 
     satellite television service, to any person who is a legally 
     qualified candidate for any public office in connection with 
     the campaign of such candidate for nomination for election, 
     or election, to such office shall not exceed, during the 
     periods referred to in paragraph (1)(A), the lowest charge of 
     the station (at any time during the 180-day period preceding 
     the date of the use) for the same amount of time for the same 
     period.''.
       (b) Rate Available for National Parties.--Section 315(b)(2) 
     of such Act (47 U.S.C. 315(b)(2), as added by subsection 
     (a)(3), is amended by inserting ``, or to a national 
     committee of a political party making expenditures under 
     section 315(d) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     on behalf of such candidate in connection with such 
     campaign,'' after ``such office''.
       (c) Preemption.--Section 315 of such Act (47 U.S.C. 315) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (e) and (f), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Preemption.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     licensee shall not preempt the use of a television broadcast 
     station, or a provider of cable or satellite television 
     service, by an eligible candidate or political committee of a 
     political party who has purchased and paid for such use 
     pursuant to subsection (b)(2).
       ``(2) Circumstances beyond control of licensee.--If a 
     program to be broadcast by a television broadcast station, or 
     a provider of cable or satellite television service, is 
     preempted because of circumstances beyond the control of the 
     station, any candidate or party advertising spot scheduled to 
     be broadcast during that program may also be preempted.''.
       (d) Random Audits.--Section 315 of such Act (47 U.S.C. 
     315), as amended by subsection

[[Page 1315]]

     (c), is amended by inserting after subsection (c) the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(d) Random Audits.--
       ``(1) In general.--During the 45-day period preceding a 
     primary election and the 60-day period preceding a general 
     election, the Commission shall conduct random audits of 
     designated market areas to ensure that each television 
     broadcast station, and provider of cable or satellite 
     television service, in those markets is allocating television 
     broadcast advertising time in accordance with this section 
     and section 312.
       ``(2) Markets.--The random audits conducted under paragraph 
     (1) shall cover the following markets:
       ``(A) At least 6 of the top 50 largest designated market 
     areas (as defined in section 122(j)(2)(C) of title 17, United 
     States Code).
       ``(B) At least 3 of the 51-100 largest designated market 
     areas (as so defined).
       ``(C) At least 3 of the 101-150 largest designated market 
     areas (as so defined).
       ``(D) At least 3 of the 151-210 largest designated market 
     areas (as so defined).
       ``(3) Broadcast stations.--Each random audit shall include 
     each of the 3 largest television broadcast networks, 1 
     independent network, and 1 cable network.''.
       (e) Definition of Broadcasting Station.--Subsection (e) of 
     section 315 of such Act (47 U.S.C. 315(e)), as redesignated 
     by subsection (c)(1) of this section, is amended by inserting 
     ``, a television broadcast station, and a provider of cable 
     or satellite television service'' before the semicolon.
       (f) Stylistic Amendments.--Section 315 of such Act (47 
     U.S.C. 315) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``In General.--'' 
     before ``If any'';
       (2) in subsection (e), as redesignated by subsection (c)(1) 
     of this section, by inserting ``Definitions.--'' before ``For 
     purposes''; and
       (3) in subsection (f), as so redesignated, by inserting 
     ``Regulations.--'' before ``The Commission''.

     SEC. 306. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF LOWEST UNIT CHARGE 
                   FOR FEDERAL CANDIDATES ATTACKING OPPOSITION.

       (a) In General.--Section 315(b) of the Communications Act 
     of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 315(b)), as amended by this Act, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Content of broadcasts.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of a candidate for Federal 
     office, such candidate shall not be entitled to receive the 
     rate under paragraph (1)(A) or (2) for the use of any 
     broadcasting station unless the candidate provides written 
     certification to the broadcast station that the candidate 
     (and any authorized committee of the candidate) shall not 
     make any direct reference to another candidate for the same 
     office, in any broadcast using the rights and conditions of 
     access under this Act, unless such reference meets the 
     requirements of subparagraph (C) or (D).
       ``(B) Limitation on charges.--If a candidate for Federal 
     office (or any authorized committee of such candidate) makes 
     a reference described in subparagraph (A) in any broadcast 
     that does not meet the requirements of subparagraph (C) or 
     (D), such candidate shall not be entitled to receive the rate 
     under paragraph (1)(A) or (2) for such broadcast or any other 
     broadcast during any portion of the 45-day and 60-day periods 
     described in paragraph (1)(A), that occur on or after the 
     date of such broadcast, for election to such office.
       ``(C) Television broadcasts.--A candidate meets the 
     requirements of this subparagraph if, in the case of a 
     television broadcast, at the end of such broadcast there 
     appears simultaneously, for a period no less than 4 seconds--
       ``(i) a clearly identifiable photographic or similar image 
     of the candidate; and
       ``(ii) a clearly readable printed statement, identifying 
     the candidate and stating that the candidate has approved the 
     broadcast and that the candidate's authorized committee paid 
     for the broadcast.
       ``(D) Radio broadcasts.--A candidate meets the requirements 
     of this subparagraph if, in the case of a radio broadcast, 
     the broadcast includes a personal audio statement by the 
     candidate that identifies the candidate, the office the 
     candidate is seeking, and indicates that the candidate has 
     approved the broadcast.
       ``(E) Certification.--Certifications under this section 
     shall be provided and certified as accurate by the candidate 
     (or any authorized committee of the candidate) at the time of 
     purchase.
       ``(F) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph, the 
     terms `authorized committee' and `Federal office' have the 
     meanings given such terms by section 301 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 315(b)(1)(A) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 315(b)(1)(A)), as 
     amended by this Act, is amended by inserting ``subject to 
     paragraph (3),'' before ``during the forty-five days''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to broadcasts made after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 307. SOFTWARE FOR FILING REPORTS AND PROMPT DISCLOSURE 
                   OF CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 304(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 434(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(12) Software for filing of reports.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Commission shall--
       ``(i) promulgate standards to be used by vendors to develop 
     software that--

       ``(I) permits candidates to easily record information 
     concerning receipts and disbursements required to be reported 
     under this Act at the time of the receipt or disbursement;
       ``(II) allows the information recorded under subclause (I) 
     to be transmitted immediately to the Commission; and
       ``(III) allows the Commission to post the information on 
     the Internet immediately upon receipt; and

       ``(ii) make a copy of software that meets the standards 
     promulgated under clause (i) available to each person 
     required to file a designation, statement, or report in 
     electronic form under this Act.
       ``(B) Additional information.--To the extent feasible, the 
     Commission shall require vendors to include in the software 
     developed under the standards under subparagraph (A) the 
     ability for any person to file any designation, statement, or 
     report required under this Act in electronic form.
       ``(C) Required use.--Notwithstanding any provision of this 
     Act relating to times for filing reports, each candidate for 
     Federal office (or that candidate's authorized committee) 
     shall use software that meets the standards promulgated under 
     this paragraph once such software is made available to such 
     candidate.
       ``(D) Required posting.--The Commission shall, as soon as 
     practicable, post on the Internet any information received 
     under this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 308. MODIFICATION OF CONTRIBUTION LIMITS.

       (a) Increase in Individual Limits for Certain 
     Contributions.--Section 315(a)(1) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$1,000'' and 
     inserting the following: ``$2,000 (or, in the case of a 
     candidate for Representative in or Delegate or Resident 
     Commissioner to the Congress, $1,000)''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$20,000'' and 
     inserting ``$25,000''.
       (b) Increase in Aggregate Individual Limit.--Section 
     315(a)(3) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)), as amended by section 102(b), is amended 
     by striking ``$30,000'' and inserting ``$37,500''.
       (c) Increase in Senatorial Campaign Committee Limit.--
     Section 315(h) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 441a(h)) is amended by striking ``$17,500'' and 
     inserting ``$35,000''.
       (d) Indexing of Contribution Limits.--Section 315(c) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking the second and third sentences;
       (B) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``At the beginning''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), in any 
     calendar year after 2002--
       ``(i) a limitation established by subsections (a)(1)(A), 
     (a)(1)(B), (a)(3), (b), (d), or (h) shall be increased by the 
     percent difference determined under subparagraph (A);
       ``(ii) each amount so increased shall remain in effect for 
     the calendar year; and
       ``(iii) if any amount after adjustment under clause (i) is 
     not a multiple of $100, such amount shall be rounded to the 
     nearest multiple of $100.
       ``(C) In the case of limitations under subsections 
     (a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), (a)(3), and (h), increases shall only 
     be made in odd-numbered years and such increases shall remain 
     in effect for the 2-year period beginning on the first day 
     following the date of the last general election in the year 
     preceding the year in which the amount is increased and 
     ending on the date of the next general election.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``means the calendar 
     year 1974'' and inserting ``means--
       ``(i) for purposes of subsections (b) and (d), calendar 
     year 1974; and
       ``(ii) for purposes of subsections (a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), 
     (a)(3), and (h) calendar year 2001''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to contributions made after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 309. DONATIONS TO PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURAL COMMITTEE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 36, United States Code, 
     is amended by--
       (1) redesignating section 510 as section 511; and
       (2) inserting after section 509 the following:

     ``Sec. 510. Disclosure of and prohibition on certain 
       donations.

       ``(a) In general.--A committee shall not be considered to 
     be the Inaugural Committee for purposes of this chapter 
     unless the committee agrees to, and meets, the requirements 
     of subsections (b) and (c).
       ``(b) Disclosure.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than the date that is 90 days 
     after the date of the Presidential inaugural ceremony, the 
     committee

[[Page 1316]]

     shall file a report with the Federal Election Commission 
     disclosing any donation of money or anything of value made to 
     the committee in an aggregate amount equal to or greater than 
     $200.
       ``(2) Contents of report.--A report filed under paragraph 
     (1) shall contain--
       ``(A) the amount of the donation;
       ``(B) the date the donation is received; and
       ``(C) the name and address of the person making the 
     donation.
       ``(c) Limitation.--The committee shall not accept any 
     donation from a foreign national (as defined in section 
     319(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     441e(b))).''.
       (b) Reports Made Available by FEC.--Section 304 of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434), as 
     amended by sections 103, 201, and 212 is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(h) Reports From Inaugural Committees.--The Federal 
     Election Commission shall make any report filed by an 
     Inaugural Committee under section 510 of title 36, United 
     States Code, accessible to the public at the offices of the 
     Commission and on the Internet not later than 48 hours after 
     the report is received by the Commission.''.

     SEC. 310. PROHIBITION ON FRAUDULENT SOLICITATION OF FUNDS.

       Section 322 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441h) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``No 
     person''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Fraudulent Solicitation of Funds.--No person shall--
       ``(1) fraudulently misrepresent the person as speaking, 
     writing, or otherwise acting for or on behalf of any 
     candidate or political party or employee or agent thereof for 
     the purpose of soliciting contributions or donations; or
       ``(2) willfully and knowingly participate in or conspire to 
     participate in any plan, scheme, or design to violate 
     paragraph (1).''.

     SEC. 311. STUDY AND REPORT ON CLEAN MONEY CLEAN ELECTIONS 
                   LAWS.

       (a) Clean Money Clean Elections Defined.--In this section, 
     the term ``clean money clean elections'' means funds received 
     under State laws that provide in whole or in part for the 
     public financing of election campaigns.
       (b) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a 
     study of the clean money clean elections of Arizona and 
     Maine.
       (2) Matters studied.--
       (A) Statistics on clean money clean elections candidates.--
     The Comptroller General shall determine--
       (i) the number of candidates who have chosen to run for 
     public office with clean money clean elections including--

       (I) the office for which they were candidates;
       (II) whether the candidate was an incumbent or a 
     challenger; and
       (III) whether the candidate was successful in the 
     candidate's bid for public office; and

       (ii) the number of races in which at least one candidate 
     ran an election with clean money clean elections.
       (B) Effects of clean money clean elections.--The 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall describe the 
     effects of public financing under the clean money clean 
     elections laws on the 2000 elections in Arizona and Maine.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit a report to the Congress detailing the 
     results of the study conducted under subsection (b).

     SEC. 312. CLARITY STANDARDS FOR IDENTIFICATION OF SPONSORS OF 
                   ELECTION-RELATED ADVERTISING.

       Section 318 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441d) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``Whenever'' and inserting ``Whenever a 
     political committee makes a disbursement for the purpose of 
     financing any communication through any broadcasting station, 
     newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, 
     or any other type of general public political advertising, or 
     whenever'';
       (ii) by striking ``an expenditure'' and inserting ``a 
     disbursement''; and
       (iii) by striking ``direct''; and
       (iv) by inserting ``or makes a disbursement for an 
     electioneering communication (as defined in section 
     304(f)(3))'' after ``public political advertising''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``and permanent street 
     address, telephone number, or World Wide Web address'' after 
     ``name''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Specification.--Any printed communication described 
     in subsection (a) shall--
       ``(1) be of sufficient type size to be clearly readable by 
     the recipient of the communication;
       ``(2) be contained in a printed box set apart from the 
     other contents of the communication; and
       ``(3) be printed with a reasonable degree of color contrast 
     between the background and the printed statement.
       ``(d) Additional Requirements.--
       ``(1) Audio statement.--
       ``(A) Candidate.--Any communication described in paragraphs 
     (1) or (2) of subsection (a) which is transmitted through 
     radio or television shall include, in addition to the 
     requirements of that paragraph, an audio statement by the 
     candidate that identifies the candidate and states that the 
     candidate has approved the communication.
       ``(B) Other persons.--Any communication described in 
     paragraph (3) of subsection (a) which is transmitted through 
     radio or television shall include, in addition to the 
     requirements of that paragraph, in a clearly spoken manner, 
     the following statement: `_____ is responsible for the 
     content of this advertising.' (with the blank to be filled in 
     with the name of the political committee or other person 
     paying for the communication and the name of any connected 
     organization of the payor). If transmitted through 
     television, the statement shall also appear in a clearly 
     readable manner with a reasonable degree of color contrast 
     between the background and the printed statement, for a 
     period of at least 4 seconds.
       ``(2) Television.--If a communication described in 
     paragraph (1)(A) is transmitted through television, the 
     communication shall include, in addition to the audio 
     statement under paragraph (1), a written statement that--
       ``(A) appears at the end of the communication in a clearly 
     readable manner with a reasonable degree of color contrast 
     between the background and the printed statement, for a 
     period of at least 4 seconds; and
       ``(B) is accompanied by a clearly identifiable photographic 
     or similar image of the candidate.''.

     SEC. 313. INCREASE IN PENALTIES.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 309(d)(1) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     437g(d)(1)(A)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a 
     violation of any provision of this Act which involves the 
     making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, 
     donation, or expenditure--
       ``(i) aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year 
     shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or 
     imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or
       ``(ii) aggregating $2,000 or more (but less than $25,000) 
     during a calendar year shall be fined under such title, or 
     imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to violations occurring on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 314. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 406(a) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 455(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``3'' and inserting ``5''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to violations occurring on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 315. SENTENCING GUIDELINES.

       (a) In General.--The United States Sentencing Commission 
     shall--
       (1) promulgate a guideline, or amend an existing guideline 
     under section 994 of title 28, United States Code, in 
     accordance with paragraph (2), for penalties for violations 
     of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and related 
     election laws; and
       (2) submit to Congress an explanation of any guidelines 
     promulgated under paragraph (1) and any legislative or 
     administrative recommendations regarding enforcement of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and related election 
     laws.
       (b) Considerations.--The Commission shall provide 
     guidelines under subsection (a) taking into account the 
     following considerations:
       (1) Ensure that the sentencing guidelines and policy 
     statements reflect the serious nature of such violations and 
     the need for aggressive and appropriate law enforcement 
     action to prevent such violations.
       (2) Provide a sentencing enhancement for any person 
     convicted of such violation if such violation involves--
       (A) a contribution, donation, or expenditure from a foreign 
     source;
       (B) a large number of illegal transactions;
       (C) a large aggregate amount of illegal contributions, 
     donations, or expenditures;
       (D) the receipt or disbursement of governmental funds; and
       (E) an intent to achieve a benefit from the Federal 
     Government.
       (3) Provide a sentencing enhancement for any violation by a 
     person who is a candidate or a high-ranking campaign official 
     for such candidate.
       (4) Assure reasonable consistency with other relevant 
     directives and guidelines of the Commission.
       (5) Account for aggravating or mitigating circumstances 
     that might justify exceptions, including circumstances for 
     which the sentencing guidelines currently provide sentencing 
     enhancements.
       (6) Assure the guidelines adequately meet the purposes of 
     sentencing under section 3553(a)(2) of title 18, United 
     States Code.
       (c) Effective Date; Emergency Authority To Promulgate 
     Guidelines.--
       (1) Effective date.--Notwithstanding section 402, the 
     United States Sentencing Commission shall promulgate 
     guidelines under this section not later than the later of--

[[Page 1317]]

       (A) 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (B) 90 days after the date on which at least a majority of 
     the members of the Commission are appointed and holding 
     office.
       (2) Emergency authority to promulgate guidelines.--The 
     Commission shall promulgate guidelines under this section in 
     accordance with the procedures set forth in section 21(a) of 
     the Sentencing Reform Act of 1987, as though the authority 
     under such Act has not expired.

     SEC. 316. INCREASE IN PENALTIES IMPOSED FOR VIOLATIONS OF 
                   CONDUIT CONTRIBUTION BAN.

       (a) Increase in Civil Money Penalty for Knowing and Willful 
     Violations.--Section 309(a) of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5)(B), by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``(or, in the case of a violation of 
     section 320, which is not less than 300 percent of the amount 
     involved in the violation and is not more than the greater of 
     $50,000 or 1000 percent of the amount involved in the 
     violation)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (6)(C), by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``(or, in the case of a violation of 
     section 320, which is not less than 300 percent of the amount 
     involved in the violation and is not more than the greater of 
     $50,000 or 1000 percent of the amount involved in the 
     violation)''.
       (b) Increase in Criminal Penalty.--Section 309(d)(1) of 
     such Act (2 U.S.C. 437g(d)(1)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a 
     violation of section 320 involving an amount aggregating more 
     than $10,000 during a calendar year shall be--
       ``(i) imprisoned for not more than 2 years if the amount is 
     less than $25,000 (and subject to imprisonment under 
     subparagraph (A) if the amount is $25,000 or more);
       ``(ii) fined not less than 300 percent of the amount 
     involved in the violation and not more than the greater of--
       ``(I) $50,000; or
       ``(II) 1,000 percent of the amount involved in the 
     violation; or
       ``(iii) both imprisoned under clause (i) and fined under 
     clause (ii).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to violations occurring on or after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 317. RESTRICTION ON INCREASED CONTRIBUTION LIMITS BY 
                   TAKING INTO ACCOUNT CANDIDATE'S AVAILABLE 
                   FUNDS.

       Section 315(i)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(i)(1)), as added by this Act, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Special rule for candidate's campaign funds.--
       ``(i) In general.--For purposes of determining the 
     aggregate amount of expenditures from personal funds under 
     subparagraph (D)(ii), such amount shall include the gross 
     receipts advantage of the candidate's authorized committee.
       ``(ii) Gross receipts advantage.--For purposes of clause 
     (i), the term `gross receipts advantage' means the excess, if 
     any, of--

       ``(I) the aggregate amount of 50 percent of gross receipts 
     of a candidate's authorized committee during any election 
     cycle (not including contributions from personal funds of the 
     candidate) that may be expended in connection with the 
     election, as determined on June 30 and December 31 of the 
     year preceding the year in which a general election is held, 
     over
       ``(II) the aggregate amount of 50 percent of gross receipts 
     of the opposing candidate's authorized committee during any 
     election cycle (not including contributions from personal 
     funds of the candidate) that may be expended in connection 
     with the election, as determined on June 30 and December 31 
     of the year preceding the year in which a general election is 
     held.

     SEC. 318. CLARIFICATION OF RIGHT OF NATIONALS OF THE UNITED 
                   STATES TO MAKE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 319(d)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 441e(d)(2)) is amended by inserting after 
     ``United States'' the following: ``or a national of the 
     United States (as defined in section 101(a)(22) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act)''.

     SEC. 319. PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MINORS.

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


                ``prohibition of contributions by minors

       ``Sec. 324. An individual who is 17 years old or younger 
     shall not make a contribution to a candidate or a 
     contribution or donation to a committee of a political 
     party.''.

     SEC. 320. DEFINITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS MADE THROUGH 
                   INTERMEDIARY OR CONDUIT FOR PURPOSES OF 
                   APPLYING CONTRIBUTION LIMITS.

       The first sentence of section 315(a)(8) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(8)) is 
     amended by striking ``including contributions which are in 
     any way earmarked or otherwise directed through an 
     intermediary or conduit to such candidate,'' and inserting 
     the following: ``including contributions which are in any way 
     earmarked or otherwise arranged or directed through an 
     intermediary or conduit to such candidate, or solicited by 
     such candidate to support the candidate's election and 
     arranged or suggested by the candidate to be spent by or 
     through an intermediary to support or assist the candidate's 
     election,''.

     SEC. 321. PROHIBITING AUTHORIZED COMMITTEES FROM FORMING 
                   JOINT FUNDRAISING COMMITTEES WITH POLITICAL 
                   PARTY COMMITTEES.

       Section 302(e) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 432(e)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(6) No authorized committee of a candidate for Federal 
     office may form a joint fundraising committee with any 
     political committee of a political party.''.

     SEC. 322. REGULATIONS TO PROHIBIT EFFORTS TO EVADE 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.), as amended by sections 101 and 319, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:


        ``regulations to prohibit efforts to evade requirements

       ``Sec. 325. The Commission shall promulgate regulations to 
     prohibit efforts to evade or circumvent the limitations, 
     prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.''.

                 TITLE IV--SEVERABILITY; EFFECTIVE DATE

     SEC. 401. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act, 
     or the application of a provision or amendment to any person 
     or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the 
     remainder of this Act and amendments made by this Act, and 
     the application of the provisions and amendment to any person 
     or circumstance, shall not be affected by the holding.

     SEC. 402. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act, 
     this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect 30 days after the date of its enactment.
       (b) Transition Rule for Spending of Funds by National 
     Parties.--If a national committee of a political party 
     described in section 323(a)(1) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (as added by section 101(a)), including 
     any person who is subject to such section, has received funds 
     described in such section prior to the effective date 
     described in subsection (a), the following rules shall apply 
     with respect to the spending of such funds by such committee:
       (1) During the period which begins on such effective date 
     and ends 90 days thereafter or December 31, 2001 (whichever 
     occurs later), the committee may spend such funds for any 
     activity permitted for the use of such funds prior to such 
     effective date.
       (2) During the period which begins on such effective date 
     and ends March 31, 2001, the committee may transfer such 
     funds without limit to any committee of a State or local 
     political party, any organization described in section 501(c) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation 
     under section 501(a) of such Code, or any organization 
     described in section 527 of such Code. Nothing in this 
     paragraph may be construed to permit any committee or 
     organization to which such funds are transferred to use such 
     funds in a manner inconsistent with any of the applicable 
     provisions of this Act or the amendments made by this Act.
       (3) At any time after such effective date, the committee 
     may spend such funds for activities which are solely to 
     defray the costs of the construction or purchase of any 
     office building or facility.

     SEC. 403. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) Special Rules For Certain Actions Brought on 
     Constitutional Grounds.--If any person who is aggrieved by 
     any of the provisions of this Act or any amendment made by 
     this Act (or who would be aggrieved by any such provision or 
     amendment when the provision or amendment becomes effective) 
     brings an action which names the United States as the 
     defendant for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge 
     the constitutionality of the provision or amendment within 
     the 90-day period which begins on the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the following rules shall apply:
       (1) The action shall be filed in the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia and shall be heard by a 3-
     judge court convened pursuant to section 2284 of title 28, 
     United States Code.
       (2) A copy of the complaint shall be delivered promptly to 
     the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary 
     of the Senate.
       (3) A final decision in the action shall be reviewable only 
     by appeal directly to the United States Supreme Court. Such 
     appeal shall be taken by the filing of a notice of appeal 
     within 10 days, and the filing of a jurisdictional statement 
     within 30 days, of the entry of the final decision.
       (4) It shall be the duty of the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of 
     the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to 
     the greatest possible extent the disposition of the action 
     and appeal.
       (b) Intervention by Members of Congress.--In any action in 
     which the constitutionality of any provision of this Act or 
     any

[[Page 1318]]

     amendment made by this Act is raised (including but not 
     limited to an action described in subsection (a)), any member 
     of the House of Representatives (including a Delegate or 
     Resident Commissioner to the Congress) or Senate shall have 
     the right to intervene either in support of or opposition to 
     the position of a party to the case regarding the 
     constitutionality of the provision or amendment. To avoid 
     duplication of efforts and reduce the burdens placed on the 
     parties to the action, the court in any such action may make 
     such orders as it considers necessary, including orders to 
     require intervenors taking similar positions to file joint 
     papers or to be represented by a single attorney at oral 
     argument.

               TITLE V--ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS

     SEC. 501. INTERNET ACCESS TO RECORDS.

       Section 304(a)(11)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(11)(B)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(B) The Commission shall make a designation, statement, 
     report, or notification that is filed with the Commission 
     under this Act available for inspection by the public in the 
     offices of the Commission and accessible to the public on the 
     Internet not later than 48 hours (or not later than 24 hours 
     in the case of a designation, statement, report, or 
     notification filed electronically) after receipt by the 
     Commission.''.

     SEC. 502. MAINTENANCE OF WEBSITE OF ELECTION REPORTS.

       (a) In General.--The Federal Election Commission shall 
     maintain a central site on the Internet to make accessible to 
     the public all publicly available election-related reports 
     and information.
       (b) Election-Related Report.--In this section, the term 
     ``election-related report'' means any report, designation, or 
     statement required to be filed under the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971.
       (c) Coordination With Other Agencies.--Any Federal 
     executive agency receiving election-related information which 
     that agency is required by law to publicly disclose shall 
     cooperate and coordinate with the Federal Election Commission 
     to make such report available through, or for posting on, the 
     site of the Federal Election Commission in a timely manner.

     SEC. 503. ADDITIONAL MONTHLY AND QUARTERLY DISCLOSURE 
                   REPORTS.

       (a) Principal Campaign Committees.--
       (1) Monthly reports.--Section 304(a)(2)(A) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(2)(A)) is 
     amended by striking clause (iii) and inserting the following:
       ``(iii) additional monthly reports, which shall be filed 
     not 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 monthly reports shall not be required under this clause 
     in November and December and a year end report shall be filed 
     not later than January 31 of the following calendar year.''.
       (2) Quarterly reports.--Section 304(a)(2)(B) of such Act is 
     amended by striking ``the following reports'' and all that 
     follows through the period and inserting ``the treasurer 
     shall file quarterly reports, which shall be filed not later 
     than the 15th day after the last day of each calendar 
     quarter, and which shall be complete as of the last day of 
     each calendar quarter, except that the report for the quarter 
     ending December 31 shall be filed not later than January 31 
     of the following calendar year.''.
       (b) National Committee of a Political Party.--Section 
     304(a)(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 434(a)(4)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following flush sentence: ``Notwithstanding the preceding 
     sentence, a national committee of a political party shall 
     file the reports required under subparagraph (B).''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 304.--Section 304(a) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (3)(A)(ii), by striking ``quarterly 
     reports'' and inserting ``monthly reports''; and
       (B) in paragraph (8), by striking ``quarterly report under 
     paragraph (2)(A)(iii) or paragraph (4)(A)(i)'' and inserting 
     ``monthly report under paragraph (2)(A)(iii) or paragraph 
     (4)(A)''.
       (2) Section 309.--Section 309(b) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(b)) is amended by 
     striking ``calendar quarter'' and inserting ``month''.

     SEC. 504. PUBLIC ACCESS TO BROADCASTING RECORDS.

       Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     315), as amended by this Act, is amended by redesignating 
     subsections (e) and (f) as subsections (f) and (g), 
     respectively, and inserting after subsection (d) the 
     following:
       ``(e) Political Record.--
       ``(1) In general.--A licensee shall maintain, and make 
     available for public inspection, a complete record of a 
     request to purchase broadcast time that--
       ``(A) is made by or on behalf of a legally qualified 
     candidate for public office; or
       ``(B) communicates a message relating to any political 
     matter of national importance, including--
       ``(i) a legally qualified candidate;
       ``(ii) any election to Federal office; or
       ``(iii) a national legislative issue of public importance.
       ``(2) Contents of record.--A record maintained under 
     paragraph (1) shall contain information regarding--
       ``(A) whether the request to purchase broadcast time is 
     accepted or rejected by the licensee;
       ``(B) the rate charged for the broadcast time;
       ``(C) the date and time on which the communication is 
     aired;
       ``(D) the class of time that is purchased;
       ``(E) the name of the candidate to which the communication 
     refers and the office to which the candidate is seeking 
     election, the election to which the communication refers, or 
     the issue to which the communication refers (as applicable);
       ``(F) in the case of a request made by, or on behalf of, a 
     candidate, the name of the candidate, the authorized 
     committee of the candidate, and the treasurer of such 
     committee; and
       ``(G) in the case of any other request, the name of the 
     person purchasing the time, the name, address, and phone 
     number of a contact person for such person, and a list of the 
     chief executive officers or members of the executive 
     committee or of the board of directors of such person.
       ``(3) Time to maintain file.--The information required 
     under this subsection shall be placed in a political file as 
     soon as possible and shall be retained by the licensee for a 
     period of not less than 2 years.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the bill, or to the bill as perfected 
by an amendment in the nature of a substitute finally adopted, shall be 
in order except those printed in the portion of the Congressional 
Record designated for that purpose or otherwise specified in House 
Resolution 344.
  Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to 
consider each amendment in the nature of a substitute specified in 
section 2 of the resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in 
the order specified, may be offered only by the Member designated or a 
designee, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for 40 minutes, 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and 
shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in section 3 of 
the resolution.
  If more than one amendment in the nature of a substitute specified in 
section 2 is adopted, only the one receiving the greater number of 
affirmative votes shall be considered as finally adopted. In the case 
of a tie for the greater number of affirmative votes, only the last 
amendment to receive that number of affirmative votes shall be 
considered as finally adopted.
  After disposition of the amendments in the nature of a substitute 
specified in section 2, the provisions of the bill, or the provisions 
of the bill as perfected by an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
finally adopted, shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered read.
  No further amendment shall be in order except those specified in 
section 3 of the resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only by 
the Member designated or a designee. Each such amendment shall be 
considered read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, February 12, 2002, the 
Chair shall alternate recognition to offer the amendments specified in 
section 3 between the majority leader or a designee or the majority 
leader, and Representative Shays or Representative Meehan or a designee 
of either Member, only as follows:
  The majority leader for one amendment;
  Representative Shays or Representative Meehan for one amendment;
  The majority leader for 2 amendments in sequence;
  Representative Shays or Representative Meehan for one amendment;
  The majority leader for two amendments in sequence;
  Representative Shays or Representative Meehan for one amendment;
  The majority leader for two amendments in sequence;
  Representative Shays or Representative Meehan for one amendment;
  The majority leader for two amendments in sequence;

[[Page 1319]]

  Representative Shays or Representative Meehan for one amendment; and
  The majority leader for one amendment.
  It is now in order to consider the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute numbered 13 specified in section 2 of House Resolution 344 
by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).


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

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

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by 
     Mr. Armey:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Ban it All, Ban it Now 
     Act''.

        TITLE I--SOFT MONEY ACTIVITIES OF PARTIES AND CANDIDATES

     SEC. 101. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

       (a) In General.--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:

     ``SEC. 323. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

       ``(a) National Committees.--
       ``(1) In general.--A national committee of a political 
     party (including a national congressional or Senatorial 
     campaign committee of a political party) may not solicit, 
     receive, or direct to another person a contribution, 
     donation, or transfer of funds or any other thing of value, 
     or spend any funds, that are not subject to the limitations, 
     prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.
       ``(2) Applicability.-- The prohibition established by 
     paragraph (1) applies--
       ``(A) to any such national committee, any officer or agent 
     acting on behalf of such a national committee, and any entity 
     that is directly or indirectly established, financed, 
     maintained, or controlled by such a national committee; and
       ``(B) to all activities of such committee and the persons 
     described in subparagraph (A), including the construction or 
     purchase of an office building or facility, the influencing 
     of the reapportionment decisions of a State, and the 
     financing of litigation relating to the reapportionment 
     decisions of a State.
       ``(b) State, District, and Local Committees.--Any amount 
     that is expended or disbursed for Federal election activity 
     by a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     (including an entity that is directly or indirectly 
     established, financed, maintained, or controlled by a State, 
     district, or local committee of a political party and an 
     officer or agent acting on behalf of such committee or 
     entity), or by an association or similar group of candidates 
     for State or local office or individuals holding State or 
     local office, shall be made from funds subject to the 
     limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this 
     Act.
       ``(c) Fundraising Costs.--An amount spent by a person 
     described in subsection (a) or (b) to raise funds that are 
     used, in whole or in part, for expenditures and disbursements 
     for a Federal election activity shall be made from funds 
     subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 
     requirements of this Act.
       ``(d) Tax-Exempt Organizations.--A national, State, 
     district, or local committee of a political party (including 
     a national congressional or Senatorial campaign committee of 
     a political party), an entity that is directly or indirectly 
     established, financed, maintained, or controlled by any such 
     national, State, district, or local committee or its agent, 
     and an officer or agent acting on behalf of any such party 
     committee or entity, shall not solicit any funds for, or make 
     or direct any donations to--
       ``(1) an organization that is described in section 501(c) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation 
     under section 501(a) of such Code (or has submitted an 
     application for determination of tax exempt status under such 
     section) and that makes expenditures or disbursements in 
     connection with an election for Federal office (including 
     expenditures or disbursements for Federal election activity); 
     or
       ``(2) an organization described in section 527 of such Code 
     (other than a political committee, a State, district, or 
     local committee of a political party, or the authorized 
     campaign committee of a candidate for State or local office).
       ``(e) Federal Candidates.--
       ``(1) In general.--A candidate, individual holding Federal 
     office, agent of a candidate or an individual holding Federal 
     office, or an entity directly or indirectly established, 
     financed, maintained or controlled by or acting on behalf of 
     1 or more candidates or individuals holding Federal office, 
     shall not--
       ``(A) solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend funds in 
     connection with an election for Federal office, including 
     funds for any Federal election activity, unless the funds are 
     subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 
     requirements of this Act; or
       ``(B) solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend funds in 
     connection with any election other than an election for 
     Federal office or disburse funds in connection with such an 
     election unless the funds--
       ``(i) are not in excess of the amounts permitted with 
     respect to contributions to candidates and political 
     committees under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 
     315(a); and
       ``(ii) are not from sources prohibited by this Act from 
     making contributions in connection with an election for 
     Federal office.
       ``(2) State law.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to the 
     solicitation, receipt, or spending of funds by an individual 
     described in such paragraph who is also a candidate for a 
     State or local office solely in connection with such election 
     for State or local office if the solicitation, receipt, or 
     spending of funds is permitted under State law and refers 
     only to such State or local candidate, or to any other 
     candidate for the State or local office sought by such 
     candidate, or both.
       ``(3) Fundraising events.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a 
     candidate or an individual holding Federal office may attend, 
     speak, or be a featured guest at a fundraising event for a 
     State, district, or local committee of a political party.
       ``(4) Limitation applicable for purposes of solicitation of 
     donations by individuals to certain organizations.--In the 
     case of the solicitation of funds by any person described in 
     paragraph (1) on behalf of any entity described in subsection 
     (d) which is made specifically for funds to be used for 
     activities described in clauses (i) and (ii) of section 
     301(20)(A), or made for any such entity which engages 
     primarily in activities described in such clauses, the 
     limitation applicable for purposes of a donation of funds by 
     an individual shall be the limitation set forth in section 
     315(a)(1)(D).
       ``(f) State Candidates.--
       ``(1) In general.--A candidate for State or local office, 
     individual holding State or local office, or an agent of such 
     a candidate or individual may not spend any funds for a 
     communication described in section 301(20)(A)(iii) unless the 
     funds are subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and 
     reporting requirements of this Act.
       ``(2) Exception for certain communications.--Paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply to an individual described in such paragraph 
     if the communication involved is in connection with an 
     election for such State or local office and refers only to 
     such individual or to any other candidate for the State or 
     local office held or sought by such individual, or both.''.

     SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(20) Federal election activity.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `Federal election activity' 
     means--
       ``(i) voter registration activity;
       ``(ii) voter identification, get-out-the-vote activity, or 
     generic campaign activity conducted in connection with an 
     election in which a candidate for Federal office appears on 
     the ballot (regardless of whether a candidate for State or 
     local office also appears on the ballot); or
       ``(iii) a public communication that refers to a clearly 
     identified candidate for Federal office (regardless of 
     whether a candidate for State or local office is also 
     mentioned or identified) and that promotes or supports a 
     candidate for that office, or attacks or opposes a candidate 
     for that office (regardless of whether the communication 
     expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate).
       ``(B) Excluded activity.--The term `Federal election 
     activity' does not include an amount expended or disbursed by 
     a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     for--
       ``(i) a public communication that refers solely to a 
     clearly identified candidate for State or local office, if 
     the communication is not a Federal election activity 
     described in subparagraph (A)(i) or (ii);
       ``(ii) a contribution to a candidate for State or local 
     office, provided the contribution is not designated or used 
     to pay for a Federal election activity described in 
     subparagraph (A); or
       ``(iii) the costs of grassroots campaign materials, 
     including buttons, bumper stickers, and yard signs, that name 
     or depict only a candidate for State or local office.
       ``(21) Generic campaign activity.--The term `generic 
     campaign activity' means a campaign activity that promotes a 
     political party and does not promote a candidate or non-
     Federal candidate.
       ``(22) Public communication.--The term `public 
     communication' means a communication by means of any 
     broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, newspaper, 
     magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or 
     telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of 
     general public political advertising or political advertising 
     directed to an audience of 500 or more people.
       ``(23) Mass mailing.--The term `mass mailing' means a 
     mailing by United States mail or facsimile of more than 500 
     pieces of mail matter of an identical or substantially 
     similar nature within any 1-year period.
       ``(24) Telephone bank.--The term `telephone bank' means 
     more than 500 telephone

[[Page 1320]]

     calls of an identical or substantially similar nature within 
     any 1-year period.''.

TITLE II--SOFT MONEY ACTIVITIES OF CORPORATIONS AND LABOR ORGANIZATIONS

     SEC. 201. BAN ON USE OF SOFT MONEY FOR NONPARTISAN VOTER 
                   REGISTRATION AND GET-OUT-THE-VOTE ACTIVITIES.

       Section 316(b)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``(B) 
     nonpartisan registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns'' and 
     all that follows through ``and (C)'' and inserting ``and 
     (B)''.

                 TITLE III--OTHER SOFT MONEY ACTIVITIES

     SEC. 301. BAN ON USE OF SOFT MONEY FOR GET-OUT-THE-VOTE 
                   ACTIVITIES BY CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS.

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


  ``ban on use of nonfederal funds for get-out-the-vote activities by 
                         certain organizations

       ``Sec. 324. (a) In General.--Any amount expended or 
     disbursed for get-out-the-vote activities by any organization 
     described in subsection (b) shall be made from amounts 
     subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 
     requirements of this Act.
       ``(b) Organizations Described.--An organization described 
     in this subsection is--
       ``(1) an organization that is described in section 
     501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     and exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code 
     (or has submitted an application for determination of tax 
     exempt status under such section); or
       ``(2) an organization described in section 527 of such Code 
     (other than a State, district, or local committee of a 
     political party, a candidate for State or local office, or 
     the authorized campaign committee of a candidate for State or 
     local office).''.

     SEC. 302. BAN ON USE OF SOFT MONEY FOR ANY PARTISAN VOTER 
                   REGISTRATION ACTIVITIES.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.), as amended by sections 101 and 301, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:


   ``ban on use of nonfederal funds for partisan voter registration 
                               activities

       ``Sec. 325. No person may expend or disburse any funds for 
     partisan voter registration activity which are not subject to 
     the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of 
     this Act.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 344, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and a Member opposed each will control 
20 minutes.
  Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority 
leader.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will be recognized.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, in light of today's debate, that I anticipate will 
feature a great deal of self-flagellation and tacit indictment of one 
another, let me state at the outset that I am not now, never have been, 
nor ever will be corrupted by contributions to my campaign in soft or 
hard money, and I do not believe any of my colleagues have now, ever 
have been, or ever will be corrupted.
  That is a great fiction for demagoguery, but it is not the facts of 
who we are, and we ought to have the courage to stand up and say, my 
colleagues, that we are decent, honest, hard-working servants of this 
country, our respective districts, and the ideas that we embrace. And 
I, for one, am proud to make that comment about myself and my 
colleagues.
  We have in this debate a great deal of allegiance to Shays-Meehan. 
There is Shays-Meehan No. 1, the original bill that attracted a lot of 
cosponsorship, and a lot of people will come to the floor and say, I am 
for that, and by their commitment to Shays-Meehan will be for the 
original Shays-Meehan bill, a couple of years old now.
  There are those who will say I am committed to what I call Shays-
Meehan No. 2; that revision of the original Shays-Meehan that featured 
17 amendments that were offered by a rule earlier in this Congress, in 
17 separate amendments, which was considered unfair and resulted in the 
rule being voted down, principally by proponents of Shays-Meehan.
  Or there may be those who believe in Shays-Meehan No. 3; that which 
we discovered in the wee hours of the morning as they were presented 
last night with some seven or eight new amendments to it, which will be 
offered later as a substitute by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
  What is the common thread that runs through Shays-Meehan No. 1, No. 
2, and No. 3? A consistent pattern of the accumulation of loopholes to 
the soft money ban. It may be that my memory does not serve me well, 
but it is possible perhaps Shays-Meehan No. 1, the original, did have 
an immediate, full, complete, comprehensive ban on soft money. That may 
or may not have been the case, but it is sure not the case now.
  We have in the accumulation of loopholes some 20 loopholes to the 
soft money ban. The one thing for certain we can say about Shays-
Meehan, as we will see it on this floor, is there is no full soft money 
ban now.
  My favorite loophole of the soft money ban, and the only one I will 
talk about because there are so many loopholes, is the one that popped 
up last night around midnight. That loophole, under the guise of 
reform, allows people to do with soft money after reform what they 
cannot do legally today, and that is borrow soft money, spend it as 
hard money, and then after the election to pay it off as soft money. 
That one cracks me up.
  How in the world could anybody with a straight face say I am here 
with a heartfelt commitment to get rid of the evils of soft money and 
vote or even offer such an amendment to Shays-Meehan?
  If my colleagues want to end soft money now, now, vote for the Armey 
substitute. It does not end soft money after the election, it does not 
end soft money after we have used it to manipulate hard money, it is 
now. So if, in fact, my colleagues have the courage of their 
convictions and they want to put their money where their mouth is, 
their soft money where their soft-spoken mouth is, vote for Armey and 
get rid of soft money now.
  If my colleagues do not want to get rid of soft money now, then quit 
talking about it. I mean, at least do us the courtesy of giving us the 
benefit of the doubt with respect to the suspicion that we are not 
total idiots. We are either for a ban on soft money now or we are not. 
We are either for tricks and gimmicks, exceptions and loopholes or we 
are not. If we are for a real ban now, vote for Armey.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield the 
debate time I have remaining on my amendment to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder), and I further ask unanimous consent that he be 
permitted to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) may each control 5 minutes of the time allocated to me, and 
that they may yield such time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand a letter from Mr. Larry Noble, 
executive director and general counsel of the Center for Responsive 
Politics, who was the former General Counsel of the Federal Election 
Commission, and I quote from that letter:

       ``It is clear under Federal election law that only hard 
     money can be used to pay off a loan that was used for hard 
     money expenditures.''

  Constantly, the other side has been using as a windmill that they 
want to have us quixotically focus on, this incorrect claim that we 
somehow allow soft money to be used to pay off hard money debt. The 
letter goes on to say, ``I see nothing in section 402(b)(1) of the 
Shays-Meehan Substitute,'' referred to by so many of the speakers, 
``that would supersede current Federal law. Under section 402(b)(1), 
soft money

[[Page 1321]]

funds on hand after elections could only be used to pay off debts or 
obligations used for soft money expenditures.''
  Mr. Chairman, I provide for the Record the letter I just quoted from.

                               Center for Responsive Politics,

                                Washington, DC, February 13, 2002.
     Hon. Christopher Shays,
     Longworth Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Shays: This is in response to your 
     question regarding whether a national committee of a 
     political party can use soft money to pay off a debt or 
     obligation that was used to fund expenditures that must be 
     paid for with hard money. It is clear under federal election 
     law that only hard money can be used to pay off a loan that 
     was used for hard money expenditures. I see nothing in 
     Section 402(b)(1) of the Shays-Meehan Substitute Amendment 
     that would supersede current federal law. Under Section 
     402(b)(1), soft money funds on hand after the election could 
     only be used to pay off debts or obligations used for soft 
     money expenditures.
       If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to 
     contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Larry Noble,
          Executive Director and General Counsel, (Former General 
                      Counsel of the Federal Election Commission).

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle), who has some time constraints, and then I 
will make my comments.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I draw Members' attention to an article in today's Washington Post, 
not by a Republican or a conservative, by Robert J. Samuelson, entitled 
``It Is Not Reform, It Is Deception.'' That is all this Shays-Meehan 
bill and the McCain-Feingold bill are about. I encourage Members to 
read it because it is not from a Republican perspective, and yet it 
makes all the Republican arguments. With all of the demagoguery we are 
going to hear today, I hope Members will read this because in one 
little summary, Members will get the essence of what this is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, the disastrous present law that we have was given to us 
by the same liberals who are now bringing to us an updated version in 
the Shays-Meehan bill. This law was rammed through in 1974 by liberal 
Democrats in the far left of the think tanks to try and take advantage 
of Republicans through the law and making it harder for them to 
campaign. It worked. It took us 20 additional years before we won the 
House of Representatives as a result of that law.
  If this disastrous bill passes today unamended, I suspect we will 
have another 20 years in the trenches before we ever come back. Why is 
it right to abuse the law to skew it in favor of one party and against 
another? It is terribly wrong.
  As Samuelson says, it is not reform, it is deception. I support the 
amendment of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder). If we ban soft 
money, ban it cleanly, not with 85 pages of exceptions like the Shays-
Meehan bill does. Ban it cleanly. It does not need to be banned, but I 
am going to vote for the amendment because I want the bill to go to 
conference.
  This disastrous system the Democrats gave us needs to be fixed. The 
only way to fix it and get a level playing field is to send it to 
conference. I support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran.)
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I take great 
exception to the majority leader's words that we think that he is a 
total idiot. Not only is the gentleman very clever, but his amendment 
is very clever. It is not the words that are the problem, it is the 
intent. In fact, only 8 cents out of every soft-money dollar spent in 
the 2000 campaign cycle spent by the parties went to voter education, 
phone banks, voter registration, get-out-the-vote, traditional party-
building activities. The problem is the intent. If this passes, it will 
go to conference, and it will be killed in conference.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, to begin to address the question of intent, this bill, 
or the vast majority of this bill, was actually introduced March 15, 
2001. It was introduced by me after talking to many people about it 
because I believe if we want to get rid of soft money, Members ought to 
do that.
  Every year since 1995, this body has been offered a version of Shays-
Meehan, and in every Congress we have listened to our colleagues take 
the floor of the House to vilify soft money and all of its evils and 
ills; yet in all of the various incantations of the Shays-Meehan 
language that we have seen over the years, we have never seen a version 
that bans soft money in Federal elections. Let me say that again. In 
all of the various incantations of the Shays-Meehan language that we 
have seen over the years, we have never seen a version that bans soft 
money in Federal elections.
  Further, in nary a rendition of the Shays-Meehan bill, have the 
authors banned all soft money immediately. That is right. Yet for the 
rest of this day and into the night, we are going to hear that this 
proposal bans soft money. It calls to mind the wonderful line from 
Alice in Wonderland when one of the character says, ``When I use a 
word, it means exactly what I want it to mean.'' That is what ``ban'' 
is going to be today.
  Mr. Chairman, I am the former chairman of the National Republican 
Congressional Committee. I ran that committee on the very soft dollars 
that we seek to ban today. So when I speak about the need to end soft 
money in Federal politics, I know of what I speak. It is from that 
background that I came to the floor proudly today to support the ban-
it-all, ban-it-now reform legislation of the gentleman from Texas. I 
support campaign finance reform.
  In fact, even as a former NRCC chairman, I introduced my own campaign 
finance reform legislation in this Congress, legislation that would ban 
all soft money used by national committees, corporations, and labor 
unions. I am pleased that much of that bill is incorporated in this 
substitute today. But the debate here today is not about my language; 
it is about my principles. And while I support campaign finance reform, 
principle prevents me from supporting Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. Chairman, all Americans deserve a voice in the political process, 
and we need campaign finance reform to ensure that all voices are 
heard. Yet Shays-Meehan simply silences some voices altogether while 
amplifying others. Shays-Meehan creates a playing field, but it is not 
a level playing field. It is a field where winners are guaranteed. 
Clever rhetoric and good intentions have never been able to hide this 
fatal flaw.
  While soft money is certainly not the root of all evil in modern 
politics, all direct contributions to national parties from 
corporations, labor unions, or individuals should fall under the same 
regulation as direct contributions to candidates fall under. 
Ultimately, campaign finance reform must be about fairness. Bringing 
corporations, labor unions, interest groups, and individuals under the 
same regulations as everyone else is the only way to achieve honest 
fairness.
  The substitute put forth by the majority leader and I does not play 
favorites. It does not pick winners and losers. It does not use clever 
language or fancy phrases. Rather, it identifies a single societal 
goal, accountability and disclosure in politics; and then it proceeds 
to be certain that this end is achieved. It identifies a single problem 
in politics and focuses all of its energy and power on effecting a 
solution; and that is the bill we have before us today.
  In 12 simple pages, this bill bans every dollar of unregulated, 
unaccountable, and undisclosed money that can be constitutionally 
eliminated from Federal politics. Again, every cent of unregulated, 
unaccountable or undisclosed money that can be constitutionally 
eliminated from Federal politics is eliminated by this language. Why? 
Because America is asking for accountability from its government, and 
we answer that call. We answer it not next cycle, not next year, not in 
60 to 90 days, but we answer the call today, now. Not in 100 pages, not 
in 75,

[[Page 1322]]

not in 50; but in 12 simple pages, this bill addresses completely what 
the proponents of Shays-Meehan language have been attacking for nearly 
a decade. Do not let the length fool Members. The language of the 
substitute is thorough, it is total, and it is complete; and it 
actually does ban soft money.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) and ask unanimous consent that as a 
member of the Committee on House Administration, that he may control 
that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Matheson).
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, simply stated, campaigns in this country 
really ought to be a dialogue between candidates and voters. Members 
all have their own personal experiences. I was just elected in November 
of 2000. That dialogue that should have been taking place between 
candidates and voters was diluted and in fact polluted by massive 
amounts of unaccountable soft money. That is money that funded issue 
commercials that were sham ads that were deceptive, or they contained 
out-and-out lies; and there was no one to hold accountable, including 
my opponent. And, quite frankly, my opponent took some blame for that, 
and it was inappropriate. Today is the day we can stand up and try to 
clean up this process so Members have that appropriate dialogue between 
candidates and voters. I encourage Members to support the Shays-Meehan 
bill.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for introducing a 
bill that is relatively clean of the hypocrisy that we seem to have in 
some of the other bills. It is interesting that we hear over and over 
again that the Shays-Meehan bill bans soft money; and yet if we look at 
it, and I advise Members to look at the doggone bill because if Members 
say it bans soft money, they have not read the bill or they are 
misrepresenting the bill. It is one or the other.
  But what it basically does is it reregulates soft money and tilts the 
scale more favorably to certain special interest groups. It is 
analogous to pushing food around on the plate to make momma think the 
vegetables have been eaten. I hated green peas. I know the game. I did 
it all of the time. That is what is going on here. Members are patting 
ourselves on the back and head and acting holier than thou and saying 
we banned soft money today.
  Mr. Chairman, it does not do that. It creates a $60 million soft 
money loophole for State and local parties. It allows the Democratic 
National Committee to build a $40 million headquarters building with 
soft money. It lets candidates solicit unlimited soft money for 501(c) 
groups; and it allows soft money to buy billboards, direct mail, 
telephones, and door-to-door political activities. What a ban.
  It also is curious to me that the supporters of this bill decry how 
badly needed it is and how we should have done it yesterday, but 
postpone it until after this year's election.
  Mr. Chairman, I want a show of hands, how many Members think that is 
a good idea? Members want it, but think it is a good idea to wait until 
after the election. I applaud those Members for their honesty. I will 
make the observation that the majority of the Members did not raise 
their hands.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say this is not a ban on soft money. This is a 
make-believe bill. It just reregulates things and skews things. I know 
the New York Times wants it, and a lot of Members worry about The 
Washington Post and the New York Times. And if I was in the DCCC, I 
would look at this bill very favorably, but it does not do anything to 
clean out what is perceived to be the problem with politics.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Linder-Armey bill does a much better 
job in that regard, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House know it, Senator McCain 
knows it, Granny Dee knows it, and most importantly, our constituents 
know it. Money and campaign financing are having a corrosive influence 
on the political process today.
  I personally reject the charge that it is corrupting Members of this 
august body, but Members all know with absolute certainty that the 
process of raising money is taking precious, precious time away from 
the matters that are before us. We know with equal certainty that many 
Members of this body pause at least once to ask themselves how a vote 
will affect their contributions when they should be asking solely how 
it will affect this great Nation.
  In this debate we have heard the majority party assert that passage 
of Shays-Meehan and McCain-Feingold will harm their political fund-
raising. That is symptomatic of the problem. We should not be asking is 
this good for one party or another. Members should be asking solely and 
simply: Is it good for the United States of America and the people we 
represent? Shays-Meehan is good. Pass this bill. Reject the poison 
pills and send it to the President.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and ask unanimous consent that he 
may control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Connecticut has 5 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, part of the legacy of President Teddy 
Roosevelt was an effort to get rid of corporate contributions to 
Federal elections, and they have been illegal for almost a century. But 
what we have seen over time, the evolution of a system that has 
permitted corporate contributions to move into the political process, 
be the process of soft money, something that is corrupting on those who 
have to contribute it, who have to receive it. It is not good for the 
American public.
  Mr. Chairman, what we have here today in this amendment is a ploy to 
attempt to allow the current system to continue. There is no objective 
here in terms of reforming campaign finance.

                              {time}  1230

  We have heard it from some of our friends in the opposition, they 
want to simply get it to a conference committee where it will die a 
lingering, quiet death, and people can continue to manipulate the 
current system. My hats are off to our colleagues, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan), for their work throughout the last 6 years to get us to this 
point where we can actually get something passed that will make a 
difference.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and approve Shays-
Meehan.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, we are addicted to this money, Democrats, 
Republicans, and I daresay the Independent, but I know the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is not. We love the golf tournaments, the 
concerts, the traveling, all the wonderful things that this soft money 
allows us to do in this Congress. But let us be honest. Some on this 
side of the aisle have suggested, my dear friend the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ney) has suggested that this bill is an incumbent protection 
bill. Currently for those

[[Page 1323]]

watching on C-SPAN and those in the gallery, 97 percent of us get 
reelected each time we run. So how much more of an incumbent protection 
bill will it actually be?
  Your argument would be strengthened if somehow or another you could 
prove that more money correlated to a bigger voter turnout. But what we 
have seen over the last three election cycles is that more people are 
turned off by all of this money, more people are turned off by all of 
this rhetoric than they are actually activated. This notion that 
somehow or another this soft money will activate grassroots 
organizations, the facts do not support it.
  Vote down this amendment. I say to my dear friend the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Armey), I wish we could have had you when we were 
negotiating this soft money ban from early on.
  Vote ``no'' on Armey. Allow Shays-Meehan to pass.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind Members to address remarks to 
the Chair and not to those in the audience.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the historic 
Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Reform Act today. For too long, our 
Nation's elections have been tainted by the effects of soft money, and 
the Shays-Meehan bill is the only measure that will put an end to this 
corrupting influence.
  Public participation is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy. As 
secretary of state of Rhode Island, I worked to make government more 
accessible to our citizens. However, despite these advances, my 
constituents still feel disheartened by our Nation's election system 
because large sums of money drown out the voice of the average voter.
  Reform is never easy. We often forget the immense courage exhibited 
by our Founding Fathers in challenging the status quo. We must remember 
this lesson and vote for true campaign finance reform that will take 
the reins of democracy out of the hands of corporations and interest 
groups and restore the voice of our citizens. Vote against the Armey 
substitute and for Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, current campaign finance laws were written to curb the 
abuses of another generation. Thirty years later, a new plague has 
infected our Nation's elections, soft money. This money, these 
unlimited contributions, are used to run attack ads, and they do 
distort our public policy choices here. That is why I urge all my 
colleagues to defeat all of these amendments and substitutes that are 
being proposed and to pass Shays-Meehan. If this government is to 
remain a government of the people, by the people and for the people, we 
must take soft money out of this campaign finance system. We must pass 
Shays-Meehan and take these unlimited contributions and set them aside. 
Our democracy will work, and work far better than it does today, if we 
pass this bill.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the gentleman from 
Texas' campaign finance reform bill to completely ban all soft money.
  I support this bill for three reasons: First, this bill completely 
bans all soft money to national, State and local parties, unlike the 
Shays-Meehan bill which has a $60 million loophole for soft money to 
State and local parties.
  Second, the Shays-Meehan bill is blatantly unconstitutional, because 
it attempts to ban outside groups from running any television or radio 
ads 60 days before an election. The gentleman from Texas' bill contains 
no such constitutional problems.
  Third, it is critical that we pass the Armey campaign finance reform 
bill in order to send this legislation into the conference committee so 
that the President of the United States will have some input into the 
campaign finance reform debate. Specifically, President Bush has 
repeatedly said that paycheck protection is an important component to 
any campaign finance reform bill, yet there currently is not a paycheck 
protection component to the Shays-Meehan bill.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to point out to 
the gentleman that our bill does not ban outside ads 60 days to an 
election. It just says you cannot use corporate treasury money, union 
dues money or unlimited money.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  I applaud the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for their distinguished and 
hard work that has brought this bill to the floor today.
  Mr. Chairman, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have used the word ``hypocrisy,'' but the biggest hypocrite, the only 
hypocrite in this body today is anyone who votes against Shays-Meehan 
and for any of the poison pills or the substitutes that will send it, 
the bill that they are supporting, to the conference committee where it 
will certainly die and be killed in conference.
  Shays-Meehan has already passed the Senate. It has the fragile flower 
of consensus that has been worked out carefully, over 10 years. We have 
the best opportunity now in 10 years to pass meaningful reform, send it 
to the President, and he says he will sign it.
  If Members are serious about campaign finance, then vote for Shays-
Meehan and show the American public that our government is not for 
sale.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Armey amendment, 
which frankly is an amendment that really points out what a sham the 
Shays-Meehan legislation is.
  The Shays-Meehan legislation says it bans soft money. No, it does 
not. It has got a $60 million soft money loophole, and the sponsors 
know it. The Armey legislation actually is a true soft money ban. So if 
you want to get rid of soft money, vote for the Armey amendment.
  But also I want to urge my colleagues to read the bill, because not 
only is Shays-Meehan a sham, but also there is a betrayal in this 
legislation. Many Members were urged to sign the discharge petition 
saying we needed to rush it to the floor. Of course the effective date 
now is postponed until after the election, negating that argument. But 
also last night at midnight, there was a change made to the bill which 
will allow committees such as the Democratic Congressional Committee to 
borrow money against their building fund, which has up to $40 million, 
to borrow hard money and pay it back with soft money; pay a hard money 
loan with soft money, a total betrayal of the basic principles of 
Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to say to the 
distinguished gentleman, he is just dead wrong. He is dead wrong about 
what he has said.
  First, this bill was not brought in at the midnight hour. That is 
just simply inaccurate. He is simply inaccurate about somehow that this 
is a sly thing to have the bill take effect in November. No, the reason 
why it is taking effect in November is that we have had 16 months 
already pass. Sixteen months have already passed. And so it becomes 
extraordinarily difficult to implement a bill in which 16 months have 
passed.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, it is my distinct pleasure to yield 1 minute 
to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

[[Page 1324]]

  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute. The 
moment of truth has arrived. I came to this House 4 years ago in a 
special election. My very first official act after being sworn into 
office was to cosponsor the bill by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan). It is still 
one of the proudest moments of my career. The gentleman from 
Connecticut and the gentleman from Massachusetts have kept the torch 
burning for many years. I salute them. I also salute my 20 friends on 
the other side of the aisle who have signed the discharge petition, who 
have acted courageously and stood up to their own leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, we have all seen the abuses and excesses of our 
political system. We also know that these substitute bills do not 
represent reform. They are cynical attempts to force the bill into 
conference with the Senate, where it has died many times before.
  Before any of us ever heard the word Enron, we knew full well that 
the voices of our constituents can and are often drowned out by 
powerful groups with endless resources. In so many of our national 
debates, from prescription drugs to patients' rights to our energy 
policy, special interests have held sway over the people's interests. 
It is time today to pass Shays-Meehan to honor the people we represent, 
the American people.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to point out that there was nothing cynical about my 
intent to introduce this bill a year ago. There is nothing cynical 
about supporting it now.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, on September 11 our democracy was tested 
by foreign terrorists. With unity and resolve, we met that test.
  Today our democracy faces a different challenge, a cancer from 
within, in the form of massive campaign contributions called soft 
money. The victims of this cancer are the millions of decent, hard-
working Americans whose voices are being drowned in a sea of special 
interest contributions.
  Trying to call million-dollar contributions ``free speech'' gives a 
new meaning to the phrase ``money talks.'' And Americans know that in 
Washington, DC, money is talking too loudly.
  Free speech is a fundamental right, but in a democracy, the strength 
of a citizen's voice should depend upon the quality of one's ideas, not 
the quantity of one's bank account.
  Let us unite once again in defense of our democracy. Let us affirm 
the great American ideal that this should truly be the people's House, 
where the voice of every citizen is heard, not just a privileged few.
  Vote for Shays-Meehan and oppose all Trojan horse substitutes.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. I thank my friend and colleague for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have supported Shays-Meehan since being elected to 
Congress in 1996. I helped pass this bill twice. I hope today we can 
get a clean bill so we can vote for it again. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose the Armey substitute so we can get a clean vote today on Shays-
Meehan.
  Our democracy deserves honest campaigns and honest elections. Voters 
deserve to know the truth about who is working to affect election 
outcomes, including the people and interest groups bankrolling ads and 
campaigns. There is no reason parties need to collect large, 
unregulated amounts of money that can be used to directly influence 
elections. Campaign finance reform will help restore the public's faith 
in elected officials and the legislative process.
  Unfortunately, the Republican leadership will stop at nothing to kill 
this bill, only further distancing working families from their 
government.

                              {time}  1245

  I hope supporters of reform in previous years will keep working with 
both parties and support real reform again this year and today when it 
really matters.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
because it offers us a straightforward choice: either you ban soft 
money or you do not.
  It was our second President, John Adams, who pointed out that facts 
are stubborn things. And on pages 78 and 79 of the Shays-Meehan bill, 
here it is: ``This act and the amendments made by this act shall take 
effect November 6, 2002.''
  It is a fair question to ask: Why would we set up a new loophole to 
really have a type of legalized money laundering, hard money for soft 
money, all the little gyrations we can have? Certainly not for partisan 
advantage from my high-minded friends on the left or my well-meaning 
friends on the right. Certainly not for that. But yet, at the end of 
the day, how can you deny it?
  Facts are stubborn things. I do not question the intent, although it 
is provocative. But if it is good enough to ban soft money, why not do 
it now, and not wait until the day after election day? Do it now.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to point out to 
the gentleman that there is nothing in this bill that allows soft money 
to be replacing hard money; nothing in this bill whatsoever.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, the hardest thing I think in politics or 
life is to argue with people you are close to personally and that you 
share a common philosophy and way of doing business with. That is where 
I find myself. I find myself in the distinct minority among my party. I 
find myself hearing the Speaker and others saying this particular piece 
of legislation would destroy my party. I respectfully disagree, but it 
is no fun being where we are at today.
  In 1996, when we first started talking about reforming this system, 
it sounded good to me, and it still does. Half the people in this 
country vote. Of those eligible to vote, half of those do not even 
register. We are getting down to just a few people having participation 
feelings about our government.
  I am convinced, rightly or wrongly, that the way we conduct campaigns 
is turning Americans off in droves.
  The soft money problem, I am glad this amendment is up. We need to 
ban soft money. I would say to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth), we need to do it now, we really do; and I am going to vote 
for that. But I am going to vote for Shays-Meehan.
  A lot of this is games. But let me tell you what it is like. If you 
give $25,000 to the Republican Party, the Democratic Party wants 
$30,000, because it gets out in about 30 seconds. If you are a company 
out there and they call you up on the phone wanting money, you say no 
at your own peril. If there is a bill in Congress that affects the 
average everyday American, somebody can send $10 million up here to 
either party, and you will never convince me that does not affect the 
quality of legislation.
  I am ready and willing to do something about it, even if I have to 
argue and disagree with the people that I hold dear personally and 
professionally. I think America needs to change the way we conduct our 
campaigns, and I am willing to pay a price by making my friends mad at 
me.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, who are we kidding? We are not kidding the 
American people. They get this. They know that if we pass this 
substitute or any of 10 amendments by the majority, that, for all 
practical purposes, we will have killed Shays-Meehan and true campaign 
finance reform for this year.
  You talk about cooking something up at the last minute. My 
understanding is our side of the aisle only

[[Page 1325]]

got notice of this substitute at 1 a.m. this morning. It is 
unfortunate, but if the sponsors of this substitute really wanted to be 
actively engaged in this process, they should have done it earlier, and 
many of their proposals quite possibly could have been included in the 
ultimate Shays-Meehan bill. But they failed to do that, and we find 
ourselves now with this substitute before us.
  I say we vote it down, we pass Shays-Meehan, and bring real campaign 
finance reform to the people of this so-deserving country.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute. I rise 
in support of the substitute because the base bill is not perfect. 
Granted, no bill is perfect. This bill does one thing that it should 
not do, it continues to allow soft money participation in campaigns.
  When I speak with people in my district, they want us to clean up 
campaigns. They ask me to support Shays-Meehan. I discuss with them 
what they are really concerned about regarding campaigns, and they say 
they want us to eliminate soft money. That is what this substitute 
does.
  Many of us signed a Common Cause pledge when we ran a couple of years 
ago that said I will support a complete ban on soft money and will 
oppose any legislation that does not completely ban soft money.
  Now, many of those who are supporting the bill as it is written 
today, the Shays-Meehan bill, are not banning soft money and are 
violating the Common Cause pledge.
  I am going to stick with the pledge, support the bill that eliminates 
soft money, and also support the bill that makes sure that these 
changes take effect now.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to return 
control of the time on this side to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer).
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say this bill does have a purpose: it 
allows people to honor their pledge, but then kill campaign finance 
reform. This bill is not a bill that can pass the Senate. It is a bill 
that is not going to go anywhere. It is a bill that would force a 
conference committee, and in the conference committee we know what is 
going to happen.
  So this is why this bill has finally come forward. There will be a 
few people that say I want a pure bill. They can say I lived up to my 
pledge and helped kill campaign finance reform in the process.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, a Presidential spokesman has just said good things 
about Shays-Meehan and Ney-Wynn. After Enron I suspect the President to 
ultimately choose Shays-Meehan, and so should we.
  Opponents have now put forward a substitute they have always argued 
was unconstitutional because it bans all soft money. Shays-Meehan 
skillfully threads its way through the constitutional thicket to 
conform with the Buckley Supreme Court decision.
  The President sees no way around Enron and campaign finance reform. I 
think he will shortly see that all roads to reform lead to Shays-
Meehan.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, can the Chair tell us how much time is 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 2 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 30 
seconds remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 1 
minute.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I know it is early in what will be a long day; but in 
many ways, it is already midnight at the costume party. It is time we 
remove our masks and we see who is who. We need to be very clear where 
we are right now, and I hope the folks who are watching the debate are 
very clear on where we are right now.
  Shays-Meehan, as filed late last night, does not ban soft money. Let 
me repeat that. Shays-Meehan does not ban soft money. It restricts it, 
it plays with it, but it does not ban soft money.
  I notice that my friends on the other side are avoiding a debate on 
details. Our side talks details; their side talks generalities. Why? 
Because the details are not favorable to them.
  As my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), did 
earlier, I encourage everyone to look at pages 78 and 79 of this bill. 
Do not take my word for it. Look at the bill yourself. It has a State 
and local party loophole to soft money that is $60 million nationwide. 
That is a ban on soft money? It does not ban unlimited contributions 
from Indian tribes and their general treasury. It contains a special 
loophole for what we all know is the DNC building fund. On page 78 and 
79 you can see it for yourself. Is that a ban on soft money? It even 
arguably allows soft money to be used as collateral for hard-money 
loans.
  They say this amendment is a poison pill. If it is, it is a poison 
pill that is worth about $40 million to the other side. This is not a 
swiss cheese soft-money ban, as one of my colleagues referred to it. It 
is something full of holes and loopholes, but there is not enough 
cheese here for it to qualify.
  Mr. Chairman, if you want to ban soft money, there is only one vote 
today that bans soft money. This is it. Nobody, nobody who votes 
against this substitute amendment, can say they voted to ban soft 
money.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I just would like to point out to the gentleman that 
soft money had its introduction to enable people to build buildings. We 
did not create this. It has been in the bill forever.
  We are just simply saying that if a party is, frankly, stupid enough 
to spend its soft money to build a building instead of campaigning 
against us, be our guest. If they have committed to it, they cannot 
raise any soft money after November 6, but they certainly can pay their 
bills on money they set aside.
  I would prefer them building a building rather than running against 
us, and that is their choice. You cannot use any soft money for any 
hard-money expenditure, which the gentleman is also incorrect about.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, and then I will 
yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) 
for the purpose of closing.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Armey substitute. The 
debate here is saying that if you do not vote to ban all soft money, do 
not vote to ban any soft money. When the proponents of the amendment to 
ban all soft money know that its inevitable effect will be to ban no 
soft money, does that sound somewhat Orwellian? It is. Does it sound 
like giving with the right hand and taken away with the left? It is.
  My friends, all of us know, everybody in America knows, there is but 
one opportunity to ban at least a large portion of soft money, and that 
is Shays-Meehan. Vote against this Armey substitute.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that for those who think this 
is cynical, this bill was essentially introduced in March of last year. 
Both parties raised about the same amount of soft money, about $245 
million in the last cycle; and we should ban it all, and those who do 
not want to ban it all, do not want to ban it.
  The Shays-Meehan bill will only reduce soft money for national 
political parties; admittedly, not to local parties, admittedly not to 
interest groups. They can still continue to use soft

[[Page 1326]]

money. Only national political parties will be totally forbidden from 
using soft money.
  Yet, we are going to drive wedges between the national parties and 
special interest groups. We are going to make our politics narrower and 
narrower in focus, because interest groups tend to have a single 
interest. Whether it is pro- or anti-abortion, pro- or anti-gun, pro- 
or anti-environmental, they are single-issue organizations, and they 
will be unfettered in their use of soft money, and we will have 
candidates across this country trying to genuflect between the alter of 
this group or that group, and not to the people with the broadened 
philosophy, but with narrow interests. That is bad for our politics; it 
is bad for our policy.

                              {time}  1300

  This substitute was not cynical. For those who say it is a poison 
pill, let me just say that that is a bad cliche, and, for the most 
part, cliches are substitutes for rigorous thought. This was put forth 
a long time ago. It could have been read long before Shays-Meehan was 
ever even produced at midnight last night. In fact, many of the folks 
who signed the discharge petition which passed the rule to put this 
bill on the floor have not read this Shays-Meehan version yet. This is 
only the most recent iteration.
  If we want simply to curb some soft money, but not all, support 
Shays-Meehan. If we want to simply marginally reduce corporate, union 
and special interest loopholes, support Shays-Meehan. If we want to 
nibble around the edges of this debate year after year after year, then 
the Shays-Meehan is the bill for you. But if we want a complete and 
total ban on every dollar of soft money involved in Federal election 
advocacy today, then join me and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), 
and support this substitute. Join us. Ban it all; ban it now.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time, and 
I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for yielding me the 
time.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the Speaker has apparently said that it is 
Armageddon for the Republicans if Shays-Meehan passes. I think the real 
problem is that it would be Armageddon for them if they defeated it. So 
what we are seeing here are tactics to obscure the issue.
  Shays-Meehan does not nibble around the edges of soft money. It gets 
at the vice, and that is the unrestricted use of soft money for so-
called issue ads. All it allows in a very circumscribed way, very 
circumscribed, is money for registration and get-out-the-vote. We will 
go into that later. Mr. Chairman, $40 million. It is absurd to talk 
that way. What Shays-Meehan tries to do is to preserve the democratic 
processes of registration and getting out the vote.
  What does the Armey amendment do? What it essentially says is no one 
can use even their own funds to help register people or get them out to 
vote, whether it is the NAACP or the NRA or anybody else. Nobody can 
use any of their own treasury monies. It is antidemocratic. What it is 
is a smokescreen, and we can see through it. The opposition cannot 
decide whether it wants to open the spigot altogether or shut it down 
altogether. You are moving from pillar to post when the solid position 
in the middle of this issue is Shays-Meehan.
  Vote down the Armey amendment and let us pass true reform. The day 
has come for Shays-Meehan, McCain-Feingold, and nothing is going to 
stop that effort.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).
  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 179, 
noes 249, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 19]

                               AYES--179

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Watkins (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--249

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays

[[Page 1327]]


     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Owens
     Peterson (PA)
     Riley
     Traficant
     Waters
     Watts (OK)

                              {time}  1323

  Ms. DeGETTE changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. TERRY, Mr. REYNOLDS and Mr. FOSSELLA changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 19 I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I missed the last vote because of a problem 
at the elevator. I could not get here. Had I been here I would have 
voted no.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, earlier today I was unavoidably absent and 
missed rollcall vote No. 19. If present I would have voted ``nay.''


   Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 14 Offered by Mr. Ney

  Mr. NEY. 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 in the nature of a substitute No. 14 offered by 
     Mr. Ney.
       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 ``Bipartisan 
     Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

            TITLE I--REDUCTION OF SPECIAL INTEREST INFLUENCE

Sec. 101. Soft money of political parties.
Sec. 102. Increased contribution limits for State committees of 
              political parties and aggregate contribution limit for 
              individuals.
Sec. 103. Reporting requirements.

           TITLE II--INDEPENDENT AND COORDINATED EXPENDITURES

Sec. 201. Definitions.
Sec. 202. Express advocacy determined without regard to background 
              music.
Sec. 203. Civil penalty.
Sec. 204. Reporting requirements for certain independent expenditures.
Sec. 205. Independent versus coordinated expenditures by party.
Sec. 206. Coordination with candidates.

                         TITLE III--DISCLOSURE

Sec. 301. Filing of reports using computers and facsimile machines.
Sec. 302. Prohibition of deposit of contributions with incomplete 
              contributor information.
Sec. 303. Audits.
Sec. 304. Reporting requirements for contributions of $50 or more.
Sec. 305. Use of candidates' names.
Sec. 306. Prohibition of false representation to solicit contributions.
Sec. 307. Soft money of persons other than political parties.
Sec. 308. Campaign advertising.

                    TITLE IV--PERSONAL WEALTH OPTION

Sec. 401. Voluntary personal funds expenditure limit.
Sec. 402. Political party committee coordinated expenditures.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 501. Use of contributed amounts for certain purposes.
Sec. 502. Prohibition of fundraising on Federal property.
Sec. 503. Penalties for violations.
Sec. 504. Strengthening foreign money ban.
Sec. 505. Prohibition of contributions by minors.
Sec. 506. Expedited procedures.
Sec. 507. Initiation of enforcement proceeding.
Sec. 508. Protecting equal participation of eligible voters in 
              campaigns and elections.
Sec. 509. Penalty for violation of prohibition against foreign 
              contributions.
Sec. 510. Expedited court review of certain alleged violations of 
              Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
Sec. 511. Deposit of certain contributions and donations in treasury 
              account.
Sec. 512. Establishment of a clearinghouse of information on political 
              activities within the Federal Election Commission.
Sec. 513. Clarification of right of nationals of the United States to 
              make political contributions.

      TITLE VI--INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

Sec. 601. Establishment and purpose of Commission.
Sec. 602. Membership of Commission.
Sec. 603. Powers of Commission.
Sec. 604. Report and recommended legislation.
Sec. 605. Termination.
Sec. 606. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE VII--PROHIBITING USE OF WHITE HOUSE MEALS AND ACCOMMODATIONS FOR 
                         POLITICAL FUNDRAISING

Sec. 701. Prohibiting use of white house meals and accommodations for 
              political fundraising.

  TITLE VIII--SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING FUNDRAISING ON FEDERAL 
                          GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

Sec. 801. Sense of the Congress regarding applicability of controlling 
              legal authority to fundraising on Federal government 
              property.

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

Sec. 901. Requiring national parties to reimburse at cost for use of 
              Air Force One for political fundraising.
Sec. 902. Reimbursement for use of government equipment for campaign-
              related travel.

            TITLE X--PROHIBITING USE OF WALKING AROUND MONEY

Sec. 1001. Prohibiting campaigns from providing currency to individuals 
              for purposes of encouraging turnout on date of election.

            TITLE XI--ENHANCING ENFORCEMENT OF CAMPAIGN LAW

Sec. 1101. Enhancing enforcement of campaign finance law.

TITLE XII--SEVERABILITY; CONSTITUTIONALITY; EFFECTIVE DATE; REGULATIONS

Sec. 1201. Severability.
Sec. 1202. Review of constitutional issues.
Sec. 1203. Effective date.
Sec. 1204. Regulations.

            TITLE I--REDUCTION OF SPECIAL INTEREST INFLUENCE

     SEC. 101. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

       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:


                   ``soft money of political parties

       ``Sec. 323. (a) National Committees.--
       ``(1) In general.--A national committee of a political 
     party (including a national congressional campaign committee 
     of a political party) and any officers or agents of such 
     party committees, shall not solicit, receive, or direct to 
     another person a contribution, donation, or transfer of 
     funds, or spend any funds, that are not subject to the 
     limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this 
     Act.
       ``(2) Applicability.--This subsection shall apply to an 
     entity that is directly or indirectly established, financed, 
     maintained, or controlled by a national committee of a 
     political party (including a national congressional campaign 
     committee of a political party), or an entity acting on 
     behalf of a national committee, and an officer or agent 
     acting on behalf of any such committee or entity.
       ``(b) State, District, and Local Committees.--
       ``(1) In general.--An amount that is expended or disbursed 
     by a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     (including an entity that is directly or indirectly 
     established, financed, maintained, or controlled by a State, 
     district, or local committee of a political party and an 
     officer or agent acting on behalf of such committee or 
     entity) for Federal election activity shall be made from 
     funds subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 
     requirements of this Act.
       ``(2) Federal election activity.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `Federal election activity' 
     means--
       ``(i) voter registration activity during the period that 
     begins on the date that is 120 days before the date a 
     regularly scheduled Federal election is held and ends on the 
     date of the election;
       ``(ii) voter identification, get-out-the-vote activity, or 
     generic campaign activity conducted in connection with an 
     election in which a candidate for Federal office appears on 
     the ballot (regardless of whether a candidate for State or 
     local office also appears on the ballot); and
       ``(iii) a communication that refers to a clearly identified 
     candidate for Federal office (regardless of whether a 
     candidate for State or local office is also mentioned or

[[Page 1328]]

     identified) and is made for the purpose of influencing a 
     Federal election (regardless of whether the communication is 
     express advocacy).
       ``(B) Excluded activity.--The term `Federal election 
     activity' does not include an amount expended or disbursed by 
     a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     for--
       ``(i) campaign activity conducted solely on behalf of a 
     clearly identified candidate for State or local office, 
     provided the campaign activity is not a Federal election 
     activity described in subparagraph (A);
       ``(ii) a contribution to a candidate for State or local 
     office, provided the contribution is not designated or used 
     to pay for a Federal election activity described in 
     subparagraph (A);
       ``(iii) the costs of a State, district, or local political 
     convention;
       ``(iv) the costs of grassroots campaign materials, 
     including buttons, bumper stickers, and yard signs, that name 
     or depict only a candidate for State or local office;
       ``(v) the non-Federal share of a State, district, or local 
     party committee's administrative and overhead expenses (but 
     not including the compensation in any month of an individual 
     who spends more than 20 percent of the individual's time on 
     Federal election activity) as determined by a regulation 
     promulgated by the Commission to determine the non-Federal 
     share of a State, district, or local party committee's 
     administrative and overhead expenses; and
       ``(vi) the cost of constructing or purchasing an office 
     facility or equipment for a State, district or local 
     committee.
       ``(c) Fundraising Costs.--An amount spent by a national, 
     State, district, or local committee of a political party, by 
     an entity that is established, financed, maintained, or 
     controlled by a national, State, district, or local committee 
     of a political party, or by an agent or officer of any such 
     committee or entity, to raise funds that are used, in whole 
     or in part, to pay the costs of a Federal election activity 
     shall be made from funds subject to the limitations, 
     prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.
       ``(d) Tax-Exempt Organizations.--A national, State, 
     district, or local committee of a political party (including 
     a national congressional campaign committee of a political 
     party), an entity that is directly or indirectly established, 
     financed, maintained, or controlled by any such national, 
     State, district, or local committee or its agent, and an 
     officer or agent acting on behalf of any such party committee 
     or entity, shall not solicit any funds for, or make or direct 
     any donations to, an organization that is described in 
     section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and 
     exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code (or 
     has submitted an application to the Commissioner of the 
     Internal Revenue Service for determination of tax-exemption 
     under such section).
       ``(e) Candidates.--
       ``(1) In general.--A candidate, individual holding Federal 
     office, agent of a candidate or individual holding Federal 
     office, or an entity directly or indirectly established, 
     financed, maintained or controlled by or acting on behalf of 
     one or more candidates or individuals holding Federal office, 
     shall not--
       ``(A) solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend funds in 
     connection with an election for Federal office, including 
     funds for any Federal election activity, unless the funds are 
     subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 
     requirements of this Act; or
       ``(B) solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend funds in 
     connection with any election other than an election for 
     Federal office or disburse funds in connection with such an 
     election unless the funds--
       ``(i) are not in excess of the amounts permitted with 
     respect to contributions to candidates and political 
     committees under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 315(a); 
     and
       ``(ii) are not from sources prohibited by this Act from 
     making contributions with respect to an election for Federal 
     office.
       ``(2) State law.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to the 
     solicitation, receipt, or spending of funds by an individual 
     who is a candidate for a State or local office in connection 
     with such election for State or local office if the 
     solicitation, receipt, or spending of funds is permitted 
     under State law for any activity other than a Federal 
     election activity.
       ``(3) Fundraising events.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a 
     candidate may attend, speak, or be a featured guest at a 
     fundraising event for a State, district, or local committee 
     of a political party.''.

     SEC. 102. INCREASED CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR STATE COMMITTEES 
                   OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND AGGREGATE CONTRIBUTION 
                   LIMIT FOR INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) Contribution Limit for State Committees of Political 
     Parties.--Section 315(a)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (C)--
       (A) by inserting ``(other than a committee described in 
     subparagraph (D))'' after ``committee''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) to a political committee established and maintained 
     by a State committee of a political party in any calendar 
     year that, in the aggregate, exceed $10,000''.
       (b) Aggregate Contribution Limit for Individual.--Section 
     315(a)(3) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)) is amended by striking ``$25,000'' and 
     inserting ``$30,000''.

     SEC. 103. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Reporting Requirements.--Section 304 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) (as amended by 
     section 204) is amended by inserting after subsection (e) the 
     following:
       ``(f) Political Committees.--
       ``(1) National and congressional political committees.--The 
     national committee of a political party, any national 
     congressional campaign committee of a political party, and 
     any subordinate committee of either, shall report all 
     receipts and disbursements during the reporting period.
       ``(2) Other political committees to which section 323 
     applies.--In addition to any other reporting requirements 
     applicable under this Act, a political committee (not 
     described in paragraph (1)) to which section 323(b)(1) 
     applies shall report all receipts and disbursements made for 
     activities described in paragraphs (2)(A) and (2)(B)(v) of 
     section 323(b).
       ``(3) Itemization.--If a political committee has receipts 
     or disbursements to which this subsection applies from any 
     person aggregating in excess of $200 for any calendar year, 
     the political committee shall separately itemize its 
     reporting for such person in the same manner as required in 
     paragraphs (3)(A), (5), and (6) of subsection (b).
       ``(4) Reporting periods.--Reports required to be filed 
     under this subsection shall be filed for the same time 
     periods required for political committees under subsection 
     (a).''.
       (b) Building Fund Exception to the Definition of 
     Contribution.--Section 301(8)(B) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)(B)) is amended--
       (1) by striking clause (viii); and
       (2) by redesignating clauses (ix) through (xv) as clauses 
     (viii) through (xii), respectively.

           TITLE II--INDEPENDENT AND COORDINATED EXPENDITURES

     SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Definition of Independent Expenditure.--Section 301 of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 U.S.C. 431) is amended 
     by striking paragraph (17) and inserting the following:
       ``(17) Independent expenditure.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `independent expenditure' means 
     an expenditure by a person--
       ``(i) for a communication that is express advocacy; and
       ``(ii) that is not coordinated activity or is not provided 
     in coordination with a candidate or a candidate's agent or a 
     person who is coordinating with a candidate or a candidate's 
     agent.''.
       (b) Definition of Express Advocacy.--Section 301 of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(20) Express advocacy.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `express advocacy' means a 
     communication that advocates the election or defeat of a 
     candidate by--
       ``(i) containing a phrase such as `vote for', `re-elect', 
     `support', `cast your ballot for', `(name of candidate) for 
     Congress', `(name of candidate) in 1997', `vote against', 
     `defeat', `reject', or a campaign slogan or words that in 
     context can have no reasonable meaning other than to advocate 
     the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified 
     candidates;
       ``(ii) referring to one or more clearly identified 
     candidates in a paid advertisement that is transmitted 
     through radio or television within 60 calendar days preceding 
     the date of an election of the candidate and that appears in 
     the State in which the election is occurring, except that 
     with respect to a candidate for the office of Vice President 
     or President, the time period is within 60 calendar days 
     preceding the date of a general election; or
       ``(iii) expressing unmistakable and unambiguous support for 
     or opposition to one or more clearly identified candidates 
     when taken as a whole and with limited reference to external 
     events, such as proximity to an election.
       ``(B) Voting record and voting guide exception.--The term 
     `express advocacy' does not include a communication which is 
     in printed form or posted on the Internet that--
       ``(i) presents information solely about the voting record 
     or position on a campaign issue of one or more candidates 
     (including any statement by the sponsor of the voting record 
     or voting guide of its agreement or disagreement with the 
     record or position of a candidate), so long as the voting 
     record or voting guide when taken as a whole does not express 
     unmistakable and unambiguous support for or opposition to one 
     or more clearly identified candidates;
       ``(ii) is not coordinated activity or is not made in 
     coordination with a candidate, political party, or agent of 
     the candidate or party, or a candidate's agent or a person 
     who is coordinating with a candidate or a candidate's agent, 
     except that nothing in this

[[Page 1329]]

     clause may be construed to prevent the sponsor of the voting 
     guide from directing questions in writing to a candidate 
     about the candidate's position on issues for purposes of 
     preparing a voter guide or to prevent the candidate from 
     responding in writing to such questions; and
       ``(iii) does not contain a phrase such as `vote for', `re-
     elect', `support', `cast your ballot for', `(name of 
     candidate) for Congress', `(name of candidate) in (year)', 
     `vote against', `defeat', or `reject', or a campaign slogan 
     or words that in context can have no reasonable meaning other 
     than to urge the election or defeat of one or more clearly 
     identified candidates.''.
       (c) Definition of Expenditure.--Section 301(9)(A) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(9)(A)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) a payment made by a political committee for a 
     communication that--
       ``(I) refers to a clearly identified candidate; and
       ``(II) is for the purpose of influencing a Federal election 
     (regardless of whether the communication is express 
     advocacy).''.

     SEC. 202. EXPRESS ADVOCACY DETERMINED WITHOUT REGARD TO 
                   BACKGROUND MUSIC.

       Section 301(20) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(20)), as added by section 201(b), is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Background music.--In determining whether any 
     communication by television or radio broadcast constitutes 
     express advocacy for purposes of this Act, there shall not be 
     taken into account any background music not including lyrics 
     used in such broadcast.''.

     SEC. 203. CIVIL PENALTY.

       Section 309 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 437g) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (4)(A)--
       (i) in clause (i), by striking ``clauses (ii)'' and 
     inserting ``clauses (ii) and (iii)''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) If the Commission determines by an affirmative vote 
     of 4 of its members that there is probable cause to believe 
     that a person has made a knowing and willful violation of 
     section 304(c), the Commission shall not enter into a 
     conciliation agreement under this paragraph and may institute 
     a civil action for relief under paragraph (6)(A).''; and
       (B) in paragraph (6)(B), by inserting ``(except an action 
     instituted in connection with a knowing and willful violation 
     of section 304(c))'' after ``subparagraph (A)''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``Any person'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in subparagraph (D), any 
     person''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) In the case of a knowing and willful violation of 
     section 304(c) that involves the reporting of an independent 
     expenditure, the violation shall not be subject to this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 204. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN INDEPENDENT 
                   EXPENDITURES.

       (a) In General.--Section 304 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(2), by striking the undesignated 
     matter after subparagraph (C);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) of subsection (c) as 
     subsection (g); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (c)(2) (as amended by 
     paragraph (1)) the following:
       ``(e) Time for Reporting Certain Expenditures.--
       ``(1) Expenditures aggregating $1,000.--
       ``(A) Initial report.--A person (including a political 
     committee) that makes or contracts to make independent 
     expenditures aggregating $1,000 or more after the 20th day, 
     but more than 24 hours, before the date of an election shall 
     file a report describing the expenditures within 24 hours 
     after that amount of independent expenditures has been made.
       ``(B) Additional reports.--After a person files a report 
     under subparagraph (A), the person shall file an additional 
     report within 24 hours after each time the person makes or 
     contracts to make independent expenditures aggregating an 
     additional $1,000 with respect to the same election as that 
     to which the initial report relates.
       ``(2) Expenditures aggregating $10,000.--
       ``(A) Initial report.--A person (including a political 
     committee) that makes or contracts to make independent 
     expenditures aggregating $10,000 or more at any time up to 
     and including the 20th day before the date of an election 
     shall file a report describing the expenditures within 48 
     hours after that amount of independent expenditures has been 
     made.
       ``(B) Additional reports.--After a person files a report 
     under subparagraph (A), the person shall file an additional 
     report within 48 hours after each time the person makes or 
     contracts to make independent expenditures aggregating an 
     additional $10,000 with respect to the same election as that 
     to which the initial report relates.
       ``(3) Place of filing; contents.--A report under this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) shall be filed with the Commission; and
       ``(B) shall contain the information required by subsection 
     (b)(6)(B)(iii), including the name of each candidate whom an 
     expenditure is intended to support or oppose.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 304(a)(5) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 434(a)(5)) is amended by striking ``, or the second 
     sentence of subsection (c)(2)''.

     SEC. 205. INDEPENDENT VERSUS COORDINATED EXPENDITURES BY 
                   PARTY.

       Section 315(d) of the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 
     U.S.C. 441a(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and (3)'' and inserting 
     ``, (3), and (4)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Independent Versus Coordinated Expenditures by 
     Party.--
       ``(A) In general.--On or after the date on which a 
     political party nominates a candidate, a committee of the 
     political party shall not make both expenditures under this 
     subsection and independent expenditures (as defined in 
     section 301(17)) with respect to the candidate during the 
     election cycle.
       ``(B) Certification.--Before making a coordinated 
     expenditure under this subsection with respect to a 
     candidate, a committee of a political party shall file with 
     the Commission a certification, signed by the treasurer of 
     the committee, that the committee has not and shall not make 
     any independent expenditure with respect to the candidate 
     during the same election cycle.
       ``(C) Application.--For the purposes of this paragraph, all 
     political committees established and maintained by a national 
     political party (including all congressional campaign 
     committees) and all political committees established and 
     maintained by a State political party (including any 
     subordinate committee of a State committee) shall be 
     considered to be a single political committee.
       ``(D) Transfers.--A committee of a political party that 
     submits a certification under subparagraph (B) with respect 
     to a candidate shall not, during an election cycle, transfer 
     any funds to, assign authority to make coordinated 
     expenditures under this subsection to, or receive a transfer 
     of funds from, a committee of the political party that has 
     made or intends to make an independent expenditure with 
     respect to the candidate.''.

     SEC. 206. COORDINATION WITH CANDIDATES.

       (a) Definition of Coordination With Candidates.--
       (1) Section 301(8).--Section 301(8) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
       (ii) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) coordinated activity (as defined in subparagraph 
     (C)).''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) `Coordinated activity' means anything of value 
     provided by a person in coordination with a candidate, an 
     agent of the candidate, or the political party of the 
     candidate or its agent for the purpose of influencing a 
     Federal election (regardless of whether the value being 
     provided is a communication that is express advocacy) in 
     which such candidate seeks nomination or election to Federal 
     office, and includes any of the following:
       ``(i) A payment made by a person in cooperation, 
     consultation, or concert with, at the request or suggestion 
     of, or pursuant to any general or particular understanding 
     with a candidate, the candidate's authorized committee, the 
     political party of the candidate, or an agent acting on 
     behalf of a candidate, authorized committee, or the political 
     party of the candidate.
       ``(ii) A payment made by a person for the production, 
     dissemination, distribution, or republication, in whole or in 
     part, of any broadcast or any written, graphic, or other form 
     of campaign material prepared by a candidate, a candidate's 
     authorized committee, or an agent of a candidate or 
     authorized committee (not including a communication described 
     in paragraph (9)(B)(i) or a communication that expressly 
     advocates the candidate's defeat).
       ``(iii) A payment made by a person based on information 
     about a candidate's plans, projects, or needs provided to the 
     person making the payment by the candidate or the candidate's 
     agent who provides the information with the intent that the 
     payment be made.
       ``(iv) A payment made by a person if, in the same election 
     cycle in which the payment is made, the person making the 
     payment is serving or has served as a member, employee, 
     fundraiser, or agent of the candidate's authorized committee 
     in an executive or policymaking position.
       ``(v) A payment made by a person if the person making the 
     payment has served in any formal policy making or advisory 
     position with the candidate's campaign or has participated in 
     formal strategic or formal policymaking discussions (other 
     than any discussion treated as a lobbying contact under the 
     Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 in the case of a candidate 
     holding Federal office or as a similar lobbying activity in 
     the case of a candidate holding State or other elective 
     office) with the candidate's campaign relating to the 
     candidate's pursuit of nomination for election, or election, 
     to Federal

[[Page 1330]]

     office, in the same election cycle as the election cycle in 
     which the payment is made.
       ``(vi) A payment made by a person if, in the same election 
     cycle, the person making the payment retains the professional 
     services of any person that has provided or is providing 
     campaign-related services in the same election cycle to a 
     candidate (including services provided through a political 
     committee of the candidate's political party) in connection 
     with the candidate's pursuit of nomination for election, or 
     election, to Federal office, including services relating to 
     the candidate's decision to seek Federal office, and the 
     person retained is retained to work on activities relating to 
     that candidate's campaign.
       ``(vii) A payment made by a person who has directly 
     participated in fundraising activities with the candidate or 
     in the solicitation or receipt of contributions on behalf of 
     the candidate.
       ``(viii) A payment made by a person who has communicated 
     with the candidate or an agent of the candidate (including a 
     communication through a political committee of the 
     candidate's political party) after the declaration of 
     candidacy (including a pollster, media consultant, vendor, 
     advisor, or staff member acting on behalf of the candidate), 
     about advertising message, allocation of resources, 
     fundraising, or other campaign matters related to the 
     candidate's campaign, including campaign operations, 
     staffing, tactics, or strategy.
       ``(ix) The provision of in-kind professional services or 
     polling data (including services or data provided through a 
     political committee of the candidate's political party) to 
     the candidate or candidate's agent.
       ``(x) A payment made by a person who has engaged in a 
     coordinated activity with a candidate described in clauses 
     (i) through (ix) for a communication that clearly refers to 
     the candidate or the candidate's opponent and is for the 
     purpose of influencing that candidates's election (regardless 
     of whether the communication is express advocacy).
       ``(D) For purposes of subparagraph (C), the term 
     `professional services' means polling, media advice, 
     fundraising, campaign research or direct mail (except for 
     mailhouse services solely for the distribution of voter 
     guides as defined in section 431(20)(B)) services in support 
     of a candidate's pursuit of nomination for election, or 
     election, to Federal office.
       ``(E) For purposes of subparagraph (C), all political 
     committees established and maintained by a national political 
     party (including all congressional campaign committees) and 
     all political committees established and maintained by a 
     State political party (including any subordinate committee of 
     a State committee) shall be considered to be a single 
     political committee.''.
       (2) Section 315(a)(7).--Section 315(a)(7) (2 U.S.C. 
     441a(a)(7)) is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) a coordinated activity, as described in section 
     301(8)(C), shall be considered to be a contribution to the 
     candidate, and in the case of a limitation on expenditures, 
     shall be treated as an expenditure by the candidate.
       (b) Meaning of Contribution or Expenditure for the Purposes 
     of Section 316.--Section 316(b)(2) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)) is amended by 
     striking ``shall include'' and inserting ``includes a 
     contribution or expenditure, as those terms are defined in 
     section 301, and also includes''.

                         TITLE III--DISCLOSURE

     SEC. 301. FILING OF REPORTS USING COMPUTERS AND FACSIMILE 
                   MACHINES.

       Section 304(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 434(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (11) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(11)(A) The Commission shall promulgate a regulation 
     under which a person required to file a designation, 
     statement, or report under this Act--
       ``(i) is required to maintain and file a designation, 
     statement, or report for any calendar year in electronic form 
     accessible by computers if the person has, or has reason to 
     expect to have, aggregate contributions or expenditures in 
     excess of a threshold amount determined by the Commission; 
     and
       ``(ii) may maintain and file a designation, statement, or 
     report in electronic form or an alternative form, including 
     the use of a facsimile machine, if not required to do so 
     under the regulation promulgated under clause (i).
       ``(B) The Commission shall make a designation, statement, 
     report, or notification that is filed electronically with the 
     Commission accessible to the public on the Internet not later 
     than 24 hours after the designation, statement, report, or 
     notification is received by the Commission.
       ``(C) In promulgating a regulation under this paragraph, 
     the Commission shall provide methods (other than requiring a 
     signature on the document being filed) for verifying 
     designations, statements, and reports covered by the 
     regulation. Any document verified under any of the methods 
     shall be treated for all purposes (including penalties for 
     perjury) in the same manner as a document verified by 
     signature.''.

     SEC. 302. PROHIBITION OF DEPOSIT OF CONTRIBUTIONS WITH 
                   INCOMPLETE CONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION.

       Section 302 of Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 432) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Deposit of Contributions.--The treasurer of a 
     candidate's authorized committee shall not deposit, except in 
     an escrow account, or otherwise negotiate a contribution from 
     a person who makes an aggregate amount of contributions in 
     excess of $200 during a calendar year unless the treasurer 
     verifies that the information required by this section with 
     respect to the contributor is complete.''.

     SEC. 303. AUDITS.

       (a) Random Audits.--Section 311(b) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 438(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1) In general.--'' before ``The 
     Commission'';
       (2) by moving the text 2 ems to the right; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Random audits.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the 
     Commission may conduct random audits and investigations to 
     ensure voluntary compliance with this Act. The selection of 
     any candidate for a random audit or investigation shall be 
     based on criteria adopted by a vote of at least four members 
     of the Commission.
       ``(B) Limitation.--The Commission shall not conduct an 
     audit or investigation of a candidate's authorized committee 
     under subparagraph (A) until the candidate is no longer a 
     candidate for the office sought by the candidate in an 
     election cycle.
       ``(C) Applicability.--This paragraph does not apply to an 
     authorized committee of a candidate for President or Vice 
     President subject to audit under section 9007 or 9038 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
       (b) Extension of Period During Which Campaign Audits May Be 
     Begun.--Section 311(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 438(b)) is amended by striking ``6 months'' 
     and inserting ``12 months''.

     SEC. 304. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF $50 OR 
                   MORE.

       Section 304(b)(3)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     at 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(b)(3)(A) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$200'' and inserting ``$50''; and
       (2) by striking the semicolon and inserting ``, except that 
     in the case of a person who makes contributions aggregating 
     at least $50 but not more than $200 during the calendar year, 
     the identification need include only the name and address of 
     the person;''.

     SEC. 305. USE OF CANDIDATES' NAMES.

       Section 302(e) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 432(e)) is amended by striking paragraph (4) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(4)(A) The name of each authorized committee shall 
     include the name of the candidate who authorized the 
     committee under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) A political committee that is not an authorized 
     committee shall not--
       ``(i) include the name of any candidate in its name; or
       ``(ii) except in the case of a national, State, or local 
     party committee, use the name of any candidate in any 
     activity on behalf of the committee in such a context as to 
     suggest that the committee is an authorized committee of the 
     candidate or that the use of the candidate's name has been 
     authorized by the candidate.''.

     SEC. 306. PROHIBITION OF FALSE REPRESENTATION TO SOLICIT 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 322 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441h) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``Sec. 322.'' the following: ``(a) 
     In General.--''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Solicitation of Contributions.--No person shall 
     solicit contributions by falsely representing himself or 
     herself as a candidate or as a representative of a candidate, 
     a political committee, or a political party.''.

     SEC. 307. SOFT MONEY OF PERSONS OTHER THAN POLITICAL PARTIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 304 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) (as amended by section 
     103(c) and section 204) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(h) Disbursements of Persons Other Than Political 
     Parties.--
       ``(1) In general.--A person, other than a political 
     committee of a political party or a person described in 
     section 501(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, that 
     makes an aggregate amount of disbursements in excess of 
     $50,000 during a calendar year for activities described in 
     paragraph (2) shall file a statement with the Commission--
       ``(A) on a monthly basis as described in subsection 
     (a)(4)(B); or
       ``(B) in the case of disbursements that are made within 20 
     days of an election, within 24 hours after the disbursements 
     are made.
       ``(2) Activity.--The activity described in this paragraph 
     is--
       ``(A) Federal election activity;
       ``(B) an activity described in section 316(b)(2)(A) that 
     expresses support for or opposition to a candidate for 
     Federal office or a political party; and
       ``(C) an activity described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of 
     section 316(b)(2).

[[Page 1331]]

       ``(3) Applicability.--This subsection does not apply to--
       ``(A) a candidate or a candidate's authorized committees; 
     or
       ``(B) an independent expenditure.
       ``(4) Contents.--A statement under this section shall 
     contain such information about the disbursements made during 
     the reporting period as the Commission shall prescribe, 
     including--
       ``(A) the aggregate amount of disbursements made;
       ``(B) the name and address of the person or entity to whom 
     a disbursement is made in an aggregate amount in excess of 
     $200;
       ``(C) the date made, amount, and purpose of the 
     disbursement; and
       ``(D) if applicable, whether the disbursement was in 
     support of, or in opposition to, a candidate or a political 
     party, and the name of the candidate or the political 
     party.''.
       (b) Definition of Generic Campaign Activity.--Section 301 
     of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et 
     seq.) (as amended by section 201(b)) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(21) Generic campaign activity.--The term `generic 
     campaign activity' means an activity that promotes a 
     political party and does not promote a candidate or non-
     Federal candidate.''.

     SEC. 308. CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING.

       Section 318 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441d) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``Whenever'' and inserting ``Whenever a 
     political committee makes a disbursement for the purpose of 
     financing any communication through any broadcasting station, 
     newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, 
     or any other type of general public political advertising, or 
     whenever'';
       (ii) by striking ``an expenditure'' and inserting ``a 
     disbursement''; and
       (iii) by striking ``direct''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``and permanent street 
     address'' after ``name''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Any printed communication described in subsection (a) 
     shall--
       ``(1) be of sufficient type size to be clearly readable by 
     the recipient of the communication;
       ``(2) be contained in a printed box set apart from the 
     other contents of the communication; and
       ``(3) be printed with a reasonable degree of color contrast 
     between the background and the printed statement.
       ``(d)(1) Any communication described in paragraphs (1) or 
     (2) of subsection (a) which is transmitted through radio or 
     television shall include, in addition to the requirements of 
     that paragraph, an audio statement by the candidate that 
     identifies the candidate and states that the candidate has 
     approved the communication.
       ``(2) If a communication described in paragraph (1) is 
     transmitted through television, the communication shall 
     include, in addition to the audio statement under paragraph 
     (1), a written statement that--
       ``(A) appears at the end of the communication in a clearly 
     readable manner with a reasonable degree of color contrast 
     between the background and the printed statement, for a 
     period of at least 4 seconds; and
       ``(B) is accompanied by a clearly identifiable photographic 
     or similar image of the candidate.
       ``(e) Any communication described in paragraph (3) of 
     subsection (a) which is transmitted through radio or 
     television shall include, in addition to the requirements of 
     that paragraph, in a clearly spoken manner, the following 
     statement: `________ is responsible for the content of this 
     advertisement.' (with the blank to be filled in with the name 
     of the political committee or other person paying for the 
     communication and the name of any connected organization of 
     the payor). If transmitted through television, the statement 
     shall also appear in a clearly readable manner with a 
     reasonable degree of color contrast between the background 
     and the printed statement, for a period of at least 4 
     seconds.''.

                    TITLE IV--PERSONAL WEALTH OPTION

     SEC. 401. VOLUNTARY PERSONAL FUNDS EXPENDITURE LIMIT.

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


              ``voluntary personal funds expenditure limit

       ``Sec. 324. (a) Eligible Congressional Candidate.--
       ``(1) Primary election.--
       ``(A) Declaration.--A candidate for election for Senator or 
     Representative in or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the 
     Congress is an eligible primary election Congressional 
     candidate if the candidate files with the Commission a 
     declaration that the candidate and the candidate's authorized 
     committees will not make expenditures in excess of the 
     personal funds expenditure limit.
       ``(B) Time to file.--The declaration under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be filed not later than the date on which the candidate 
     files with the appropriate State officer as a candidate for 
     the primary election.
       ``(2) General election.--
       ``(A) Declaration.--A candidate for election for Senator or 
     Representative in or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the 
     Congress is an eligible general election Congressional 
     candidate if the candidate files with the Commission--
       ``(i) a declaration under penalty of perjury, with 
     supporting documentation as required by the Commission, that 
     the candidate and the candidate's authorized committees did 
     not exceed the personal funds expenditure limit in connection 
     with the primary election; and
       ``(ii) a declaration that the candidate and the candidate's 
     authorized committees will not make expenditures in excess of 
     the personal funds expenditure limit.
       ``(B) Time to file.--The declaration under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be filed not later than 7 days after the earlier of--
       ``(i) the date on which the candidate qualifies for the 
     general election ballot under State law; or
       ``(ii) if under State law, a primary or run-off election to 
     qualify for the general election ballot occurs after 
     September 1, the date on which the candidate wins the primary 
     or runoff election.
       ``(b) Personal Funds Expenditure Limit.--
       ``(1) In general.--The aggregate amount of expenditures 
     that may be made in connection with an election by an 
     eligible Congressional candidate or the candidate's 
     authorized committees from the sources described in paragraph 
     (2) shall not exceed $50,000.
       ``(2) Sources.--A source is described in this paragraph if 
     the source is--
       ``(A) personal funds of the candidate and members of the 
     candidate's immediate family; or
       ``(B) proceeds of indebtedness incurred by the candidate or 
     a member of the candidate's immediate family.
       ``(c) Certification by the Commission.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Commission shall determine whether a 
     candidate has met the requirements of this section and, based 
     on the determination, issue a certification stating whether 
     the candidate is an eligible Congressional candidate.
       ``(2) Time for certification.--Not later than 7 business 
     days after a candidate files a declaration under paragraph 
     (1) or (2) of subsection (a), the Commission shall certify 
     whether the candidate is an eligible Congressional candidate.
       ``(3) Revocation.--The Commission shall revoke a 
     certification under paragraph (1), based on information 
     submitted in such form and manner as the Commission may 
     require or on information that comes to the Commission by 
     other means, if the Commission determines that a candidate 
     violates the personal funds expenditure limit.
       ``(4) Determinations by commission.--A determination made 
     by the Commission under this subsection shall be final, 
     except to the extent that the determination is subject to 
     examination and audit by the Commission and to judicial 
     review.
       ``(d) Penalty.--If the Commission revokes the certification 
     of an eligible Congressional candidate--
       ``(1) the Commission shall notify the candidate of the 
     revocation; and
       ``(2) the candidate and a candidate's authorized committees 
     shall pay to the Commission an amount equal to the amount of 
     expenditures made by a national committee of a political 
     party or a State committee of a political party in connection 
     with the general election campaign of the candidate under 
     section 315(d).''.

     SEC. 402. POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE COORDINATED EXPENDITURES.

       Section 315(d) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 441a(d)) (as amended by section 204) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) This subsection does not apply to expenditures made 
     in connection with the general election campaign of a 
     candidate for Senator or Representative in or Delegate or 
     Resident Commissioner to the Congress who is not an eligible 
     Congressional candidate (as defined in section 324(a)).''.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 501. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by striking section 313 and 
     inserting the following:


           ``use of contributed amounts for certain purposes

       ``Sec. 313. (a) Permitted Uses.--A contribution accepted by 
     a candidate, and any other amount received by an individual 
     as support for activities of the individual as a holder of 
     Federal office, may be used by the candidate or individual--
       ``(1) for expenditures in connection with the campaign for 
     Federal office of the candidate or individual;
       ``(2) for ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in 
     connection with duties of the individual as a holder of 
     Federal office;
       ``(3) for contributions to an organization described in 
     section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
       ``(4) for transfers to a national, State, or local 
     committee of a political party.
       ``(b) Prohibited Use.--

[[Page 1332]]

       ``(1) In general.--A contribution or amount described in 
     subsection (a) shall not be converted by any person to 
     personal use.
       ``(2) Conversion.--For the purposes of paragraph (1), a 
     contribution or amount shall be considered to be converted to 
     personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill 
     any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would 
     exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or 
     individual's duties as a holder of Federal officeholder, 
     including--
       ``(A) a home mortgage, rent, or utility payment;
       ``(B) a clothing purchase;
       ``(C) a noncampaign-related automobile expense;
       ``(D) a country club membership;
       ``(E) a vacation or other noncampaign-related trip;
       ``(F) a household food item;
       ``(G) a tuition payment;
       ``(H) admission to a sporting event, concert, theater, or 
     other form of entertainment not associated with an election 
     campaign; and
       ``(I) dues, fees, and other payments to a health club or 
     recreational facility.''.

     SEC. 502. PROHIBITION OF FUNDRAISING ON FEDERAL PROPERTY.

       Section 607 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Prohibition.--
       ``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person to 
     solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of 
     value in connection with a Federal, State, or local election 
     from a person who is located in a room or building occupied 
     in the discharge of official duties by an officer or employee 
     of the United States. An individual who is an officer or 
     employee of the Federal Government, including the President, 
     Vice President, and Members of Congress, shall not solicit a 
     donation of money or other thing of value in connection with 
     a Federal, State, or local election while in any room or 
     building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an 
     officer or employee of the United States, from any person.
       ``(2) Penalty.--A person who violates this section shall be 
     fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned more than 3 years, or 
     both.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``or Executive Office 
     of the President'' after ``Congress''.

     SEC. 503. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.

       (a) Increased Penalties.--Section 309(a) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraphs (5)(A), (6)(A), and (6)(B), by striking 
     ``$5,000'' and inserting ``$10,000''; and
       (2) in paragraphs (5)(B) and (6)(C), by striking ``$10,000 
     or an amount equal to 200 percent'' and inserting ``$20,000 
     or an amount equal to 300 percent''.
       (b) Equitable Remedies.--Section 309(a)(5)(A) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(5)) 
     is amended by striking the period at the end and inserting 
     ``, and may include equitable remedies or penalties, 
     including disgorgement of funds to the Treasury or community 
     service requirements (including requirements to participate 
     in public education programs).''.
       (c) Automatic Penalty for Late Filing.--Section 309(a) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) Penalty for Late Filing.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Monetary penalties.--The Commission shall establish a 
     schedule of mandatory monetary penalties that shall be 
     imposed by the Commission for failure to meet a time 
     requirement for filing under section 304.
       ``(ii) Required filing.--In addition to imposing a penalty, 
     the Commission may require a report that has not been filed 
     within the time requirements of section 304 to be filed by a 
     specific date.
       ``(iii) Procedure.--A penalty or filing requirement imposed 
     under this paragraph shall not be subject to paragraph (1), 
     (2), (3), (4), (5), or (12).
       ``(B) Filing an exception.--
       ``(i) Time to file.--A political committee shall have 30 
     days after the imposition of a penalty or filing requirement 
     by the Commission under this paragraph in which to file an 
     exception with the Commission.
       ``(ii) Time for commission to rule.--Within 30 days after 
     receiving an exception, the Commission shall make a 
     determination that is a final agency action subject to 
     exclusive review by the United States Court of Appeals for 
     the District of Columbia Circuit under section 706 of title 
     5, United States Code, upon petition filed in that court by 
     the political committee or treasurer that is the subject of 
     the agency action, if the petition is filed within 30 days 
     after the date of the Commission action for which review is 
     sought.'';
       (2) in paragraph (5)(D)--
       (A) by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``In any case in which a penalty or filing requirement 
     imposed on a political committee or treasurer under paragraph 
     (13) has not been satisfied, the Commission may institute a 
     civil action for enforcement under paragraph (6)(A).''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period at the end of the last 
     sentence the following: ``or has failed to pay a penalty or 
     meet a filing requirement imposed under paragraph (13)''; and
       (3) in paragraph (6)(A), by striking ``paragraph (4)(A)'' 
     and inserting ``paragraph (4)(A) or (13)''.

     SEC. 504. STRENGTHENING FOREIGN MONEY BAN.

       (a) In General.--Section 319 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441e) is amended--
       (1) by striking the heading and inserting the following: 
     ``contributions and donations by foreign nationals''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for--
       ``(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make--
       ``(A) a donation of money or other thing of value, or to 
     promise expressly or impliedly to make a donation, in 
     connection with a Federal, State, or local election; or
       ``(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a 
     political party; or
       ``(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive such a 
     contribution or donation from a foreign national.''.
       (b) Prohibiting Use of Willful Blindness as Defense Against 
     Charge of Violating Foreign Contribution Ban.--
       (1) In general.--Section 319 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441e) is 
     amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(b) Prohibiting Use of Willful Blindness Defense.--It 
     shall not be a defense to a violation of subsection (a) that 
     the defendant did not know that the contribution originated 
     from a foreign national if the defendant should have known 
     that the contribution originated from a foreign national, 
     except that the trier of fact may not find that the defendant 
     should have known that the contribution originated from a 
     foreign national solely because of the name of the 
     contributor.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply with respect to violations occurring on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Prohibition Applicable to All Individuals Who Are Not 
     Citizens or Nationals of the United States.--Section 
     319(b)(2) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(2)) is amended by 
     striking the period at the end and inserting the following: 
     ``, or in the case of an election for Federal office, an 
     individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a 
     national of the United States (as defined in section 
     101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act).''.

     SEC. 505. PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MINORS.

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


                ``prohibition of contributions by minors

       ``Sec. 325. An individual who is 17 years old or younger 
     shall not make a contribution to a candidate or a 
     contribution or donation to a committee of a political 
     party.''.

     SEC. 506. EXPEDITED PROCEDURES.

       (a) In General.--Section 309(a) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)) (as amended by 
     section 503(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(14)(A) If the complaint in a proceeding was filed within 
     60 days preceding the date of a general election, the 
     Commission may take action described in this subparagraph.
       ``(B) If the Commission determines, on the basis of facts 
     alleged in the complaint and other facts available to the 
     Commission, that there is clear and convincing evidence that 
     a violation of this Act has occurred, is occurring, or is 
     about to occur, the Commission may order expedited 
     proceedings, shortening the time periods for proceedings 
     under paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) as necessary to allow 
     the matter to be resolved in sufficient time before the 
     election to avoid harm or prejudice to the interests of the 
     parties.
       ``(C) If the Commission determines, on the basis of facts 
     alleged in the complaint and other facts available to the 
     Commission, that the complaint is clearly without merit, the 
     Commission may--
       ``(i) order expedited proceedings, shortening the time 
     periods for proceedings under paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and 
     (4) as necessary to allow the matter to be resolved in 
     sufficient time before the election to avoid harm or 
     prejudice to the interests of the parties; or
       ``(ii) if the Commission determines that there is 
     insufficient time to conduct proceedings before the election, 
     summarily dismiss the complaint.''.
       (b) Referral to Attorney General.--Section 309(a)(5) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(5)) 
     is amended by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) The Commission may at any time, by an affirmative 
     vote of at least 4 of its members, refer a possible violation 
     of this Act or chapter 95 or 96 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986, to the Attorney General of the United States, 
     without regard to any limitation set forth in this 
     section.''.

[[Page 1333]]

     SEC. 507. INITIATION OF ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING.

       Section 309(a)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``reason to 
     believe that'' and inserting ``reason to investigate 
     whether''.

     SEC. 508. PROTECTING EQUAL PARTICIPATION OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS 
                   IN CAMPAIGNS AND ELECTIONS.

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


 ``protecting equal participation of eligible voters in campaigns and 
                               elections

       ``Sec. 326. (a) In General.--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) No Effect on Geographic Restrictions on 
     Contributions.--Subsection (a) may not be construed to affect 
     any restriction under this title regarding the portion of 
     contributions accepted by a candidate from persons residing 
     in a particular geographic area.''.

     SEC. 509. PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF PROHIBITION AGAINST 
                   FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 319 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441e), as amended by section 
     504(b), is further amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Penalty.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     notwithstanding any other provision of this title any person 
     who violates subsection (a) shall be sentenced to a term of 
     imprisonment which may not be more than 10 years, fined in an 
     amount not to exceed $1,000,000, or both.
       ``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with 
     respect to any violation of subsection (a) arising from a 
     contribution or donation made by an individual who is 
     lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in 
     section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to violations occurring on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 510. EXPEDITED COURT REVIEW OF CERTAIN ALLEGED 
                   VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT OF 
                   1971.

       (a) In General.--Section 309 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, 
     if a candidate (or the candidate's authorized committee) 
     believes that a violation described in paragraph (2) has been 
     committed with respect to an election during the 90-day 
     period preceding the date of the election, the candidate or 
     committee may institute a civil action on behalf of the 
     Commission for relief (including injunctive relief) against 
     the alleged violator in the same manner and under the same 
     terms and conditions as an action instituted by the 
     Commission under subsection (a)(6), except that the court 
     involved shall issue a decision regarding the action as soon 
     as practicable after the action is instituted and to the 
     greatest extent possible issue the decision prior to the date 
     of the election involved.
       ``(2) A violation described in this paragraph is a 
     violation of this Act or of chapter 95 or chapter 96 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 relating to--
       ``(A) whether a contribution is in excess of an applicable 
     limit or is otherwise prohibited under this Act; or
       ``(B) whether an expenditure is an independent expenditure 
     under section 301(17).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to elections occurring after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 511. DEPOSIT OF CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS AND DONATIONS IN 
                   TREASURY ACCOUNT.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), as amended by sections 
     101, 401, 505, and 508, is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following new section:


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

       ``Sec. 327. (a) Transfer to Commission.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, if a political committee intends to return any 
     contribution or donation given to the political committee, 
     the committee shall transfer the contribution or donation to 
     the Commission if--
       ``(A) the contribution or donation is in an amount equal to 
     or greater than $500 (other than a contribution or donation 
     returned within 60 days of receipt by the committee); or
       ``(B) the contribution or donation was made in violation of 
     section 315, 316, 317, 319, 320, or 325 (other than a 
     contribution or donation returned within 30 days of receipt 
     by the committee).
       ``(2) Information included with transferred contribution or 
     donation.--A political committee shall include with any 
     contribution or donation transferred under paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) a request that the Commission return the contribution 
     or donation to the person making the contribution or 
     donation; and
       ``(B) information regarding the circumstances surrounding 
     the making of the contribution or donation and any opinion of 
     the political committee concerning whether the contribution 
     or donation may have been made in violation of this Act.
       ``(3) Establishment of escrow account.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Commission shall establish a single 
     interest-bearing escrow account for deposit of amounts 
     transferred under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Disposition of amounts received.--On receiving an 
     amount from a political committee under paragraph (1), the 
     Commission shall--
       ``(i) deposit the amount in the escrow account established 
     under subparagraph (A); and
       ``(ii) notify the Attorney General and the Commissioner of 
     the Internal Revenue Service of the receipt of the amount 
     from the political committee.
       ``(C) Use of interest.--Interest earned on amounts in the 
     escrow account established under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     applied or used for the same purposes as the donation or 
     contribution on which it is earned.
       ``(4) Treatment of returned contribution or donation as a 
     complaint.--The transfer of any contribution or donation to 
     the Commission under this section shall be treated as the 
     filing of a complaint under section 309(a).
       ``(b) Use of Amounts Placed in Escrow To Cover Fines and 
     Penalties.--The Commission or the Attorney General may 
     require any amount deposited in the escrow account under 
     subsection (a)(3) to be applied toward the payment of any 
     fine or penalty imposed under this Act or title 18, United 
     States Code, against the person making the contribution or 
     donation.
       ``(c) Return of Contribution or Donation After Deposit in 
     Escrow.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Commission shall return a 
     contribution or donation deposited in the escrow account 
     under subsection (a)(3) to the person making the contribution 
     or donation if--
       ``(A) within 180 days after the date the contribution or 
     donation is transferred, the Commission has not made a 
     determination under section 309(a)(2) that the Commission has 
     reason to investigate whether that the making of the 
     contribution or donation was made in violation of this Act; 
     or
       ``(B)(i) the contribution or donation will not be used to 
     cover fines, penalties, or costs pursuant to subsection (b); 
     or
       ``(ii) if the contribution or donation will be used for 
     those purposes, that the amounts 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) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)) is 
     amended by inserting after paragraph (9) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(10) For purposes of determining the amount of a civil 
     penalty imposed under this subsection for violations of 
     section 326, the amount of the donation involved shall be 
     treated as the amount of the contribution involved.''.
       (c) Disgorgement Authority.--Section 309 of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 437g) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(e) Any conciliation agreement, civil action, or criminal 
     action entered into or instituted under this section may 
     require a person to forfeit to the Treasury any contribution, 
     donation, or expenditure that is the subject of the agreement 
     or action for transfer to the Commission for deposit in 
     accordance with section 326.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall apply to contributions or donations refunded on 
     or after the date of the enactment of this Act, without 
     regard to whether the Federal Election Commission or Attorney 
     General has issued regulations to carry out section 326 of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (as added by 
     subsection (a)) by such date.

[[Page 1334]]

     SEC. 512. ESTABLISHMENT OF A CLEARINGHOUSE OF INFORMATION ON 
                   POLITICAL ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE FEDERAL 
                   ELECTION COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There shall be established within the 
     Federal Election Commission a clearinghouse of public 
     information regarding the political activities of foreign 
     principals and agents of foreign principals. The information 
     comprising this clearinghouse shall include only the 
     following:
       (1) All registrations and reports filed pursuant to the 
     Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) 
     during the preceding 5-year period.
       (2) All registrations and reports filed pursuant to the 
     Foreign Agents Registration Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 611 et 
     seq.), during the preceding 5-year period.
       (3) The listings of public hearings, hearing witnesses, and 
     witness affiliations printed in the Congressional Record 
     during the preceding 5-year period.
       (4) Public information disclosed pursuant to the rules of 
     the Senate or the House of Representatives regarding 
     honoraria, the receipt of gifts, travel, and earned and 
     unearned income.
       (5) All reports filed pursuant to title I of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) during the preceding 
     5-year period.
       (6) All public information filed with the Federal Election 
     Commission pursuant to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) during the preceding 5-year 
     period.
       (b) Disclosure of Other Information Prohibited.--The 
     disclosure by the clearinghouse, or any officer or employee 
     thereof, of any information other than that set forth in 
     subsection (a) is prohibited, except as otherwise provided by 
     law.
       (c) Director of Clearinghouse.--
       (1) Duties.--The clearinghouse shall have a Director, who 
     shall administer and manage the responsibilities and all 
     activities of the clearinghouse. In carrying out such duties, 
     the Director shall--
       (A) develop a filing, coding, and cross-indexing system to 
     carry out the purposes of this section (which shall include 
     an index of all persons identified in the reports, 
     registrations, and other information comprising the 
     clearinghouse);
       (B) notwithstanding any other provision of law, make copies 
     of registrations, reports, and other information comprising 
     the clearinghouse available for public inspection and 
     copying, beginning not later than 30 days after the 
     information is first available to the public, and permit 
     copying of any such registration, report, or other 
     information by hand or by copying machine or, at the request 
     of any person, furnish a copy of any such registration, 
     report, or other information upon payment of the cost of 
     making and furnishing such copy, except that no information 
     contained in such registration or report and no such other 
     information shall be sold or used by any person for the 
     purpose of soliciting contributions or for any profit-making 
     purpose; and
       (C) not later than 150 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act and at any time thereafter, to prescribe, in 
     consultation with the Comptroller General, such rules, 
     regulations, and forms, in conformity with the provisions of 
     chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, as are necessary to 
     carry out the provisions of this section in the most 
     effective and efficient manner.
       (2) Appointment.--The Director shall be appointed by the 
     Federal Election Commission.
       (3) Term of service.--The Director shall serve a single 
     term of a period of time determined by the Commission, but 
     not to exceed 5 years.
       (d) Penalties for Disclosure of Information.--Any person 
     who discloses information in violation of subsection (b), and 
     any person who sells or uses information for the purpose of 
     soliciting contributions or for any profit-making purpose in 
     violation of subsection (c)(1)(B), shall be imprisoned for a 
     period of not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount 
     provided in title 18, United States Code, or both.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to conduct 
     the activities of the clearinghouse.
       (f) Foreign Principal.--In this section, the term ``foreign 
     principal'' shall have the same meaning given the term 
     ``foreign national'' under section 319 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441e), as in effect 
     as of the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 513. CLARIFICATION OF RIGHT OF NATIONALS OF THE UNITED 
                   STATES TO MAKE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 319(d)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 441e(d)(2)), as amended by sections 504(b) and 
     509(a), is further amended by inserting after ``United 
     States'' the following: ``or a national of the United States 
     (as defined in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act)''.

      TITLE VI--INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

     SEC. 601. ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSE OF COMMISSION.

       There is established a commission to be known as the 
     ``Independent Commission on Campaign Finance Reform'' 
     (referred to in this title as the ``Commission''). The 
     purposes of the Commission are to study the laws relating to 
     the financing of political activity and to report and 
     recommend legislation to reform those laws.

     SEC. 602. MEMBERSHIP OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 12 
     members appointed within 15 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act by the President from among individuals 
     who are not incumbent Members of Congress and who are 
     specially qualified to serve on the Commission by reason of 
     education, training, or experience.
       (b) Appointment.--
       (1) In general.--Members shall be appointed as follows:
       (A) Three members (one of whom shall be a political 
     independent) shall be appointed from among a list of nominees 
     submitted by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
       (B) Three members (one of whom shall be a political 
     independent) shall be appointed from among a list of nominees 
     submitted by the majority leader of the Senate.
       (C) Three members (one of whom shall be a political 
     independent) shall be appointed from among a list of nominees 
     submitted by the minority leader of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (D) Three members (one of whom shall be a political 
     independent) shall be appointed from among a list of nominees 
     submitted by the minority leader of the Senate.
       (2) Failure to submit list of nominees.--If an official 
     described in any of the subparagraphs of paragraph (1) fails 
     to submit a list of nominees to the President during the 15-
     day period which begins on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act--
       (A) such subparagraph shall no longer apply; and
       (B) the President shall appoint three members (one of whom 
     shall be a political independent) who meet the requirements 
     described in subsection (a) and such other criteria as the 
     President may apply.
       (3) Political independent defined.--In this subsection, the 
     term ``political independent'' means an individual who at no 
     time after January 1992--
       (A) has held elective office as a member of the Democratic 
     or Republican party;
       (B) has received any wages or salary from the Democratic or 
     Republican party or from a Democratic or Republican party 
     office-holder or candidate; or
       (C) has provided substantial volunteer services or made any 
     substantial contribution to the Democratic or Republican 
     party or to a Democratic or Republican party office-holder or 
     candidate.
       (c) Chairman.--At the time of the appointment, the 
     President shall designate one member of the Commission as 
     Chairman of the Commission.
       (d) Terms.--The members of the Commission shall serve for 
     the life of the Commission.
       (e) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled 
     in the manner in which the original appointment was made.
       (f) Political Affiliation.--Not more than four members of 
     the Commission may be of the same political party.

     SEC. 603. POWERS OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Hearings.--The Commission may, for the purpose of 
     carrying out this title, hold hearings, sit and act at times 
     and places, take testimony, and receive evidence as the 
     Commission considers appropriate. In carrying out the 
     preceding sentence, the Commission shall ensure that a 
     substantial number of its meetings are open meetings, with 
     significant opportunities for testimony from members of the 
     general public.
       (b) Quorum.--Seven members of the Commission shall 
     constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold hearings. 
     The approval of at least nine members of the Commission is 
     required when approving all or a portion of the recommended 
     legislation. Any member of the Commission may, if authorized 
     by the Commission, take any action which the Commission is 
     authorized to take under this section.

     SEC. 604. REPORT AND RECOMMENDED LEGISLATION.

       (a) Report.--Not later than the expiration of the 180-day 
     period which begins on the date on which the second session 
     of the One Hundred Sixth Congress adjourns sine die, the 
     Commission shall submit to the President, the Speaker and 
     minority leader of the House of Representatives, and the 
     majority and minority leaders of the Senate a report of the 
     activities of the Commission.
       (b) Recommendations; Draft of Legislation.--The report 
     under subsection (a) shall include any recommendations for 
     changes in the laws (including regulations) governing the 
     financing of political activity (taking into account the 
     provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this Act), 
     including any changes in the rules of the Senate or the House 
     of Representatives, to which nine or more members of the 
     Commission may agree, together with drafts of--
       (1) any legislation (including technical and conforming 
     provisions) recommended by the Commission to implement such 
     recommendations; and
       (2) any proposed amendment to the Constitution recommended 
     by the Commission as necessary to implement such 
     recommendations, except that if the Commission includes such 
     a proposed amendment in

[[Page 1335]]

     its report, it shall also include recommendations (and 
     drafts) for legislation which may be implemented prior to the 
     adoption of such proposed amendment.
       (c) Goals of Recommendations and Legislation.--In making 
     recommendations and preparing drafts of legislation under 
     this section, the Commission shall consider the following to 
     be its primary goals:
       (1) Encouraging fair and open Federal elections which 
     provide voters with meaningful information about candidates 
     and issues.
       (2) Eliminating the disproportionate influence of special 
     interest financing of Federal elections.
       (3) Creating a more equitable electoral system for 
     challengers and incumbents.

     SEC. 605. TERMINATION.

       The Commission shall cease to exist 90 days after the date 
     of the submission of its report under section 604.

     SEC. 606. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Commission 
     such sums as are necessary to carry out its duties under this 
     title.

TITLE VII--PROHIBITING USE OF WHITE HOUSE MEALS AND ACCOMMODATIONS FOR 
                         POLITICAL FUNDRAISING

     SEC. 701. PROHIBITING USE OF WHITE HOUSE MEALS AND 
                   ACCOMMODATIONS FOR POLITICAL FUNDRAISING.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 29 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 612. Prohibiting use of meals and accommodations at 
       White House for political fundraising

       ``(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to provide or 
     offer to provide any meals or accommodations at the White 
     House in exchange for any money or other thing of value, or 
     as a reward for the provision of any money or other thing of 
     value, in support of any political party or the campaign for 
     electoral office of any candidate.
       ``(b) Any person who violates this section shall be fined 
     under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or 
     both.
       ``(c) For purposes of this section, any official residence 
     or retreat of the President (including private residential 
     areas and the grounds of such a residence or retreat) shall 
     be treated as part of the White House.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     29 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new item:

``612. Prohibiting use of meals and accommodations at White House for 
              political fundraising.''.

  TITLE VIII--SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING FUNDRAISING ON FEDERAL 
                          GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

     SEC. 801. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF 
                   CONTROLLING LEGAL AUTHORITY TO FUNDRAISING ON 
                   FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

       It is the sense of the Congress that Federal law clearly 
     demonstrates that ``controlling legal authority'' under title 
     18, United States Code, prohibits the use of Federal 
     Government property to raise campaign funds.

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

     SEC. 901. REQUIRING NATIONAL PARTIES TO REIMBURSE AT COST FOR 
                   USE OF AIR FORCE ONE FOR POLITICAL FUNDRAISING.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.), as amended by sections 101, 401, 505, 
     508, and 511, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:


   ``reimbursement by political parties for use of air force one for 
                         political fundraising

       ``Sec. 328. (a) In General.--If the President, Vice 
     President, or the head of any executive department (as 
     defined in section 101 of title 5, United States Code) uses 
     Air Force One for transportation for any travel which 
     includes a fundraising event for the benefit of any political 
     committee of a national political party, such political 
     committee shall reimburse the Federal Government for the fair 
     market value of the transportation of the individual 
     involved, based on the cost of an equivalent commercial 
     chartered flight.
       ``(b) Air Force One Defined.--In subsection (a), the term 
     `Air Force One' means the airplane operated by the Air Force 
     which has been specially configured to carry out the mission 
     of transporting the President.''.

     SEC. 902. 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, 505, 
     508, 511, and 901, 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.''.

            TITLE X--PROHIBITING USE OF WALKING AROUND MONEY

     SEC. 1001. PROHIBITING CAMPAIGNS FROM PROVIDING CURRENCY TO 
                   INDIVIDUALS FOR PURPOSES OF ENCOURAGING TURNOUT 
                   ON DATE OF ELECTION.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.), as amended by sections 101, 401, 505, 
     508, 511, 901, and 902, is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following new section:


     ``prohibiting use of currency to promote election day turnout

       ``Sec. 330. It shall be unlawful for any political 
     committee to provide currency to any individual (directly or 
     through an agent of the committee) for purposes of 
     encouraging the individual to appear at the polling place for 
     the election.''.

            TITLE XI--ENHANCING ENFORCEMENT OF CAMPAIGN LAW

     SEC. 1101. ENHANCING ENFORCEMENT OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW.

       (a) Mandatory Imprisonment for Criminal Conduct.--Section 
     309(d)(1)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 437g(d)(1)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``shall be fined, or 
     imprisoned for not more than one year, or both'' and 
     inserting ``shall be imprisoned for not fewer than 1 year and 
     not more than 10 years''; and
       (2) by striking the second sentence.
       (b) Concurrent Authority of Attorney General To Bring 
     Criminal Actions.--Section 309(d) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     437g(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) In addition to the authority to bring cases referred 
     pursuant to subsection (a)(5), the Attorney General may at 
     any time bring a criminal action for a violation of this Act 
     or of chapter 95 or chapter 96 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to actions brought with respect to 
     elections occurring after January 2002.

TITLE XII--SEVERABILITY; CONSTITUTIONALITY; EFFECTIVE DATE; REGULATIONS

     SEC. 1201. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act, 
     or the application of a provision or amendment to any person 
     or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the 
     remainder of this Act and amendments made by this Act, and 
     the application of the provisions and amendment to any person 
     or circumstance, shall not be affected by the holding.

     SEC. 1202. REVIEW OF CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.

       An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the 
     United States from any final judgment, decree, or order 
     issued by any court ruling on the constitutionality of any 
     provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act.

     SEC. 1203. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as otherwise provided in this Act, this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act shall take effect upon the 
     expiration of the 90-day period which begins on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 1204. REGULATIONS.

       The Federal Election Commission shall prescribe any 
     regulations required to carry out this Act and the amendments 
     made by this Act not later than 45 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 344, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and a Member opposed (Mr. Hoyer) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that this is an historic substitute today 
because I think we are going to come together; and I am sure the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) are going to stand up at this microphone, I am 
positive, and probably embrace and endorse this substitute. Now, I 
could be wrong, but I have a good feeling about this one.
  One common refrain we have heard is that the Congress must pass 
campaign finance reform now because it has previously passed the House 
by wide margins. Well, the substitute I offer today is the bill that 
this House passed previously. I offer it not because I think it is 
really a good bill and not because I particularly want to see it 
passed; on the contrary, I think this is a bad piece of legislation. I 
voted against it in the last Congress. I wish it had not passed then, 
and I really do not again want to see it particularly passed today.

                              {time}  1330

  With all sincerity, I offer this today because I want to give Members 
the opportunity to vote on a bill that they

[[Page 1336]]

previously supported which never made it to the President's desk, and 
so Members have indicated they would like to have the chance to have 
that vote and it is a good, honest vote.
  As we all know, in previous Congresses Members here were able to cast 
a vote for this legislation knowing that it would never become law. 
They could vote for it here knowing that it would not get past the 
other body or it would not be signed by the President. We all knew that 
was the game plan in some cases. Things are a little different this 
year.
  The Senate has already passed a version of campaign finance reform. 
The President has given no indication that he intends to veto a bill 
that would reach his desk. So unlike previous votes, today's vote 
really does matter. We are not playing games anymore. As some have 
said, we are now shooting with real bullets.
  The legislation that passes this House is very likely to reach the 
President's desk and to become law. Given that, I think it is important 
to give Members the opportunity to enact legislation that they 
previously supported on this floor, and so I offer as my substitute the 
language of H.R. 417, the Shays-Meehan legislation which passed in the 
106th Congress by a vote of 252 to 177.
  I would like to say that this substitute is exactly the same bill 
that was passed in the previous Congress. Unfortunately, the bill has 
changed so much it is no longer germane to the Shays-Meehan bill on the 
floor today, and that is due to the constantly evolving product that we 
are dealing with. Let me repeat that because I think Members need to 
realize this. The Shays-Meehan bill that is on the floor today is so 
different from the one we passed in the previous Congress that the bill 
is not even germane to the new Shays-Meehan bill.
  Accordingly, some changes have been necessary for this substitute to 
be in order, some sections had to be stricken. In essence, however, the 
substitute is the Shays-Meehan bill that passed previously.
  Offering this as an amendment, in addition to giving Members an 
opportunity to be consistent in their voting, provides an opportunity 
to highlight the evolution in the Shays-Meehan legislation that was 
introduced last night brought forth. As Members know, the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) introduced a bill very similar to H.R. 417 at the start of this 
Congress. That bill, H.R. 380, was introduced on January 31, 2001; but 
that is not the Shays-Meehan bill that they have chosen to bring to the 
floor today.
  Instead, on June 28, 2001, one day before my committee, the Committee 
on House Administration, was scheduled to mark up campaign finance 
legislation, they introduced a new bill, H.R. 2356. That is the bill 
that serves as the base text today. The substitute offered today by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) that we saw for the first time last night 
makes even further changes to their bill.
  Members need to be aware that the bill they are being asked to vote 
on today is not the same bill that they supported previously in the 
106th Congress. For example, this amendment, the old Shays bill, banned 
soft money. The new bill simply does not ban all soft money. We have 
talked about the loophole we can drive a truck through.
  In this substitute, which the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) previously supported, 
soft-money contributions to the political parties for Federal election 
activities were banned. In the new version, today's version, there is 
no ban. State and local parties are permitted to receive soft-money 
contributions from unions and corporations. So if my colleagues want to 
ban soft money and they voted previously to do so, they should vote for 
this substitute because the new Shays bill simply will not do it.
  In the old Shays bill issue ads were banned 365 days a year. In the 
new Shays-Meehan bill, they are banned for only 90 days, meaning that 
under the new Shays bill unions and corporations can use soft money to 
run attack ads 275 days a year. If my colleagues want to ban issue ads 
funded with soft money, they should vote for this substitute because 
the new Shays bill simply will not do it.
  In the old Shays bill, soft money could be used for any form of 
election-related communication, meaning they could not use soft money 
for television ad and newspaper ad or a pamphlet. In the new Shays 
bill, the only form of communication that cannot be funded with soft 
money are broadcast ads run during the 60 days before an election or 
the 30 days before a primary. Meaning, under the new Shays-Meehan bill, 
groups can continue to use an unlimited amount of unregulated money on 
mass mailings, phone banks and push polls. If my colleagues want an 
issue-ad restriction that would stop all communications funded with 
soft money, they should vote for this substitute because the new Shays 
bill simply will not do it.
  Those are just some of the biggest examples of the changes that have 
been made. Here are some others:
  The old Shays bill did not treat House and Senate candidates 
differently. The new one does. The new bill allows candidates for the 
Senate and for the Presidency to accept $2,000 from an individual per 
election, but House candidates can only receive $1,000. If my 
colleagues think House and Senate candidates should have the same 
contribution limits, they should vote for the substitute because the 
new Shays bill will not do it.
  The old Shays bill did not include a soft-money loophole that would 
allow a political party to keep any soft money it had as long as it 
wanted to build a new headquarters. The new Shays-Meehan bill does. So 
if my colleagues do not think a political party should be able to use 
money to build a new headquarters, vote for the substitute.
  The old Shays bill required publicly funded candidates to certify 
that no soft money was raised to benefit their candidacies. The new 
Shays bill simply does not do it.
  The old Shays-Meehan bill banned the use of the White House for 
political fund-raising. The new Shays-Meehan bill simply does not do 
it.
  The list goes on and on and on. It is obvious that the bill on the 
floor today, though it bears the name Shays-Meehan label, is not the 
old Shays-Meehan bill. While the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) do not want to give 
Members the opportunity to vote on the provisions, I think we can give 
them the opportunity to vote on the substitute.
  Some will say that offering this amendment as a substitute is anti-
reform now. Was not then, it is now. That argument simply amazes me, 
frankly, Mr. Chairman. Somebody will make a good case to prove me 
wrong, I am sure, in a couple of minutes. I have faith in my 
colleagues.
  I am sure that if my colleagues went back and looked at all the 
newspaper editorials that were urging Members to vote for the 
substitute at the time it was offered in the last Congress my 
colleagues will see that Members were told that if they did not vote 
for H.R. 417 they were against reform. Now with essentially the same 
bill being offered today through this substitute, we will hear that to 
vote for it is to be against reform. It is surreal. It is Alice in 
Wonderland.
  I look forward to the vote on this substitute. I plan to vote against 
it because I think it is a bad bill. New Shays, old Shays, I think they 
are all kind of a little bit bad, need a little bit of correction, 
little bit of work, which we an do together if we pass a couple of good 
amendments, keep it going; but I look forward to seeing how Members 
vote on it today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) may each control 5 minutes of the time allocated to me and that 
they may yield time.

[[Page 1337]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the distinguished former speaker of the Maryland 
House, member of the Committee on Ways and Means and my good friend.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I was listening to my friend, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Ney), explain the reasons why he submitted the amendment 
or substitute, and I think it is a good reason to vote against it. We 
are in agreement.
  Let me try to simplify it. If my colleagues are for reform, if they 
want to try to start down the path to restore confidence in our system, 
where the public will believe that special interest dollars are not 
going to have more influence but less influence on what we do in this 
body, if my colleagues want to move down that path, then they have to 
put some of their own personal views aside. There is only one 
opportunity in this Congress to get it done and that is to vote against 
the Ney substitute, to vote for the Shays-Meehan bill and McCain-
Feingold. That is going to be the only opportunity we are going to 
have.
  So, yes, each of us could try to craft a bill that we think is best, 
or we could try to understand the explanation of the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ney) as to why he is offering his amendment, which I have a 
hard time following; or we can vote for the only bill that is going to 
have a chance of being signed that will reduce special interest 
dollars, soft money, that will close loopholes in the law. I urge my 
colleagues to reject Ney and support the Shays-Meehan bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2356, the 
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, sponsored by Mr. Shays and Mr. Meehan, 
and by Senator McCain and Senator Feingold. I am an original co-sponsor 
of this important legislation, and I urge members of the House to 
defeat the proposed substitutes to Shays-Meehan, as well as those 
amendments designed to derail the bill and prevent meaningful campaign 
finance reform legislation from being enacted into law.
  Special interest campaign contributions represent a serious threat to 
public confidence in our government. The amount of money contributed to 
candidates for Congress and President calls into question the 
independence of our elected officials to make judgments in the public 
interest. As the level of spending in campaigns has continued to rise, 
those concerns have grown more serious. As members of Congress, we have 
a responsibility to strengthen our democracy by significantly reducing 
the influence of money. Recent scandals have proven, beyond the shadow 
of a doubt, that corporate wrongdoers can buy access and influence in 
Washington at the expense of regular working men and women.
  The bill would close two large loopholes in the law that contribute 
to the corruption of our political system. One loophole is so-called 
``soft money'' contributions, which are unregulated and unlimited 
contributions from wealthy special interest groups. Another major 
loophole deals with ``independent'' issue advertisements, which allow 
special interests to seek to influence the outcome of an election 
campaign by spending large sums of money on advertising campaigns. 
Currently, these ads which are clearly aimed at influencing an election 
can be worded in a way that they are deemed issue advocacy and are not 
subject to campaign spending limits or disclosure requirements.
  Other major changes to our campaign financing system proposed in the 
bill would require Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports on 
candidate fund-raising and expenditures to be filed electronically, and 
provide Internet posting of this and other disclosure data. The FEC 
would be required to post such information within 48 hours of filing. 
The bill would also change from quarterly to monthly the filing 
requirements for candidates in election years, ensuring more timely 
information for the voting public on their candidates for election. In 
addition, the bill would provide for expedited and more effective FEC 
procedures, which would give the FEC greater enforcement authority and 
ability to crack down on violators of our campaign finance laws. The 
FEC, under the bill, would also serve as an information clearinghouse 
that would provide easy access to citizens and the media to lobbying 
reports, reports filed under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, 
Congressional witness lists and gift disclosures.
  Mr. Chairman, the time has come for us to start to restore the 
confidence of the American people in our democratic system by reducing 
the influence of special interest money. We have the opportunity to do 
just that today by supporting the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to myself.
  As I understand it, now it is a bad bill; it is not a reform bill. It 
was good then; it is not good now. I am still a little puzzled, I 
guess, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller), my friend.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Ney substitute 
based on the principles that were articulated by the sponsors of this 
legislation in the last Congress who claimed at the time that the 
original version of Shays-Meehan was based on principle. If my 
colleagues take time to read the latest version of Shays-Meehan, they 
see that it has abandoned principle. What is the basic premises for 
Shays-Meehan? Banning that evil thing called soft money.
  Shays-Meehan is so full of loopholes today that it allows for $60 
million in soft money to continue to be part of the process. It is so 
full of loopholes that independent advocacy attack ads are prohibited 
on electronic media, they are prohibited from spending money to 
advocate a position up until the election on TV or radio; but they can 
still buy full page ads in the New York Times, The Washington Post, 
U.S.A Today, and all the other print media. The question is why does 
the print media get that loophole and not electronic, television, or 
radio? It is a good question. Something we want to ask.
  I also wonder why they changed the effective date. We were urged in 
this House to move quickly, we have got to act quickly, got to do it 
now, we need to have a discharge petition, we got to do it now so it 
affects the next election. The bill comes to the floor and last night 
they changed the bill so it is not effective until after the election. 
So what is the hurry, huh? Maybe it could matter.
  The other thing that really to me is what is something that really 
shows the lack of principle in the current Shays-Meehan is if we read 
the bill on page 78 and 79 which points out that under the current 
version of Shays-Meehan, which goes into effect the day after the 
election, that they can borrow hard money which according to the 
advocates of Shays-Meehan is good money, borrow hard money from a local 
bank or some form of financial institution, but after the election they 
can use soft money to pay it back. Hmm. Think about that principle.
  Take the Democratic Congressional Committee, $40 million in their 
building account. They can use that $40 million as collateral to borrow 
millions in hard money and continue to solicit soft money up until the 
election. When the election is over with, pay off that hard money loan 
with soft money. Hmm, so much about principle.
  I realize there is a lot of good intentions by those who may want to 
vote for Shays-Meehan. It is not the same bill. It is no longer based 
on principle. It has become a sham, and I urge a no vote on Shays-
Meehan.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to myself to correct the 
``hmm'' of my colleague, who basically said something that simply was 
not accurate. They cannot use soft money to pay off a hard-money debt. 
That is simply not true.
  This bill is different. Our bill is different than it was because a 
funny thing happened. The Senate got to look at our bill and they made 
some changes. They added the Levin amendment, which allows soft money, 
no more than $10,000 if a State allows it, not for Federal elections, 
and it cannot be used for any campaigns. That is what they do. So the 
Levin amendment makes our bill different.
  Then we have the Snow-Jeffords amendment in the Senate which says 60 
days to an election. So that is why, in fact, the bill is different. 
The bill is different because the Senate changed it, and we want a bill 
similar to what the Senate has done.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to myself.

[[Page 1338]]

  So it is okay for the Senate to make some changes and we can accept 
that and morph the original bill 252 people voted for and get to the 
point we are at today, but it is not okay to take some type of an 
amendment, which there are good amendments, today from the floor of 
this House and introduce them. So the Senate has the sacred hand or 
something in this?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) 
for yielding me the time.
  Let me read the language of the bill, and I urge everyone to take 
time to read the language of the bill. Page 79, line 12: ``Prior to 
January 1, 2003, the committee may spend such funds to retire 
outstanding debts or obligations incurred prior to such effective date 
so long as such debts or obligations were incurred solely in connection 
with an election held on or before November 5, 2002, or any run-off 
election or recount resulting in such an election.''
  If my colleagues read the bill, they can borrow hard money and pay it 
back with soft money. Lack of principle.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to myself to just say my 
colleagues have to read the bill and know the law. The law makes it 
illegal to use soft money for a hard-money expenditure.
  The purpose of this is if they incurred a soft-money expenditure 
before the election day and the person wants to get paid afterwards, 
they get paid up to the date of January. A soft-money expense for a 
soft-money expenditure, a hard-money expense for a hard-money 
expenditure; but one does not always pay the bill before the expense.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to myself.
  In addition to that, Larry Noble, the executive director/general 
counsel of the Center for Responsive Politics, the former general 
counsel of the Federal Elections Commission, clearly states in this 
letter that I will again have added to the Record: ``It is clear under 
Federal election law that only hard money can be used to pay off a loan 
that was used for hard money expenditures.

                              {time}  1345

  There is nothing in the Shays-Meehan Substitute that would supersede 
the current Federal law. Under this section, soft money funds on hand 
after the election could only be used to pay off debts or obligations 
used for soft money expenditures. That is the law.
  One of the great things I have really enjoyed is working with my 
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), on campaign finance 
reform. I was just so disappointed, after debating the Ney bill with 
him over the last year, that when it came time to put in a substitute, 
we did not get the Ney bill. I was looking forward to that.
  The letter I referred to earlier is hereby inserted for the Record.


                               Center for Responsive Politics,

                                Washington, DC, February 13, 2002.
     Hon. Christopher Shays,
     Longworth Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Shays: This is in response to your 
     question regarding whether a national committee of a 
     political party can use soft money to pay off a debt or 
     obligation that was used to fund expenditures that must be 
     paid for with hard money. It is clear under federal election 
     law that only hard money can be used to pay off a loan that 
     was used for hard money expenditures. I see nothing in 
     Section 402(b)(1) of the Shays-Meehan Substitute Amendment 
     that would supersede current federal law. Under Section 
     402(b)(1), soft money funds on hand after the election could 
     only be used to pay off debts or obligations used for soft 
     money expenditures.
       If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to 
     contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Larry Noble,
                           Executive Director and General Counsel.

  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the independent 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The current campaign finance system is a disaster, and it is an 
embarrassment to American democracy. Shays-Meehan is not going to solve 
all the problems. It is not going to do away with all of the influence 
that corporate America and the big money interests have over the 
political process and the enormous degree to which they can control the 
agenda that Congress debates.
  But, Mr. Chairman, if anyone wants to know why Congress in its wisdom 
passes a tax law that provides hundreds of billions of dollars in tax 
breaks to the richest 1 percent, but is somehow unable to raise the 
minimum wage, look at campaign finance and the huge amounts of money 
that corporate America spends and the $25,000-a-plate dinners that they 
hold.
  If anyone wants to know why prescription drug costs in this country 
are by far the highest in the world, and why Congress year after year 
is unable to pass prescription drug reform to protect the elderly and 
the sick, understand the tens of millions of dollars that the 
pharmaceutical industry pours into the United States Congress and into 
the White House.
  If anyone wants to understand why we are the only country in the 
world without a national health care system and why the cost of health 
care is twice as much per person in this country than in any other 
Nation, look at what the insurance industry spends trying to get their 
way against the will of the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, the time is now to end big money influence. Let us pass 
this bill.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the 
balance of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), and ask 
further that he be allowed to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Before my colleague leaves the floor, I want to rekindle his faith in 
our system, because there is a Ney-Wynn amendment coming. So the 
gentleman will have that chance, the whole bill we debated, the 
gentleman is going to have that chance to vote, and I just wanted to 
reassure him of that.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I was just disappointed that it was not a 
substitute.
  Mr. NEY. I just did not want the gentleman to leave without being 
rekindled.
  Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think a lot of issues 
that do or do not pass here are debated, obviously, on their merits, 
whether it is prescription drugs or health care or Social Security. And 
when we start to talk about the money in the system and the influence, 
this bill is not going to change that.
  Wealthy individuals, in my opinion, are still going to be in the 
system, unregulated, to do as they want with advocacy. But groups that 
are pushing, for example, for prescription drugs, their voices will be 
silenced, in the Shays-Meehan approach, in the last 60 days if they 
want to go to the radio ads or they want to go to the TV ads. I do not 
think that is a level playing field, letting one or two wealthy 
individuals in this country push around the advocacy as they please. 
Maybe they will want to stop prescription drugs, perhaps help 
prescription drugs, but, on the other hand, a lot of people who will 
advocate for a lot of good things for Americans, their voices will be 
silenced.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 2\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Shays-
Meehan bill and in opposition to the Ney substitute.
  When I entered Congress back in 1997, Mr. Chairman, one of the first 
things I did was help organize a bipartisan freshman campaign finance 
reform

[[Page 1339]]

task force. Even as political neophytes in this institution, we knew 
then what is true today, that the political system was awash with 
money; that there were too many powerful special interest groups 
dominating the agenda in Washington; and that it was wrong and it 
needed to change.
  The legislation we came up with called for a ban on the unregulated, 
unlimited, soft money contributions. That is consistent with the Shays-
Meehan bill before us today, soft money, by the way, that reached the 
level of $500 million in the last election alone. Unfortunately, I 
believe the Ney substitute today is just a cynical ploy to try to get a 
bill, or any bill, that is different from the Senate, passed so the 
opponents of reform can kill it in the conference committee.
  They are not the only ones who have been very cynical about finance 
reform. The American people have been cynical, too, and not because 
they do not believe there is too much money or too much influence of 
money in the political system, but they do not believe Congress will do 
anything about it.
  The day of reckoning has arrived today, and I urge my colleagues to 
support real finance reform, the Shays-Meehan bill, and vote ``no'' on 
the Ney substitute.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in opposition to the Ney substitute, because it is 
clearly designed to send campaign reform to conference where it will 
die. I rise in full support of the Shays-Meehan underlying bill.
  It is time that we get soft money out of Federal elections. It is 
time that we control the sham issue ads. In fact, Mr. Chairman, it is 
time for a lot more reform. This is only one good step forward into 
cleaning up our Federal elections.
  We should consider other steps that would limit the corrupting 
influence of private money on public campaigns. We should consider a 
measure of public financing for congressional elections, as we do for 
Presidential elections. We should consider ways to raise the discourse 
and stop the negative ads, and do other things to clean up our system 
and restore a sense to the democratic process that it belongs to the 
people, not the big donors, and restore a sense that it matters what we 
say in campaigns and what people do in campaigns.
  I oppose the substitute and support Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), my friend.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shays-
Meehan substitute and against the Ney substitute before us. Americans 
in my district and across the Nation are disillusioned and have been 
calling out for reform for years, only to discover their collective 
voices have fallen on the deaf ears of the leadership of this House.
  Since my constituents sent me here as their representative, as their 
voice, hundreds upon hundreds have contacted me regarding this very 
issue: campaign finance reform. They want public servants who are 
beholden to the voters of their district, not to special interest 
groups and their soft money contributions. They want policy and laws 
drafted by those acting in the public interest, not those carrying 
water for narrow private special interests.
  No comments were more compelling than the one young author from 
Wisconsin who contacted me regarding Shays-Meehan. As a young voter, he 
said, ``I am encouraged by the possibility that this bill will be one 
necessary step. People will again trust their government. There is 
nothing more important to our democracy.''
  We must pass this bill.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Oxley), chairman of the Committee on Financial Services.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and let me first pay tribute to my good friend and colleague from 
the Buckeye State, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney). He has done this 
body enormous service in his chairmanship and his leadership on this 
important issue of campaign finance reform.
  Let us make no mistake about where we are today. A vote for the Ney 
substitute is really a vote about campaign finance reform. It addresses 
the real issues underlying what we are here for today, and I want to 
pay particular tribute to him. He has been steadfast and consistent, 
unlike the sponsors of the original bill that was introduced, which has 
changed so many times I cannot keep track of it. But I wish to say to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and to the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Wynn) that they have remained consistent throughout.
  I have been concerned that our approach to campaign finance reform, 
driven by, I think, some well-meaning reformers and also some folks 
that may have a special interest, that we are punishing the political 
parties in our attempt to clean up the system. The political parties 
are really the essence of our system here. Nothing in the Constitution 
talks about political parties. Political parties developed as part of 
our democracy, and they have been a critical part of our democracy.
  Why would we want to take power, influence, and ability away from a 
political party and give it to special interests or to the media? I 
just do not understand that. Why would we want to say to the Republican 
Party in Ohio that they cannot have the ability to go out and recruit 
candidates and talk to voters and send out mailings and, yes, give 
contributions to candidates who proudly wear their party label? I 
thought that was what political parties were all about.
  Under this legislation, under the underlying legislation, the Shays-
Meehan bill, we treat political parties like they are another special 
interest. Just the contrary. Our political parties represent the ideals 
that we both share as Republicans and Democrats.
  If the Republican Party in Ohio thought it was important enough that 
I get reelected, why should they not be able to contribute any amount 
of money they want to my campaign? After all, their job is to recruit 
and find candidates to fill public offices. That is what they do. So we 
are going to say to them, oh, this is terrible, you cannot take soft 
money, you cannot be involved in contributing to candidates' races 
because you would be unduly influencing the donees. I am sorry, but I 
just do not accept that.
  I also do not accept the fact that we are going to give the media 
total control of the airwaves and the newspapers the ability to 
influence voters when, in fact, other groups who have maybe the same 
first amendment rights, I would like to think have the same first 
amendment rights, are going to be constricted in what they are able to 
spend and what they are able to say. So the media says to us, you need 
to clean up the system. Oh, by the way, we want to make sure that we 
get top dollar for our ads that we run during the political season, but 
at the same time we want to be able to control the discourse.
  So the first amendment applies to the newspapers, it applies to The 
New York Times, it applies to the networks, but it does not apply to 
political discourse by organized groups. What a shame that is.
  Let us support the Ney substitute and get on with the business.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, an hour ago a woman named Marilyn Robinson 
testified over in the Rayburn Building. She told the story about her 
18-year-old son Liam Wood, who was killed in the explosion of a 
gasoline pipeline. Two hundred thousand gallons of gasoline were 
released and exploded, incinerating two young children and killing her 
son.

                              {time}  1400

  The reason her son died in part was because this institution did not 
pass any meaningful laws to make sure gasoline pipelines do not 
explode. The reason this institution failed in that duty

[[Page 1340]]

is in part because we are shackled by special interest money. I am here 
to say for the spirit of Ms. Wood and those who can potentially be 
victims of this continued slavery to special interest money, that we 
should bury this cynical amendment that throughout history has stopped 
any campaign finance reform. We should bury it today so that others may 
live.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a cynical substitute. This is Shays-Meehan 
that 252 people voted for and said that this is the only measure. This 
is what was going to go to the desk of President Bush. This is not 
something that I created last night. This is the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I know that feelings are 
strong on both sides.
  I want to shed light on the issue about the soft-money loophole in 
the Shays-Meehan substitute this afternoon.
  We have heard about a letter from Larry Noble, who is no longer 
associated with the Federal Election Commission. At one point he was 
General Counsel. He is now associated with the Center for Responsive 
Politics, and I think we understand where that opinion comes from. Mr. 
Noble has a long history of losing cases at the FEC, the list of cases 
he has lost being far larger than the cases he has won. In fact, one 
case he litigated, the Christian Action Network, which is in my home 
fourth district, he not only lost it, the FEC was faced with fees and 
sanctions that were imposed against the FEC. We believe his letter is 
erroneous. It has nothing to do with the current FEC, which is not 
addressing this.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a memorandum that I will include for the Record 
from Patton Boggs that basically says in contrast to current law, the 
proposed language in the Shays-Meehan substitute would allow a national 
party committee to pay any debt with soft non-Federal dollars in the 
period from November 5, 2002 to January 1, 2003. Specifically, it could 
be used to retire outstanding debts or obligations that were incurred 
with the 2002 elections.
  This is not consistent with the current regulations. This would be 
illegal under current law, which would not allow us to borrow hard 
dollars and pay them off with soft dollars. This would allow building-
fund dollars which now are limited to building funds to basically repay 
hard-dollar obligations that were barred; and under the building-fund 
loophole that we find later in the legislation, that could be 
replenished later down the road with soft dollars. That is under the 
language.
  I am hard pressed to understand the arguments from the other side 
unless their committees can come forward and make it clear that they 
would not try to do this in terms of what the interpretations are.
  I have also looked at Trevor Potter's Web site, the Campaign Finance 
Institute, and although they are saying one thing to Members, their own 
Web site states that new transition rules in the Shays-Meehan 
substitute provides that through the end of 2002 the national parties 
may spend excess soft money to pay off any outstanding debts. Sponsors 
and opponents of the bill dispute whether the provisions would allow 
soft money to be used to pay off hard money debts. We seem to have that 
disagreement today. But he notes on the Web site that the text provides 
that soft money could be used to retire outstanding debts incurred 
solely in connection with an election. That means hard dollars. That is 
what it means under the law. It does not make any reference to 
contributions or expenditures, i.e. hard money, or non-Federal joint or 
allocated activities which include soft money.
  I do not question the motives of the other side, but when we come up 
with amendments drafted in the dead of night, submitted the evening 
before, drafting errors occur. I think that we have that there. I urge 
support of Ney-Wynn and defeat of the Shays-Meehan substitute.
  The memorandum previously referred to is as follows:

                                             Patton Boggs LLP,

                                Washington, DC, February 13, 2002.
     Re Shays-Meehan Effective Date.

       The proposed Shays-Meehan effective date language (section 
     402) provides that:
       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in section 
     308 and subsection (b), this Act and the amendments made by 
     this Act shall take effect November 6, 2002.
       (b) Transition Rule for Spending of Funds by National 
     Parties.--If a national committee of a political party 
     described in section 323(a)(1) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (as added by section 101(a)), including 
     any person who is subject to such section, has received funds 
     described in such section prior to the effective date 
     described in subsection (a), the following rules shall apply 
     with respect to the spending of such funds by such committee:
       (1) Prior to January 1, 2003, the committee may spend such 
     funds to retire outstanding debts or obligations incurred 
     prior to such effective date, so long as such debts or 
     obligations were incurred solely in connection with an 
     election held on or before November 5, 2002 (or any runoff 
     election or recount resulting from such an election).
       (2) At any time after such effective date, the committee 
     may spend such funds for activities which are solely to 
     defray the costs of the construction or purchase of any 
     office building or facility.
       The Federal Election Campaign Act and current Federal 
     Election Commission regulations require federal expenses 
     (including federal debts) to be paid out of the federal 
     account. See, e.g., 11 C.F.R. Sec. 102.5. Moreover, the 
     regulations also require allocations between federal and non-
     federal activities. 11 C.F.R. Sec. 106.5.
       In contrast to current law, the proposed language would 
     allow a national party committee to pay any debt with soft, 
     non-federal dollars in the period from November 5, 2002 to 
     January 1, 2003. Specifically, it could be used to ``retire 
     outstanding debts or obligations'' that were incurred in 
     connection with the 2002 elections. It fails to differentiate 
     between federal debt and non-federal debt. This is not 
     consistent with the current regulations that specifically 
     require hard debt to be paid with hard dollars. Moreover, the 
     language explicitly references ``debts or obligations 
     incurred . . . solely in connection with an election''--this 
     appears to mean hard dollar debt.
       The lack of specificity in the language means that a 
     portion of hard dollar debt or obligations could be paid for 
     with soft money. Any legal test of this provision would take 
     many years under the FEC enforcement process. (Also note that 
     Title I of H.R. 2356, new language would be added at section 
     323(b)(2)(A) specifying that state parties must expend funds 
     ``to the extent the amounts expended or disbursed for such 
     activity are allocated (under regulations prescribed by the 
     Commission) among amounts . . . .'')
       As a practical matter, the plain wording of the proposed 
     language would allow a national party committee to borrow 
     hard dollars, spend those dollars in the upcoming election, 
     and then use the remaining soft dollars to repay the debt. 
     Moreover, such a hard dollar loan could be secured with non-
     federal dollars as collateral, particularly the funds in the 
     building fund.
       The provision also permits a flood of special interest soft 
     money to the national party committees to finance new 
     elaborate and fancy headquarters. This loophole continues to 
     provide a home for large, unlimited, soft money dollars at 
     the national party committees.

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, America, America, the witching hour is 
upon campaign finance reform. Please pay close attention to how we 
Members of Congress vote. Everyone claims to be doing the right thing. 
Everyone seems to be saying they support reform. But make no mistake 
about it, there is only one bill here that creates real reform for our 
Nation's campaign finance laws while passing the Senate, and that is 
Shays-Meehan.
  Our political system has gone bad mad. In the 2000 election, 
candidates spent more than $4 billion, a 50 percent increase since 
1996. That is obscene. Who is giving all of this money to the parties? 
Is it the little guy? No. Not even the medium guy. Instead, there are 
big donations from big corporations. Obviously Enron, which has given 
almost $6 million to Federal candidates, $3.5 million of that $6 
million was soft money. Did they know what they were doing? This is not 
misinformation. If Members want to talk about a Web site, go on their 
Web site and see their numbers.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).

[[Page 1341]]

  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Ney substitute because I 
believe it and the amendment thereto to follow will kill our crusade 
against soft money, and our crusade against soft money has to win if 
our democracy is to prevail.
  There are those who say that soft money, corporate money, labor money 
is really about philosophy. It is not about corruption. It is about how 
these organizations support the parties of their choice with their 
dollars.
  For the last 2 months I have spent most of my time investigating the 
Enron scandal. Just to give an example of what Enron did to further its 
philosophy, in March of 2000 it gave $50,000 to the Democratic National 
Committee. The next month in April it gave $75,000 to the Republican 
National Committee. In May it gave $50,000 to the Democratic National 
Committee. In June it gave $50,000 to the Republican National 
Committee. And the day before that, it had given $50,000 to the 
Democratic Senatorial Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not about philosophy, this is about access and 
influence; and it corrupts our process. If a Member of this body went 
to Enron and called them on the phone and said, I would like a check 
for $50,000 or cash for $50,000, that Member would go to jail for 
corruption as he or she should. If Enron Corporation gave $50,000 to 
one of our congressional campaigns, we would go to jail, as we should, 
because that is corrupt. But somehow if the same Member of Congress 
goes over to the Democratic Committee or Republican Committee and picks 
up the phone and says, I need a check for $50,000 for my party so we 
can get our people elected, that is not corruption? The American people 
know that is corruption. It does corrupt the process.
  I have listened to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle lament 
that without these dollars they cannot get reelected. I remember on 
Take Your Daughter to Work Day a few years ago I brought my 12-year-old 
daughter down, and at a Republican National Committee function we were 
talking about the money we had to raise and how costly it was going to 
be, and she tapped me on the shoulder and whispered into my ear, and 
she said, ``Everybody should just do what is right, and if you do what 
is right, the people will elect you.''
  Mr. Chairman, Members should do what is really right and vote for 
Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich), a former mayor of Cleveland and an outstanding reformer 
in our body.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, it is time for this Congress to rescue 
and secure democracy from the soft-money slavery of special interests 
and the clutches of the best-government-money-can-buy. We must stand 
here on the highest hill in the land and tell corporate interests, 
which give hundreds of millions in soft-money contributions who hold 
this government hostage, let my people go.
  Finance and credit card companies gave $9 million in corporate 
campaign cash, and ordinary people ended up with higher rates of 
foreclosure. Let my people go.
  Banking and security interests gave $87 million for banking 
deregulation, which undermines consumers' economic interests. Let my 
people go.
  Corporate campaign cash buys higher electric rates. Let my people go.
  Corporate campaign cash buys a higher rate of prescription drugs. Let 
my people go.
  Corporate campaign cash bought fast track which cost Americans 
millions of jobs. Let my people go.
  Corporate campaign cash wants to buy the privatization of Social 
Security. Let my people go.
  Mr. Chairman, freedom is on the line today. Free this Congress. Free 
this system. Free democracy from the yoke of corporate control. Let my 
people go. Pass the Shays-Meehan substitute.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ney) with regard to his work on election reform which was 
very bipartisan and passed this House nearly unanimously. That is why I 
am troubled today with having him stand up and present a bill for our 
support that he opposes personally, and opposes the bill we all seek, 
which has bipartisan support and will genuinely reform our campaign 
laws.
  To reform election laws and campaign laws in the same session would 
enforce in people's mind that we have indeed our process up here and 
restored integrity to our election system. The confidence of the 
American people is at stake, and we deserve to serve them as we have in 
the past and continue to do so today.
  Mr. Chairman, Shays-Meehan legislation will rein in that soft money 
and the deceptive ads that frustrate and confuse and also undermine the 
election system; and it will provide the American public with important 
information on which individuals or organizations are trying to 
influence their vote. I urge adoption of Shays-Meehan and oppose the 
Ney substitute.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Ms. Rivers).
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, as I listen to this debate and as I have 
listened to it over the years, we have been here before on this, I am 
reminded of the legendary creature, the hydra. The hydra, if one of its 
heads was cut off, it would grow two more. That is the way the 
arguments against Shays-Meehan seem to be. How many arguments do we 
have to hear? How many times do we have to endure this?
  Today we hear that the bill that would not be supported 3 months ago 
is now the bill that should be embraced today. And then after arguing 
that, they suggest that the people on this side of the aisle are not 
operating from principle. Well, what is the principle that is driving 
the argument against reform? It seems to be the desire to protect the 
status quo at any cost by any argument no matter how specious.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a shameful voter-participation record in this 
country. We have a political system that is not trusted by the people 
it governs. Enough is enough. It is time to end the cynical games, both 
political and parliamentary, that perpetuate this system. It is time to 
defeat the substitute, pass Shays-Meehan and finally, finally, pass 
campaign finance reform.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, hopefully today will be a day 
where the American public wins. Five years ago as a freshman class 
president, I joined new Members of the 105th Congress view this 
institution and the way they view the White House.
  We pledged that no matter what or how tough the going got, we would 
clean up the way elections are run. We knew that massive amounts of 
unregulated money have a corrosive influence on our political process. 
In fact, unregulated soft-money giving has increased by 137 percent 
since we made our pledge.

                              {time}  1415

  And so here we are, on the verge of finally doing something about it 
by passing campaign finance reform. But if we do not pass a clean 
version of the Shays-Meehan bill, the campaign finance reform 
obstructionists will once again rest easy, knowing that the will of the 
public will be subverted by special interests, only this time in 
conference committee. It is time we kept our promise.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on the Ney 
substitute as well as any poison pill amendments that will be 
considered.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise against this substitute. I am one of 
those Members who has been working on a bipartisan basis to strengthen 
Medicare and provide affordable prescription drugs to seniors. I know 
that this fall as sure as the leaves turn, I will turn on my television 
and there is going to be some phony ad, backed by soft money, by some 
innocent-sounding

[[Page 1342]]

group masking a special interest, drowning out the real voices of real 
people and real seniors. It is enough.
  I have heard the debate on both sides of the aisle on who Shays-
Meehan really helps and who it hurts. There are some Democrats who say 
that Shays-Meehan will really help the Republicans, and there are some 
Republicans who say that Shays-Meehan will really help the Democrats. 
Mr. Chairman, how about helping the American people? How about putting 
them ahead of politics for once in this House? That is what we should 
be doing. The only way to truly do that is to pass Shays-Meehan and not 
substitutes designed to defeat it.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would point out that in conversation with Trevor Potter, who had 
just been recently discussed, he pointed out that he totally disagrees 
with what was said by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), and 
the reference to his Website was, in fact, not even his Website.
  And that this $40 million fund that is being described, Democrats 
have $3.2 million in their building fund and Republicans have $1.8 
million in their building fund. So if the Democrats have $40 million, 
they would have to raise from this point on the difference, basically 
$36.8 million, and then not spend it against candidates who are running 
for office.
  Again, I just repeat, if the Democrats want to raise $36.8 million 
and spend it on a building fund instead of campaigns, I think 
Republicans should probably encourage them to do that.
  I would like to also point out that our bill is, in fact, a 
compromise. It is a compromise.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, many of us have been on a 
very long journey, and we believe that today is the final stop, and the 
doors of the train will not open until we complete the accounting of 
all those who have ridden with us. And I think we will find that most 
of us believe that today is the day to pass the Shays-Meehan campaign 
finance reform legislation, and we believe that all the debate that you 
will hear today is procedural, that what the American people want us to 
do is to act on substance. They want us to restate our commitment to 
the values of America that democracy rules and that the people's voice 
speaks louder than special interests.
  Thomas Jefferson wrote that individuals who are elected are divided 
into two parties, those who fear and distrust the people and those who 
identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish 
and consider them as the most honest and safe. I cherish the people. I 
believe we can win by voting for Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform, 
and support the people's interest.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, we ought to vote ``no'' on this amendment. The 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) voted ``no'' on this amendment 
originally. He offers this amendment as a substitute because he says it 
was offered before. That is correct. It was offered before it was 
perfected. Shays-Meehan now offer their perfected version, which is the 
preferred version by supporters of campaign finance reform.
  I urge, therefore, every individual in this House who wants to 
support campaign finance reform and see that bill placed on the 
President's desk to vote against my distinguished chairman and friend, 
the gentleman from Ohio, and keep campaign finance reform alive.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 53, 
noes 377, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 20]

                                AYES--53

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barton
     Bono
     Cantor
     Capito
     Combest
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Frelinghuysen
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     LaTourette
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Pitts
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rush
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Souder
     Taylor (NC)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Weldon (PA)
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--377

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry

[[Page 1343]]


     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Delahunt
     Lipinski
     Riley
     Traficant

                              {time}  1443

  Messrs. GARY G. MILLER of California, ISSA, BARRETT of Wisconsin, 
ARMEY, SHERWOOD, LEWIS of Kentucky, RANGEL, BONIOR, SMITH of Texas, 
HANSEN, NORWOOD, SHUSTER, JEFF MILLER of Florida, CANNON, BONILLA, 
TANCREDO, ISTOOK, LARGENT, CRANE, GOSS, EHRLICH, BRYANT, BURTON of 
Indiana, EHLERS, WATTS of Oklahoma and TAUZIN and Mrs. TAUSCHER and 
Mrs. MYRICK changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. GILLMOR and Mr. BACHUS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 20 I 
inadvertently voted ``aye.'' I would like the Record to show that I 
meant to vote ``no.''
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 20, I inadvertently cast an 
``aye'' vote when my vote should have been ``no'' in opposition to the 
Ney substitute to H.R. 2356.
  The Ney substitute would undermine the ability of Legal Permanent 
Residents to participate in the political system. I ask that the Record 
reflect my opposition to the Ney substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute numbered 9 specified in section 2 of House 
Resolution 344 offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

                              {time}  1445


   Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 9 Offered by Mr. Shays

  Mr. SHAYS. 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 in the nature of a substitute No. 9 offered by 
     Mr. Shays:
       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 ``Bipartisan 
     Campaign Reform Act of 2002''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

            TITLE I--REDUCTION OF SPECIAL INTEREST INFLUENCE

Sec. 101. Soft money of political parties.
Sec. 102. Increased contribution limit for State committees of 
              political parties.
Sec. 103. Reporting requirements.

              TITLE II--NONCANDIDATE CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES

               Subtitle A--Electioneering Communications

Sec. 201. Disclosure of electioneering communications.
Sec. 202. Coordinated communications as contributions.
Sec. 203. Prohibition of corporate and labor disbursements for 
              electioneering communications.
Sec. 204. Rules relating to certain targeted electioneering 
              communications.

          Subtitle B--Independent and Coordinated Expenditures

Sec. 211. Definition of independent expenditure.
Sec. 212. Reporting requirements for certain independent expenditures.
Sec. 213. Independent versus coordinated expenditures by party.
Sec. 214. Coordination with candidates or political parties.

                        TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 301. Use of contributed amounts for certain purposes.
Sec. 302. Prohibition of fundraising on Federal property.
Sec. 303. Strengthening foreign money ban.
Sec. 304. Modification of individual contribution limits in response to 
              expenditures from personal funds.
Sec. 305. Television media rates.
Sec. 306. Limitation on availability of lowest unit charge for Federal 
              candidates attacking opposition.
Sec. 307. Software for filing reports and prompt disclosure of 
              contributions.
Sec. 308. Modification of contribution limits.
Sec. 309. Donations to Presidential inaugural committee.
Sec. 310. Prohibition on fraudulent solicitation of funds.
Sec. 311. Study and report on Clean Money Clean Elections laws.
Sec. 312. Clarity standards for identification of sponsors of election-
              related advertising.
Sec. 313. Increase in penalties.
Sec. 314. Statute of limitations.
Sec. 315. Sentencing guidelines.
Sec. 316. Increase in penalties imposed for violations of conduit 
              contribution ban.
Sec. 317. Restriction on increased contribution limits by taking into 
              account candidate's available funds.
Sec. 318. Clarification of right of nationals of the United States to 
              make political contributions.
Sec. 319. Prohibition of contributions by minors.

                 TITLE IV--SEVERABILITY; EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 401. Severability.
Sec. 402. Effective date.
Sec. 403. Judicial review.

               TITLE V--ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Internet access to records.
Sec. 502. Maintenance of website of election reports.
Sec. 503. Additional disclosure reports.
Sec. 504. Public access to broadcasting records.

            TITLE I--REDUCTION OF SPECIAL INTEREST INFLUENCE

     SEC. 101. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

       (a) In General.--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:

     ``SEC. 323. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

       ``(a) National Committees.--
       ``(1) In general.--A national committee of a political 
     party (including a national congressional campaign committee 
     of a political party) may not solicit, receive, or direct to 
     another person a contribution, donation, or transfer of funds 
     or any other thing of value, or spend any funds, that are not 
     subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 
     requirements of this Act.
       ``(2) Applicability.--The prohibition established by 
     paragraph (1) applies to any such national committee, any 
     officer or agent acting on behalf of such a national 
     committee, and any entity that is directly or indirectly 
     established, financed, maintained, or controlled by such a 
     national committee.
       ``(b) State, District, and Local Committees.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), an 
     amount that is expended or disbursed for Federal election 
     activity by a State, district, or local committee of a 
     political party (including an entity that is directly or 
     indirectly established, financed, maintained, or controlled 
     by a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     and an officer or agent acting on behalf of such committee or 
     entity), or by an association or similar group of candidates 
     for State or local office or of individuals holding State or 
     local office, shall be made from funds subject to the 
     limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this 
     Act.
       ``(2) Applicability.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding clause (i) or (ii) of 
     section 301(20)(A), and subject to subparagraph (B), 
     paragraph (1) shall not apply to any amount expended or 
     disbursed by a State, district, or local committee of a 
     political party for an activity described in either such 
     clause to the extent the amounts expended or disbursed for 
     such activity are allocated (under regulations prescribed by 
     the Commission) among amounts--
       ``(i) which consist solely of contributions subject to the 
     limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this 
     Act (other than amounts described in subparagraph (B)(iii)); 
     and
       ``(ii) other amounts which are not subject to the 
     limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this 
     Act (other than any requirements of this subsection).
       ``(B) Conditions.--Subparagraph (A) shall only apply if--
       ``(i) the activity does not refer to a clearly identified 
     candidate for Federal office;
       ``(ii) the amounts expended or disbursed are not for the 
     costs of any broadcasting, cable, or satellite communication, 
     other than a communication which refers solely to a clearly 
     identified candidate for State or local office;
       ``(iii) the amounts expended or disbursed which are 
     described in subparagraph (A)(ii) are paid from amounts which 
     are donated in accordance with State law and which meet the 
     requirements of subparagraph (C), except that no person 
     (including any person established, financed, maintained, or 
     controlled

[[Page 1344]]

     by such person) may donate more than $10,000 to a State, 
     district, or local committee of a political party in a 
     calendar year for such expenditures or disbursements; and
       ``(iv) the amounts expended or disbursed are made solely 
     from funds raised by the State, local, or district committee 
     which makes such expenditure or disbursement, and do not 
     include any funds provided to such committee from--

       ``(I) any other State, local, or district committee of any 
     State party,
       ``(II) the national committee of a political party 
     (including a national congressional campaign committee of a 
     political party),
       ``(III) any officer or agent acting on behalf of any 
     committee described in subclause (I) or (II), or
       ``(IV) any entity directly or indirectly established, 
     financed, maintained, or controlled by any committee 
     described in subclause (I) or (II).

       ``(C) Prohibiting involvement of national parties, federal 
     candidates and officeholders, and state parties acting 
     jointly.--Notwithstanding subsection (e) (other than 
     subsection (e)(3)), amounts specifically authorized to be 
     spent under subparagraph (B)(iii) meet the requirements of 
     this subparagraph only if the amounts--
       ``(i) are not solicited, received, directed, transferred, 
     or spent by or in the name of any person described in 
     subsection (a) or (e); and
       ``(ii) are not solicited, received, or directed through 
     fundraising activities conducted jointly by 2 or more State, 
     local, or district committees of any political party or their 
     agents, or by a State, local, or district committee of a 
     political party on behalf of the State, local, or district 
     committee of a political party or its agent in one or more 
     other States.
       ``(c) Fundraising Costs.--An amount spent by a person 
     described in subsection (a) or (b) to raise funds that are 
     used, in whole or in part, for expenditures and disbursements 
     for a Federal election activity shall be made from funds 
     subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 
     requirements of this Act.
       ``(d) Tax-Exempt Organizations.--A national, State, 
     district, or local committee of a political party (including 
     a national congressional campaign committee of a political 
     party), an entity that is directly or indirectly established, 
     financed, maintained, or controlled by any such national, 
     State, district, or local committee or its agent, and an 
     officer or agent acting on behalf of any such party committee 
     or entity, shall not solicit any funds for, or make or direct 
     any donations to--
       ``(1) an organization that is described in section 501(c) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation 
     under section 501(a) of such Code (or has submitted an 
     application for determination of tax exempt status under such 
     section) and that makes expenditures or disbursements in 
     connection with an election for Federal office (including 
     expenditures or disbursements for Federal election activity); 
     or
       ``(2) an organization described in section 527 of such Code 
     (other than a political committee, a State, district, or 
     local committee of a political party, or the authorized 
     campaign committee of a candidate for State or local office).
       ``(e) Federal Candidates.--
       ``(1) In general.--A candidate, individual holding Federal 
     office, agent of a candidate or an individual holding Federal 
     office, or an entity directly or indirectly established, 
     financed, maintained or controlled by or acting on behalf of 
     1 or more candidates or individuals holding Federal office, 
     shall not--
       ``(A) solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend funds in 
     connection with an election for Federal office, including 
     funds for any Federal election activity, unless the funds are 
     subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 
     requirements of this Act; or
       ``(B) solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend funds in 
     connection with any election other than an election for 
     Federal office or disburse funds in connection with such an 
     election unless the funds--
       ``(i) are not in excess of the amounts permitted with 
     respect to contributions to candidates and political 
     committees under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 
     315(a); and
       ``(ii) are not from sources prohibited by this Act from 
     making contributions in connection with an election for 
     Federal office.
       ``(2) State law.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to the 
     solicitation, receipt, or spending of funds by an individual 
     described in such paragraph who is or was also a candidate 
     for a State or local office solely in connection with such 
     election for State or local office if the solicitation, 
     receipt, or spending of funds is permitted under State law 
     and refers only to such State or local candidate, or to any 
     other candidate for the State or local office sought by such 
     candidate, or both.
       ``(3) Fundraising events.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1) or 
     subsection (b)(2)(C), a candidate or an individual holding 
     Federal office may attend, speak, or be a featured guest at a 
     fundraising event for a State, district, or local committee 
     of a political party.
       ``(4) Permitting certain solicitations.--
       ``(A) General solicitations.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this subsection, an individual described in 
     paragraph (1) may make a general solicitation of funds on 
     behalf of any organization that is described in section 
     501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from 
     taxation under section 501(a) of such Code (or has submitted 
     an application for determination of tax exempt status under 
     such section) (other than an entity whose principal purpose 
     is to conduct activities described in clauses (i) and (ii) of 
     section 301(20)(A)) where such solicitation does not specify 
     how the funds will or should be spent.
       ``(B) Certain specific solicitations.--In addition to the 
     general solicitations permitted under subparagraph (A), an 
     individual described in paragraph (1) may make a solicitation 
     explicitly to obtain funds for carrying out the activities 
     described in clauses (i) and (ii) of section 301(20)(A), or 
     for an entity whose principal purpose is to conduct such 
     activities, if--
       ``(i) the solicitation is made only to individuals; and
       ``(ii) the amount solicited from any individual during any 
     calendar year does not exceed $20,000.
       ``(f) State Candidates.--
       ``(1) In general.--A candidate for State or local office, 
     individual holding State or local office, or an agent of such 
     a candidate or individual may not spend any funds for a 
     communication described in section 301(20)(A)(iii) unless the 
     funds are subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and 
     reporting requirements of this Act.
       ``(2) Exception for certain communications.--Paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply to an individual described in such paragraph 
     if the communication involved is in connection with an 
     election for such State or local office and refers only to 
     such individual or to any other candidate for the State or 
     local office held or sought by such individual, or both.''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 301 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431) is amended by adding at 
     the end thereof the following:
       ``(20) Federal election activity.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `Federal election activity' 
     means--
       ``(i) voter registration activity during the period that 
     begins on the date that is 120 days before the date a 
     regularly scheduled Federal election is held and ends on the 
     date of the election;
       ``(ii) voter identification, get-out-the-vote activity, or 
     generic campaign activity conducted in connection with an 
     election in which a candidate for Federal office appears on 
     the ballot (regardless of whether a candidate for State or 
     local office also appears on the ballot);
       ``(iii) a public communication that refers to a clearly 
     identified candidate for Federal office (regardless of 
     whether a candidate for State or local office is also 
     mentioned or identified) and that promotes or supports a 
     candidate for that office, or attacks or opposes a candidate 
     for that office (regardless of whether the communication 
     expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate); or
       ``(iv) services provided during any month by an employee of 
     a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     who spends more than 25 percent of that individual's 
     compensated time during that month on activities in 
     connection with a Federal election.
       ``(B) Excluded activity.--The term `Federal election 
     activity' does not include an amount expended or disbursed by 
     a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     for--
       ``(i) a public communication that refers solely to a 
     clearly identified candidate for State or local office, if 
     the communication is not a Federal election activity 
     described in subparagraph (A)(i) or (ii);
       ``(ii) a contribution to a candidate for State or local 
     office, provided the contribution is not designated to pay 
     for a Federal election activity described in subparagraph 
     (A);
       ``(iii) the costs of a State, district, or local political 
     convention;
       ``(iv) the costs of grassroots campaign materials, 
     including buttons, bumper stickers, and yard signs, that name 
     or depict only a candidate for State or local office; and
       ``(v) the cost of constructing or purchasing an office 
     facility or equipment for a State, district, or local 
     committee.
       ``(21) Generic campaign activity.--The term `generic 
     campaign activity' means a campaign activity that promotes a 
     political party and does not promote a candidate or non-
     Federal candidate.
       ``(22) Public communication.--The term `public 
     communication' means a communication by means of any 
     broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, newspaper, 
     magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or 
     telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of 
     general public political advertising.
       ``(23) Mass mailing.--The term `mass mailing' means a 
     mailing by United States mail or facsimile of more than 500 
     pieces of mail matter of an identical or substantially 
     similar nature within any 30-day period.
       ``(24) Telephone bank.--The term `telephone bank' means 
     more than 500 telephone calls of an identical or 
     substantially similar nature within any 30-day period.''.

[[Page 1345]]

     SEC. 102. INCREASED CONTRIBUTION LIMIT FOR STATE COMMITTEES 
                   OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

       Section 315(a)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (C)--
       (A) by inserting ``(other than a committee described in 
     subparagraph (D))'' after ``committee''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) to a political committee established and maintained 
     by a State committee of a political party in any calendar 
     year which, in the aggregate, exceed $10,000.''.

     SEC. 103. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Reporting Requirements.--Section 304 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Political Committees.--
       ``(1) National and congressional political committees.--The 
     national committee of a political party, any national 
     congressional campaign committee of a political party, and 
     any subordinate committee of either, shall report all 
     receipts and disbursements during the reporting period.
       ``(2) Other political committees to which section 323 
     applies.--
       ``(A) In general.--In addition to any other reporting 
     requirements applicable under this Act, a political committee 
     (not described in paragraph (1)) to which section 323(b)(1) 
     applies shall report all receipts and disbursements made for 
     activities described in section 301(20)(A), unless the 
     aggregate amount of such receipts and disbursements during 
     the calendar year is less than $5,000.
       ``(B) Specific disclosure by state and local parties of 
     certain nonfederal amounts permitted to be spent on federal 
     election activity.--Each report by a political committee 
     under subparagraph (A) of receipts and disbursements made for 
     activities described in section 301(20)(A) shall include a 
     disclosure of all receipts and disbursements described in 
     section 323(b)(2)(A) and (B).
       ``(3) Itemization.--If a political committee has receipts 
     or disbursements to which this subsection applies from or to 
     any person aggregating in excess of $200 for any calendar 
     year, the political committee shall separately itemize its 
     reporting for such person in the same manner as required in 
     paragraphs (3)(A), (5), and (6) of subsection (b).
       ``(4) Reporting periods.--Reports required to be filed 
     under this subsection shall be filed for the same time 
     periods required for political committees under subsection 
     (a)(4)(B).''.
       (b) Building Fund Exception to the Definition of 
     Contribution.--Section 301(8)(B) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)(B)) is amended--
       (1) by striking clause (viii); and
       (2) by redesignating clauses (ix) through (xv) as clauses 
     (viii) through (xiv), respectively.

              TITLE II--NONCANDIDATE CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES

               Subtitle A--Electioneering Communications

     SEC. 201. DISCLOSURE OF ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 304 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434), as amended by section 
     103, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Disclosure of Electioneering Communications.--
       ``(1) Statement required.--Every person who makes a 
     disbursement for the direct costs of producing and airing 
     electioneering communications in an aggregate amount in 
     excess of $10,000 during any calendar year shall, within 24 
     hours of each disclosure date, file with the Commission a 
     statement containing the information described in paragraph 
     (2).
       ``(2) Contents of statement.--Each statement required to be 
     filed under this subsection shall be made under penalty of 
     perjury and shall contain the following information:
       ``(A) The identification of the person making the 
     disbursement, of any person sharing or exercising direction 
     or control over the activities of such person, and of the 
     custodian of the books and accounts of the person making the 
     disbursement.
       ``(B) The principal place of business of the person making 
     the disbursement, if not an individual.
       ``(C) The amount of each disbursement of more than $200 
     during the period covered by the statement and the 
     identification of the person to whom the disbursement was 
     made.
       ``(D) The elections to which the electioneering 
     communications pertain and the names (if known) of the 
     candidates identified or to be identified.
       ``(E) If the disbursements were paid out of a segregated 
     bank account which consists of funds contributed solely by 
     individuals who are United States citizens or nationals or 
     lawfully admitted for permanent residence as defined in 
     section 1101(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(a)(2)) directly to this account for 
     electioneering communications, the names and addresses of all 
     contributors who contributed an aggregate amount of $1,000 or 
     more to that account during the period beginning on the first 
     day of the preceding calendar year and ending on the 
     disclosure date. Nothing in this subparagraph is to be 
     construed as a prohibition on the use of funds in such a 
     segregated account for a purpose other than electioneering 
     communications.
       ``(F) If the disbursements were paid out of funds not 
     described in subparagraph (E), the names and addresses of all 
     contributors who contributed an aggregate amount of $1,000 or 
     more to the person making the disbursement during the period 
     beginning on the first day of the preceding calendar year and 
     ending on the disclosure date.
       ``(3) Electioneering communication.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--(i) The term `electioneering 
     communication' means any broadcast, cable, or satellite 
     communication which--
       ``(I) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal 
     office;
       ``(II) is made within--

       ``(aa) 60 days before a general, special, or runoff 
     election for the office sought by the candidate; or
       ``(bb) 30 days before a primary or preference election, or 
     a convention or caucus of a political party that has 
     authority to nominate a candidate, for the office sought by 
     the candidate; and

       ``(III) in the case of a communication which refers to a 
     candidate for an office other than President or Vice 
     President, is targeted to the relevant electorate.
       ``(ii) If clause (i) is held to be constitutionally 
     insufficient by final judicial decision to support the 
     regulation provided herein, then the term `electioneering 
     communication' means any broadcast, cable, or satellite 
     communication which promotes or supports a candidate for that 
     office, or attacks or opposes a candidate for that office 
     (regardless of whether the communication expressly advocates 
     a vote for or against a candidate) and which also is 
     suggestive of no plausible meaning other than an exhortation 
     to vote for or against a specific candidate. Nothing in this 
     subparagraph shall be construed to affect the interpretation 
     or application of section 100.22(b) of title 11, Code of 
     Federal Regulations.
       ``(B) Exceptions.--The term `electioneering communication' 
     does not include--
       ``(i) a communication appearing in a news story, 
     commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities 
     of any broadcasting station, unless such facilities are owned 
     or controlled by any political party, political committee, or 
     candidate;
       ``(ii) a communication which constitutes an expenditure or 
     an independent expenditure under this Act;
       ``(iii) a communication which constitutes a candidate 
     debate or forum conducted pursuant to regulations adopted by 
     the Commission, or which solely promotes such a debate or 
     forum and is made by or on behalf of the person sponsoring 
     the debate or forum; or
       ``(iv) any other communication exempted under such 
     regulations as the Commission may promulgate (consistent with 
     the requirements of this paragraph) to ensure the appropriate 
     implementation of this paragraph, except that under any such 
     regulation a communication may not be exempted if it meets 
     the requirements of this paragraph and is described in 
     section 301(20)(A)(iii).
       ``(C) Targeting to relevant electorate.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph, a communication which refers to a clearly 
     identified candidate for Federal office is `targeted to the 
     relevant electorate' if the communication can be received by 
     50,000 or more persons--
       ``(i) in the district the candidate seeks to represent, in 
     the case of a candidate for Representative in, or Delegate or 
     Resident Commissioner to, the Congress; or
       ``(ii) in the State the candidate seeks to represent, in 
     the case of a candidate for Senator.
       ``(4) Disclosure date.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `disclosure date' means--
       ``(A) the first date during any calendar year by which a 
     person has made disbursements for the direct costs of 
     producing or airing electioneering communications aggregating 
     in excess of $10,000; and
       ``(B) any other date during such calendar year by which a 
     person has made disbursements for the direct costs of 
     producing or airing electioneering communications aggregating 
     in excess of $10,000 since the most recent disclosure date 
     for such calendar year.
       ``(5) Contracts to disburse.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, a person shall be treated as having made a 
     disbursement if the person has executed a contract to make 
     the disbursement.
       ``(6) Coordination with other requirements.--Any 
     requirement to report under this subsection shall be in 
     addition to any other reporting requirement under this Act.
       ``(7) Coordination with Internal Revenue Code.--Nothing in 
     this subsection may be construed to establish, modify, or 
     otherwise affect the definition of political activities or 
     electioneering activities (including the definition of 
     participating in, intervening in, or influencing or 
     attempting to influence a political campaign on behalf of or 
     in opposition to any candidate for public office) for 
     purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.

[[Page 1346]]

       (b) Responsibilities of Federal Communications 
     Commission.--The Federal Communications Commission shall 
     compile and maintain any information the Federal Election 
     Commission may require to carry out section 304(f) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (as added by subsection 
     (a)), and shall make such information available to the public 
     on the Federal Communication Commission's website.

     SEC. 202. COORDINATED COMMUNICATIONS AS CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 315(a)(7) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(7)) is amended --
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) if--
       ``(i) any person makes, or contracts to make, any 
     disbursement for any electioneering communication (within the 
     meaning of section 304(f)(3)); and
       ``(ii) such disbursement is coordinated with a candidate or 
     an authorized committee of such candidate, a Federal, State, 
     or local political party or committee thereof, or an agent or 
     official of any such candidate, party, or committee;
     such disbursement or contracting shall be treated as a 
     contribution to the candidate supported by the electioneering 
     communication or that candidate's party and as an expenditure 
     by that candidate or that candidate's party; and''.

     SEC. 203. PROHIBITION OF CORPORATE AND LABOR DISBURSEMENTS 
                   FOR ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 316(b)(2) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2)) is amended by 
     inserting ``or for any applicable electioneering 
     communication'' before ``, but shall not include''.
       (b) Applicable Electioneering Communication.--Section 316 
     of such Act is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Rules Relating to Electioneering Communications.--
       ``(1) Applicable electioneering communication.--For 
     purposes of this section, the term `applicable electioneering 
     communication' means an electioneering communication (within 
     the meaning of section 304(f)(3)) which is made by any entity 
     described in subsection (a) of this section or by any other 
     person using funds donated by an entity described in 
     subsection (a) of this section.
       ``(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the term 
     `applicable electioneering communication' does not include a 
     communication by a section 501(c)(4) organization or a 
     political organization (as defined in section 527(e)(1) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) made under section 
     304(f)(2)(E) or (F) of this Act if the communication is paid 
     for exclusively by funds provided directly by individuals who 
     are United States citizens or nationals or lawfully admitted 
     for permanent residence as defined in section 1101(a)(2) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(2)). 
     For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term `provided 
     directly by individuals' does not include funds the source of 
     which is an entity described in subsection (a) of this 
     section.
       ``(3) Special operating rules.--
       ``(A) Definition under paragraph (1).--An electioneering 
     communication shall be treated as made by an entity described 
     in subsection (a) if an entity described in subsection (a) 
     directly or indirectly disburses any amount for any of the 
     costs of the communication.
       ``(B) Exception under paragraph (2).--A section 501(c)(4) 
     organization that derives amounts from business activities or 
     receives funds from any entity described in subsection (a) 
     shall be considered to have paid for any communication out of 
     such amounts unless such organization paid for the 
     communication out of a segregated account to which only 
     individuals can contribute, as described in section 
     304(f)(2)(E).
       ``(4) Definitions and rules.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) the term `section 501(c)(4) organization' means--
       ``(i) an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under 
     section 501(a) of such Code; or
       ``(ii) an organization which has submitted an application 
     to the Internal Revenue Service for determination of its 
     status as an organization described in clause (i); and
       ``(B) a person shall be treated as having made a 
     disbursement if the person has executed a contract to make 
     the disbursement.
       ``(5) Coordination with internal revenue code.--Nothing in 
     this subsection shall be construed to authorize an 
     organization exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to carry out any activity which 
     is prohibited under such Code.''.

     SEC. 204. RULES RELATING TO CERTAIN TARGETED ELECTIONEERING 
                   COMMUNICATIONS.

       Section 316(c) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 441b), as added by section 203, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Special rules for targeted communications.--
       ``(A) Exception does not apply.--Paragraph (2) shall not 
     apply in the case of a targeted communication that is made by 
     an organization described in such paragraph.
       ``(B) Targeted communication.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the term `targeted communication' means an 
     electioneering communication (as defined in section 
     304(f)(3)) that is distributed from a television or radio 
     broadcast station or provider of cable or satellite 
     television service and, in the case of a communication which 
     refers to a candidate for an office other than President or 
     Vice President, is targeted to the relevant electorate.
       ``(C) Definition.--For purposes of this paragraph, a 
     communication is `targeted to the relevant electorate' if it 
     meets the requirements described in section 304(f)(3)(C).''.

          Subtitle B--Independent and Coordinated Expenditures

     SEC. 211. DEFINITION OF INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE.

       Section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 U.S.C. 
     431) is amended by striking paragraph (17) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(17) Independent expenditure.--The term `independent 
     expenditure' means an expenditure by a person--
       ``(A) expressly advocating the election or defeat of a 
     clearly identified candidate; and
       ``(B) that is not made in concert or cooperation with or at 
     the request or suggestion of such candidate, the candidate's 
     authorized political committee, or their agents, or a 
     political party committee or its agents.''.

     SEC. 212. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN INDEPENDENT 
                   EXPENDITURES.

       (a) In General.--Section 304 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) (as amended by section 
     201) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(2), by striking the undesignated 
     matter after subparagraph (C); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Time for Reporting Certain Expenditures.--
       ``(1) Expenditures aggregating $1,000.--
       ``(A) Initial report.--A person (including a political 
     committee) that makes or contracts to make independent 
     expenditures aggregating $1,000 or more after the 20th day, 
     but more than 24 hours, before the date of an election shall 
     file a report describing the expenditures within 24 hours.
       ``(B) Additional reports.--After a person files a report 
     under subparagraph (A), the person shall file an additional 
     report within 24 hours after each time the person makes or 
     contracts to make independent expenditures aggregating an 
     additional $1,000 with respect to the same election as that 
     to which the initial report relates.
       ``(2) Expenditures aggregating $10,000.--
       ``(A) Initial report.--A person (including a political 
     committee) that makes or contracts to make independent 
     expenditures aggregating $10,000 or more at any time up to 
     and including the 20th day before the date of an election 
     shall file a report describing the expenditures within 48 
     hours.
       ``(B) Additional reports.--After a person files a report 
     under subparagraph (A), the person shall file an additional 
     report within 48 hours after each time the person makes or 
     contracts to make independent expenditures aggregating an 
     additional $10,000 with respect to the same election as that 
     to which the initial report relates.
       ``(3) Place of filing; contents.--A report under this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) shall be filed with the Commission; and
       ``(B) shall contain the information required by subsection 
     (b)(6)(B)(iii), including the name of each candidate whom an 
     expenditure is intended to support or oppose.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 304(a)(5) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 434(a)(5)) is amended by striking ``, or the second 
     sentence of subsection (c)(2)''.

     SEC. 213. INDEPENDENT VERSUS COORDINATED EXPENDITURES BY 
                   PARTY.

       Section 315(d) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 441a(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and (3)'' and inserting 
     ``, (3), and (4)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Independent versus coordinated expenditures by 
     party.--
       ``(A) In general.--On or after the date on which a 
     political party nominates a candidate, no committee of the 
     political party may make--
       ``(i) any coordinated expenditure under this subsection 
     with respect to the candidate during the election cycle at 
     any time after it makes any independent expenditure (as 
     defined in section 301(17)) with respect to the candidate 
     during the election cycle; or
       ``(ii) any independent expenditure (as defined in section 
     301(17)) with respect to the candidate during the election 
     cycle at any time after it makes any coordinated expenditure 
     under this subsection with respect to the candidate during 
     the election cycle.
       ``(B) Application.--For purposes of this paragraph, all 
     political committees established and maintained by a national 
     political party (including all congressional campaign 
     committees) and all political committees established and 
     maintained by a State political party (including any 
     subordinate committee of a State committee) shall be 
     considered to be a single political committee.

[[Page 1347]]

       ``(C) Transfers.--A committee of a political party that 
     makes coordinated expenditures under this subsection with 
     respect to a candidate shall not, during an election cycle, 
     transfer any funds to, assign authority to make coordinated 
     expenditures under this subsection to, or receive a transfer 
     of funds from, a committee of the political party that has 
     made or intends to make an independent expenditure with 
     respect to the candidate.''.

     SEC. 214. COORDINATION WITH CANDIDATES OR POLITICAL PARTIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 315(a)(7)(B) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(7)(B)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii); and
       (B) by inserting after clause (i) the following new clause:
       ``(ii) expenditures made by any person (other than a 
     candidate or candidate's authorized committee) in 
     cooperation, consultation, or concert, with, or at the 
     request or suggestion of, a national, State, or local 
     committee of a political party, shall be considered to be 
     contributions made to such party committee; and''.
       (b) Repeal of Current Regulations.--The regulations on 
     coordinated communications paid for by persons other than 
     candidates, authorized committees of candidates, and party 
     committees adopted by the Federal Election Commission and 
     published in the Federal Register at page 76138 of volume 65, 
     Federal Register, on December 6, 2000, are repealed as of the 
     date by which the Commission is required to promulgate new 
     regulations under subsection (c) (as described in the second 
     sentence of section 402(c)).
       (c) Regulations by the Federal Election Commission.--The 
     Federal Election Commission shall promulgate new regulations 
     on coordinated communications paid for by persons other than 
     candidates, authorized committees of candidates, and party 
     committees. The regulations shall not require agreement or 
     formal collaboration to establish coordination. In addition 
     to any subject determined by the Commission, the regulations 
     shall address--
       (A) payments for the republication of campaign materials;
       (B) payments for the use of a common vendor;
       (C) payments for communications directed or made by persons 
     who previously served as an employee of a candidate or a 
     political party; and
       (D) payments for communications made by a person after 
     substantial discussion about the communication with a 
     candidate or a political party.
       (d) Meaning of Contribution or Expenditure for the Purposes 
     of Section 316.--Section 316(b)(2) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``shall include'' and inserting ``includes a 
     contribution or expenditure, as those terms are defined in 
     section 301, and also includes''.

                        TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 301. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by striking section 313 and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 313. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.

       ``(a) Permitted Uses.--A contribution accepted by a 
     candidate, and any other donation received by an individual 
     as support for activities of the individual as a holder of 
     Federal office, may be used by the candidate or individual--
       ``(1) for otherwise authorized expenditures in connection 
     with the campaign for Federal office of the candidate or 
     individual;
       ``(2) for ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in 
     connection with duties of the individual as a holder of 
     Federal office;
       ``(3) for contributions to an organization described in 
     section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
       ``(4) for transfers to a national, State, or local 
     committee of a political party.
       ``(b) Prohibited Use.--
       ``(1) In general.--A contribution or donation described in 
     subsection (a) shall not be converted by any person to 
     personal use.
       ``(2) Conversion.--For the purposes of paragraph (1), a 
     contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted 
     to personal use if the contribution or amount is used to 
     fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person 
     that would exist irrespective of the candidate's election 
     campaign or individual's duties as a holder of Federal 
     office, including--
       ``(A) a home mortgage, rent, or utility payment;
       ``(B) a clothing purchase;
       ``(C) a noncampaign-related automobile expense;
       ``(D) a country club membership;
       ``(E) a vacation or other noncampaign-related trip;
       ``(F) a household food item;
       ``(G) a tuition payment;
       ``(H) admission to a sporting event, concert, theater, or 
     other form of entertainment not associated with an election 
     campaign; and
       ``(I) dues, fees, and other payments to a health club or 
     recreational facility.''.

     SEC. 302. PROHIBITION OF FUNDRAISING ON FEDERAL PROPERTY.

       Section 607 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Prohibition.--
       ``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person to 
     solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of 
     value in connection with a Federal, State, or local election 
     from a person who is located in a room or building occupied 
     in the discharge of official duties by an officer or employee 
     of the United States. It shall be unlawful for an individual 
     who is an officer or employee of the Federal Government, 
     including the President, Vice President, and Members of 
     Congress, to solicit or receive a donation of money or other 
     thing of value in connection with a Federal, State, or local 
     election, while in any room or building occupied in the 
     discharge of official duties by an officer or employee of the 
     United States, from any person.
       ``(2) Penalty.--A person who violates this section shall be 
     fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned more than 3 years, or 
     both.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``or Executive Office 
     of the President'' after ``Congress''.

     SEC. 303. STRENGTHENING FOREIGN MONEY BAN.

       Section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441e) is amended--
       (1) by striking the heading and inserting the following: 
     ``contributions and donations by foreign nationals''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for--
       ``(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make--
       ``(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of 
     value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a 
     contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, 
     State, or local election;
       ``(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a 
     political party; or
       ``(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or 
     disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the 
     meaning of section 304(f)(3)); or
       ``(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a 
     contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) 
     of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.''.

     SEC. 304. MODIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTION LIMITS IN 
                   RESPONSE TO EXPENDITURES FROM PERSONAL FUNDS.

       (a) Increased Limits for Individuals.--Section 315 of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``No person'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in subsection (i), no 
     person''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Increased Limit To Allow Response to Expenditures 
     From Personal Funds.--
       ``(1) Increase.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), if the 
     opposition personal funds amount with respect to a candidate 
     for election to the office of Senator exceeds the threshold 
     amount, the limit under subsection (a)(1)(A) (in this 
     subsection referred to as the `applicable limit') with 
     respect to that candidate shall be the increased limit.
       ``(B) Threshold amount.--
       ``(i) State-by-state competitive and fair campaign 
     formula.--In this subsection, the threshold amount with 
     respect to an election cycle of a candidate described in 
     subparagraph (A) is an amount equal to the sum of--

       ``(I) $150,000; and
       ``(II) $0.04 multiplied by the voting age population.

       ``(ii) Voting age population.--In this subparagraph, the 
     term `voting age population' means in the case of a candidate 
     for the office of Senator, the voting age population of the 
     State of the candidate (as certified under section 315(e)).
       ``(C) Increased limit.--Except as provided in clause (ii), 
     for purposes of subparagraph (A), if the opposition personal 
     funds amount is over--
       ``(i) 2 times the threshold amount, but not over 4 times 
     that amount--

       ``(I) the increased limit shall be 3 times the applicable 
     limit; and
       ``(II) the limit under subsection (a)(3) shall not apply 
     with respect to any contribution made with respect to a 
     candidate if such contribution is made under the increased 
     limit of subparagraph (A) during a period in which the 
     candidate may accept such a contribution;

       ``(ii) 4 times the threshold amount, but not over 10 times 
     that amount--

       ``(I) the increased limit shall be 6 times the applicable 
     limit; and
       ``(II) the limit under subsection (a)(3) shall not apply 
     with respect to any contribution made with respect to a 
     candidate if such contribution is made under the increased 
     limit of subparagraph (A) during a period in which the 
     candidate may accept such a contribution; and

       ``(iii) 10 times the threshold amount--

       ``(I) the increased limit shall be 6 times the applicable 
     limit;
       ``(II) the limit under subsection (a)(3) shall not apply 
     with respect to any contribution made with respect to a 
     candidate if such contribution is made under the increased 
     limit of subparagraph (A) during a period in which

[[Page 1348]]

     the candidate may accept such a contribution; and
       ``(III) the limits under subsection (d) with respect to any 
     expenditure by a State or national committee of a political 
     party shall not apply.

       ``(D) Opposition personal funds amount.--The opposition 
     personal funds amount is an amount equal to the excess (if 
     any) of--
       ``(i) the greatest aggregate amount of expenditures from 
     personal funds (as defined in section 304(a)(6)(B)) that an 
     opposing candidate in the same election makes; over
       ``(ii) the aggregate amount of expenditures from personal 
     funds made by the candidate with respect to the election.
       ``(2) Time to accept contributions under increased limit.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), a candidate 
     and the candidate's authorized committee shall not accept any 
     contribution, and a party committee shall not make any 
     expenditure, under the increased limit under paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) until the candidate has received notification of the 
     opposition personal funds amount under section 304(a)(6)(B); 
     and
       ``(ii) to the extent that such contribution, when added to 
     the aggregate amount of contributions previously accepted and 
     party expenditures previously made under the increased limits 
     under this subsection for the election cycle, exceeds 110 
     percent of the opposition personal funds amount.
       ``(B) Effect of withdrawal of an opposing candidate.--A 
     candidate and a candidate's authorized committee shall not 
     accept any contribution and a party shall not make any 
     expenditure under the increased limit after the date on which 
     an opposing candidate ceases to be a candidate to the extent 
     that the amount of such increased limit is attributable to 
     such an opposing candidate.
       ``(3) Disposal of excess contributions.--
       ``(A) In general.--The aggregate amount of contributions 
     accepted by a candidate or a candidate's authorized committee 
     under the increased limit under paragraph (1) and not 
     otherwise expended in connection with the election with 
     respect to which such contributions relate shall, not later 
     than 50 days after the date of such election, be used in the 
     manner described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Return to contributors.--A candidate or a candidate's 
     authorized committee shall return the excess contribution to 
     the person who made the contribution.
       ``(j) Limitation on Repayment of Personal Loans.--Any 
     candidate who incurs personal loans made after the effective 
     date of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 in 
     connection with the candidate's campaign for election shall 
     not repay (directly or indirectly), to the extent such loans 
     exceed $250,000, such loans from any contributions made to 
     such candidate or any authorized committee of such candidate 
     after the date of such election.''.
       (b) Notification of Expenditures From Personal Funds.--
     Section 304(a)(6) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(6)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (E); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) Notification of expenditure from personal funds.--
       ``(i) Definition of expenditure from personal funds.--In 
     this subparagraph, the term `expenditure from personal funds' 
     means--
       ``(I) an expenditure made by a candidate using personal 
     funds; and
       ``(II) a contribution or loan made by a candidate using 
     personal funds or a loan secured using such funds to the 
     candidate's authorized committee.
       ``(ii) Declaration of intent.--Not later than the date that 
     is 15 days after the date on which an individual becomes a 
     candidate for the office of Senator, the candidate shall file 
     a declaration stating the total amount of expenditures from 
     personal funds that the candidate intends to make, or to 
     obligate to make, with respect to the election that will 
     exceed the State-by-State competitive and fair campaign 
     formula with--
       ``(I) the Commission; and
       ``(II) each candidate in the same election.
       ``(iii) Initial notification.--Not later than 24 hours 
     after a candidate described in clause (ii) makes or obligates 
     to make an aggregate amount of expenditures from personal 
     funds in excess of 2 times the threshold amount in connection 
     with any election, the candidate shall file a notification 
     with--
       ``(I) the Commission; and
       ``(II) each candidate in the same election.
       ``(iv) Additional notification.--After a candidate files an 
     initial notification under clause (iii), the candidate shall 
     file an additional notification each time expenditures from 
     personal funds are made or obligated to be made in an 
     aggregate amount that exceed $10,000 with--
       ``(I) the Commission; and
       ``(II) each candidate in the same election.
     Such notification shall be filed not later than 24 hours 
     after the expenditure is made.
       ``(v) Contents.--A notification under clause (iii) or (iv) 
     shall include--
       ``(I) the name of the candidate and the office sought by 
     the candidate;
       ``(II) the date and amount of each expenditure; and
       ``(III) the total amount of expenditures from personal 
     funds that the candidate has made, or obligated to make, with 
     respect to an election as of the date of the expenditure that 
     is the subject of the notification.
       ``(C) Notification of disposal of excess contributions.--In 
     the next regularly scheduled report after the date of the 
     election for which a candidate seeks nomination for election 
     to, or election to, Federal office, the candidate or the 
     candidate's authorized committee shall submit to the 
     Commission a report indicating the source and amount of any 
     excess contributions (as determined under paragraph (1) of 
     section 315(i)) and the manner in which the candidate or the 
     candidate's authorized committee used such funds.
       ``(D) Enforcement.--For provisions providing for the 
     enforcement of the reporting requirements under this 
     paragraph, see section 309.''.
       (c) Definitions.--Section 301 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431), as amended by section 
     101(b), is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(25) Election cycle.--The term `election cycle' means the 
     period beginning on the day after the date of the most recent 
     election for the specific office or seat that a candidate is 
     seeking and ending on the date of the next election for that 
     office or seat. For purposes of the preceding sentence, a 
     primary election and a general election shall be considered 
     to be separate elections.
       ``(26) Personal funds.--The term `personal funds' means an 
     amount that is derived from--
       ``(A) any asset that, under applicable State law, at the 
     time the individual became a candidate, the candidate had 
     legal right of access to or control over, and with respect to 
     which the candidate had--
       ``(i) legal and rightful title; or
       ``(ii) an equitable interest;
       ``(B) income received during the current election cycle of 
     the candidate, including--
       ``(i) a salary and other earned income from bona fide 
     employment;
       ``(ii) dividends and proceeds from the sale of the 
     candidate's stocks or other investments;
       ``(iii) bequests to the candidate;
       ``(iv) income from trusts established before the beginning 
     of the election cycle;
       ``(v) income from trusts established by bequest after the 
     beginning of the election cycle of which the candidate is the 
     beneficiary;
       ``(vi) gifts of a personal nature that had been customarily 
     received by the candidate prior to the beginning of the 
     election cycle; and
       ``(vii) proceeds from lotteries and similar legal games of 
     chance; and
       ``(C) a portion of assets that are jointly owned by the 
     candidate and the candidate's spouse equal to the candidate's 
     share of the asset under the instrument of conveyance or 
     ownership, but if no specific share is indicated by an 
     instrument of conveyance or ownership, the value of \1/2\ of 
     the property.''.

     SEC. 305. TELEVISION MEDIA RATES.

       (a) Lowest Unit Charge.--Subsection (b) of section 315 of 
     the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 315) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(b) The charges'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Charges.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     charges'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Television.--The charges made for the use of any 
     television broadcast station, or by a provider of cable or 
     satellite television service, to any person who is a legally 
     qualified candidate for any public office in connection with 
     the campaign of such candidate for nomination for election, 
     or election, to such office shall not exceed, during the 
     periods referred to in paragraph (1)(A), the lowest charge of 
     the station (at any time during the 180-day period preceding 
     the date of the use) for the same amount of time for the same 
     period.''.
       (b) Rate Available for National Parties.--Section 315(b)(2) 
     of such Act (47 U.S.C. 315(b)(2), as added by subsection 
     (a)(3), is amended by inserting ``, or to a national 
     committee of a political party making expenditures under 
     section 315(d) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     on behalf of such candidate in connection with such 
     campaign,'' after ``such office''.
       (c) Preemption.--Section 315 of such Act (47 U.S.C. 315) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (e) and (f), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Preemption.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     licensee shall not preempt the use of a television broadcast 
     station, or a provider of cable or satellite television 
     service, by an eligible candidate or political committee of a 
     political party who has purchased and paid for such use 
     pursuant to subsection (b)(2).
       ``(2) Circumstances beyond control of licensee.--If a 
     program to be broadcast by a

[[Page 1349]]

     television broadcast station, or a provider of cable or 
     satellite television service, is preempted because of 
     circumstances beyond the control of the station, any 
     candidate or party advertising spot scheduled to be broadcast 
     during that program may also be preempted.''.
       (d) Random Audits.--Section 315 of such Act (47 U.S.C. 
     315), as amended by subsection (c), is amended by inserting 
     after subsection (c) the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Random Audits.--
       ``(1) In general.--During the 45-day period preceding a 
     primary election and the 60-day period preceding a general 
     election, the Commission shall conduct random audits of 
     designated market areas to ensure that each television 
     broadcast station, and provider of cable or satellite 
     television service, in those markets is allocating television 
     broadcast advertising time in accordance with this section 
     and section 312.
       ``(2) Markets.--The random audits conducted under paragraph 
     (1) shall cover the following markets:
       ``(A) At least 6 of the top 50 largest designated market 
     areas (as defined in section 122(j)(2)(C) of title 17, United 
     States Code).
       ``(B) At least 3 of the 51-100 largest designated market 
     areas (as so defined).
       ``(C) At least 3 of the 101-150 largest designated market 
     areas (as so defined).
       ``(D) At least 3 of the 151-210 largest designated market 
     areas (as so defined).
       ``(3) Broadcast stations.--Each random audit shall include 
     each of the 3 largest television broadcast networks, 1 
     independent network, and 1 cable network.''.
       (e) Definition of Broadcasting Station.--Subsection (e)(1) 
     of section 315 of such Act (47 U.S.C. 315(e)(1)), as 
     redesignated by subsection (c)(1) of this section, is amended 
     by inserting ``, a television broadcast station, and a 
     provider of cable or satellite television service'' before 
     the semicolon.
       (f) Stylistic Amendments.--Section 315 of such Act (47 
     U.S.C. 315) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``In General.--'' 
     before ``If any'';
       (2) in subsection (e), as redesignated by subsection (c)(1) 
     of this section, by inserting ``Definitions.--'' before ``For 
     purposes''; and
       (3) in subsection (f), as so redesignated, by inserting 
     ``Regulations.--'' before ``The Commission''.

     SEC. 306. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF LOWEST UNIT CHARGE 
                   FOR FEDERAL CANDIDATES ATTACKING OPPOSITION.

       (a) In General.--Section 315(b) of the Communications Act 
     of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 315(b)), as amended by this Act, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Content of broadcasts.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of a candidate for Federal 
     office, such candidate shall not be entitled to receive the 
     rate under paragraph (1)(A) or (2) for the use of any 
     broadcasting station unless the candidate provides written 
     certification to the broadcast station that the candidate 
     (and any authorized committee of the candidate) shall not 
     make any direct reference to another candidate for the same 
     office, in any broadcast using the rights and conditions of 
     access under this Act, unless such reference meets the 
     requirements of subparagraph (C) or (D).
       ``(B) Limitation on charges.--If a candidate for Federal 
     office (or any authorized committee of such candidate) makes 
     a reference described in subparagraph (A) in any broadcast 
     that does not meet the requirements of subparagraph (C) or 
     (D), such candidate shall not be entitled to receive the rate 
     under paragraph (1)(A) or (2) for such broadcast or any other 
     broadcast during any portion of the 45-day and 60-day periods 
     described in paragraph (1)(A), that occur on or after the 
     date of such broadcast, for election to such office.
       ``(C) Television broadcasts.--A candidate meets the 
     requirements of this subparagraph if, in the case of a 
     television broadcast, at the end of such broadcast there 
     appears simultaneously, for a period no less than 4 seconds--
       ``(i) a clearly identifiable photographic or similar image 
     of the candidate; and
       ``(ii) a clearly readable printed statement, identifying 
     the candidate and stating that the candidate has approved the 
     broadcast and that the candidate's authorized committee paid 
     for the broadcast.
       ``(D) Radio broadcasts.--A candidate meets the requirements 
     of this subparagraph if, in the case of a radio broadcast, 
     the broadcast includes a personal audio statement by the 
     candidate that identifies the candidate, the office the 
     candidate is seeking, and indicates that the candidate has 
     approved the broadcast.
       ``(E) Certification.--Certifications under this section 
     shall be provided and certified as accurate by the candidate 
     (or any authorized committee of the candidate) at the time of 
     purchase.
       ``(F) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph, the 
     terms `authorized committee' and `Federal office' have the 
     meanings given such terms by section 301 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 315(b)(1)(A) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 315(b)(1)(A)), as 
     amended by this Act, is amended by inserting ``subject to 
     paragraph (3),'' before ``during the forty-five days''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to broadcasts made after the effective date of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 307. SOFTWARE FOR FILING REPORTS AND PROMPT DISCLOSURE 
                   OF CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 304(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 434(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(12) Software for filing of reports.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Commission shall--
       ``(i) promulgate standards to be used by vendors to develop 
     software that--

       ``(I) permits candidates to easily record information 
     concerning receipts and disbursements required to be reported 
     under this Act at the time of the receipt or disbursement;
       ``(II) allows the information recorded under subclause (I) 
     to be transmitted immediately to the Commission; and
       ``(III) allows the Commission to post the information on 
     the Internet immediately upon receipt; and

       ``(ii) make a copy of software that meets the standards 
     promulgated under clause (i) available to each person 
     required to file a designation, statement, or report in 
     electronic form under this Act.
       ``(B) Additional information.--To the extent feasible, the 
     Commission shall require vendors to include in the software 
     developed under the standards under subparagraph (A) the 
     ability for any person to file any designation, statement, or 
     report required under this Act in electronic form.
       ``(C) Required use.--Notwithstanding any provision of this 
     Act relating to times for filing reports, each candidate for 
     Federal office (or that candidate's authorized committee) 
     shall use software that meets the standards promulgated under 
     this paragraph once such software is made available to such 
     candidate.
       ``(D) Required posting.--The Commission shall, as soon as 
     practicable, post on the Internet any information received 
     under this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 308. MODIFICATION OF CONTRIBUTION LIMITS.

       (a) Increase in Individual Limits for Certain 
     Contributions.--Section 315(a)(1) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$1,000'' and 
     inserting the following: ``$2,000 (or, in the case of a 
     candidate for Representative in or Delegate or Resident 
     Commissioner to the Congress, $1,000)''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$20,000'' and 
     inserting ``$25,000''.
       (b) Increase in Annual Aggregate Limit on Individual 
     Contributions.--Section 315(a)(3) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(3) During the period which begins on January 1 of an 
     odd-numbered year and ends on December 31 of the next even-
     numbered year, no individual may make contributions 
     aggregating more than--
       ``(A) $37,500, in the case of contributions to candidates 
     and the authorized committees of candidates;
       ``(B) $57,500, in the case of any other contributions, of 
     which not more than $37,500 may be attributable to 
     contributions to political committees which are not political 
     committees of national political parties.''.
       (c) Increase in Senatorial Campaign Committee Limit.--
     Section 315(h) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 441a(h)) is amended by striking ``$17,500'' and 
     inserting ``$35,000''.
       (d) Indexing of Contribution Limits.--Section 315(c) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking the second and third sentences;
       (B) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``At the beginning''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), in any 
     calendar year after 2002--
       ``(i) a limitation established by subsections (a)(1)(A), 
     (a)(1)(B), (a)(3), (b), (d), or (h) shall be increased by the 
     percent difference determined under subparagraph (A);
       ``(ii) each amount so increased shall remain in effect for 
     the calendar year; and
       ``(iii) if any amount after adjustment under clause (i) is 
     not a multiple of $100, such amount shall be rounded to the 
     nearest multiple of $100.
       ``(C) In the case of limitations under subsections 
     (a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), (a)(3), and (h), increases shall only 
     be made in odd-numbered years and such increases shall remain 
     in effect for the 2-year period beginning on the first day 
     following the date of the last general election in the year 
     preceding the year in which the amount is increased and 
     ending on the date of the next general election.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``means the calendar 
     year 1974'' and inserting ``means--
       ``(i) for purposes of subsections (b) and (d), calendar 
     year 1974; and
       ``(ii) for purposes of subsections (a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), 
     (a)(3), and (h), calendar year 2001''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect

[[Page 1350]]

     to contributions made on or after January 1, 2003.

     SEC. 309. DONATIONS TO PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURAL COMMITTEE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 36, United States Code, 
     is amended by--
       (1) redesignating section 510 as section 511; and
       (2) inserting after section 509 the following:

     ``Sec. 510. Disclosure of and prohibition on certain 
       donations

       ``(a) In General.--A committee shall not be considered to 
     be the Inaugural Committee for purposes of this chapter 
     unless the committee agrees to, and meets, the requirements 
     of subsections (b) and (c).
       ``(b) Disclosure.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than the date that is 90 days 
     after the date of the Presidential inaugural ceremony, the 
     committee shall file a report with the Federal Election 
     Commission disclosing any donation of money or anything of 
     value made to the committee in an aggregate amount equal to 
     or greater than $200.
       ``(2) Contents of report.--A report filed under paragraph 
     (1) shall contain--
       ``(A) the amount of the donation;
       ``(B) the date the donation is received; and
       ``(C) the name and address of the person making the 
     donation.
       ``(c) Limitation.--The committee shall not accept any 
     donation from a foreign national (as defined in section 
     319(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     441e(b))).''.
       (b) Reports Made Available by FEC.--Section 304 of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434), as 
     amended by sections 103, 201, and 212 is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(h) Reports From Inaugural Committees.--The Federal 
     Election Commission shall make any report filed by an 
     Inaugural Committee under section 510 of title 36, United 
     States Code, accessible to the public at the offices of the 
     Commission and on the Internet not later than 48 hours after 
     the report is received by the Commission.''.

     SEC. 310. PROHIBITION ON FRAUDULENT SOLICITATION OF FUNDS.

       Section 322 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441h) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``No 
     person''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Fraudulent Solicitation of Funds.--No person shall--
       ``(1) fraudulently misrepresent the person as speaking, 
     writing, or otherwise acting for or on behalf of any 
     candidate or political party or employee or agent thereof for 
     the purpose of soliciting contributions or donations; or
       ``(2) willfully and knowingly participate in or conspire to 
     participate in any plan, scheme, or design to violate 
     paragraph (1).''.

     SEC. 311. STUDY AND REPORT ON CLEAN MONEY CLEAN ELECTIONS 
                   LAWS.

       (a) Clean Money Clean Elections Defined.--In this section, 
     the term ``clean money clean elections'' means funds received 
     under State laws that provide in whole or in part for the 
     public financing of election campaigns.
       (b) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a 
     study of the clean money clean elections of Arizona and 
     Maine.
       (2) Matters studied.--
       (A) Statistics on clean money clean elections candidates.--
     The Comptroller General shall determine--
       (i) the number of candidates who have chosen to run for 
     public office with clean money clean elections including--

       (I) the office for which they were candidates;
       (II) whether the candidate was an incumbent or a 
     challenger; and
       (III) whether the candidate was successful in the 
     candidate's bid for public office; and

       (ii) the number of races in which at least one candidate 
     ran an election with clean money clean elections.
       (B) Effects of clean money clean elections.--The 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall describe the 
     effects of public financing under the clean money clean 
     elections laws on the 2000 elections in Arizona and Maine.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit a report to the Congress detailing the 
     results of the study conducted under subsection (b).

     SEC. 312. CLARITY STANDARDS FOR IDENTIFICATION OF SPONSORS OF 
                   ELECTION-RELATED ADVERTISING.

       Section 318 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441d) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``Whenever'' and inserting ``Whenever a 
     political committee makes a disbursement for the purpose of 
     financing any communication through any broadcasting station, 
     newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, 
     or any other type of general public political advertising, or 
     whenever'';
       (ii) by striking ``an expenditure'' and inserting ``a 
     disbursement''; and
       (iii) by striking ``direct''; and
       (iv) by inserting ``or makes a disbursement for an 
     electioneering communication (as defined in section 
     304(f)(3))'' after ``public political advertising''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``and permanent street 
     address, telephone number, or World Wide Web address'' after 
     ``name''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Specification.--Any printed communication described 
     in subsection (a) shall--
       ``(1) be of sufficient type size to be clearly readable by 
     the recipient of the communication;
       ``(2) be contained in a printed box set apart from the 
     other contents of the communication; and
       ``(3) be printed with a reasonable degree of color contrast 
     between the background and the printed statement.
       ``(d) Additional Requirements.--
       ``(1) Communications by candidates or authorized persons.--
       ``(A) By radio.--Any communication described in paragraph 
     (1) or (2) of subsection (a) which is transmitted through 
     radio shall include, in addition to the requirements of that 
     paragraph, an audio statement by the candidate that 
     identifies the candidate and states that the candidate has 
     approved the communication.
       ``(B) By television.--Any communication described in 
     paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) which is transmitted 
     through television shall include, in addition to the 
     requirements of that paragraph, a statement that identifies 
     the candidate and states that the candidate has approved the 
     communication. Such statement--
       ``(i) shall be conveyed by--

       ``(I) an unobscured, full-screen view of the candidate 
     making the statement, or
       ``(II) the candidate in voice-over, accompanied by a 
     clearly identifiable photographic or similar image of the 
     candidate; and

       ``(ii) shall also appear in writing at the end of the 
     communication in a clearly readable manner with a reasonable 
     degree of color contrast between the background and the 
     printed statement, for a period of at least 4 seconds.
       ``(2) Communications by others.--Any communication 
     described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a) which is 
     transmitted through radio or television shall include, in 
     addition to the requirements of that paragraph, in a clearly 
     spoken manner, the following audio statement: `_____ is 
     responsible for the content of this advertising.' (with the 
     blank to be filled in with the name of the political 
     committee or other person paying for the communication and 
     the name of any connected organization of the payor). If 
     transmitted through television, the statement shall be 
     conveyed by an unobscured, full-screen view of a 
     representative of the political committee or other person 
     making the statement, or by a representative of such 
     political committee or other person in voice-over, and shall 
     also appear in a clearly readable manner with a reasonable 
     degree of color contrast between the background and the 
     printed statement, for a period of at least 4 seconds.''.

     SEC. 313. INCREASE IN PENALTIES.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 309(d)(1) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     437g(d)(1)(A)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a 
     violation of any provision of this Act which involves the 
     making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, 
     donation, or expenditure--
       ``(i) aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year 
     shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or 
     imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or
       ``(ii) aggregating $2,000 or more (but less than $25,000) 
     during a calendar year shall be fined under such title, or 
     imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to violations occurring on or after the effective 
     date of this Act.

     SEC. 314. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 406(a) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 455(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``3'' and inserting ``5''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to violations occurring on or after the effective 
     date of this Act.

     SEC. 315. SENTENCING GUIDELINES.

       (a) In General.--The United States Sentencing Commission 
     shall--
       (1) promulgate a guideline, or amend an existing guideline 
     under section 994 of title 28, United States Code, in 
     accordance with paragraph (2), for penalties for violations 
     of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and related 
     election laws; and
       (2) submit to Congress an explanation of any guidelines 
     promulgated under paragraph (1) and any legislative or 
     administrative recommendations regarding enforcement of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and related election 
     laws.
       (b) Considerations.--The Commission shall provide 
     guidelines under subsection (a) taking into account the 
     following considerations:

[[Page 1351]]

       (1) Ensure that the sentencing guidelines and policy 
     statements reflect the serious nature of such violations and 
     the need for aggressive and appropriate law enforcement 
     action to prevent such violations.
       (2) Provide a sentencing enhancement for any person 
     convicted of such violation if such violation involves--
       (A) a contribution, donation, or expenditure from a foreign 
     source;
       (B) a large number of illegal transactions;
       (C) a large aggregate amount of illegal contributions, 
     donations, or expenditures;
       (D) the receipt or disbursement of governmental funds; and
       (E) an intent to achieve a benefit from the Federal 
     Government.
       (3) Assure reasonable consistency with other relevant 
     directives and guidelines of the Commission.
       (4) Account for aggravating or mitigating circumstances 
     that might justify exceptions, including circumstances for 
     which the sentencing guidelines currently provide sentencing 
     enhancements.
       (5) Assure the guidelines adequately meet the purposes of 
     sentencing under section 3553(a)(2) of title 18, United 
     States Code.
       (c) Effective Date; Emergency Authority To Promulgate 
     Guidelines.--
       (1) Effective date.--Notwithstanding section 402, the 
     United States Sentencing Commission shall promulgate 
     guidelines under this section not later than the later of--
       (A) 90 days after the effective date of this Act; or
       (B) 90 days after the date on which at least a majority of 
     the members of the Commission are appointed and holding 
     office.
       (2) Emergency authority to promulgate guidelines.--The 
     Commission shall promulgate guidelines under this section in 
     accordance with the procedures set forth in section 21(a) of 
     the Sentencing Reform Act of 1987, as though the authority 
     under such Act has not expired.

     SEC. 316. INCREASE IN PENALTIES IMPOSED FOR VIOLATIONS OF 
                   CONDUIT CONTRIBUTION BAN.

       (a) Increase in Civil Money Penalty for Knowing and Willful 
     Violations.--Section 309(a) of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5)(B), by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``(or, in the case of a violation of 
     section 320, which is not less than 300 percent of the amount 
     involved in the violation and is not more than the greater of 
     $50,000 or 1000 percent of the amount involved in the 
     violation)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (6)(C), by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``(or, in the case of a violation of 
     section 320, which is not less than 300 percent of the amount 
     involved in the violation and is not more than the greater of 
     $50,000 or 1000 percent of the amount involved in the 
     violation)''.
       (b) Increase in Criminal Penalty.--Section 309(d)(1) of 
     such Act (2 U.S.C. 437g(d)(1)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a 
     violation of section 320 involving an amount aggregating more 
     than $10,000 during a calendar year shall be--
       ``(i) imprisoned for not more than 2 years if the amount is 
     less than $25,000 (and subject to imprisonment under 
     subparagraph (A) if the amount is $25,000 or more);
       ``(ii) fined not less than 300 percent of the amount 
     involved in the violation and not more than the greater of--
       ``(I) $50,000; or
       ``(II) 1,000 percent of the amount involved in the 
     violation; or
       ``(iii) both imprisoned under clause (i) and fined under 
     clause (ii).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to violations occurring on or after 
     the effective date of this Act.

     SEC. 317. RESTRICTION ON INCREASED CONTRIBUTION LIMITS BY 
                   TAKING INTO ACCOUNT CANDIDATE'S AVAILABLE 
                   FUNDS.

       Section 315(i)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(i)(1)), as added by this Act, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Special rule for candidate's campaign funds.--
       ``(i) In general.--For purposes of determining the 
     aggregate amount of expenditures from personal funds under 
     subparagraph (D)(ii), such amount shall include the gross 
     receipts advantage of the candidate's authorized committee.
       ``(ii) Gross receipts advantage.--For purposes of clause 
     (i), the term `gross receipts advantage' means the excess, if 
     any, of--

       ``(I) the aggregate amount of 50 percent of gross receipts 
     of a candidate's authorized committee during any election 
     cycle (not including contributions from personal funds of the 
     candidate) that may be expended in connection with the 
     election, as determined on June 30 and December 31 of the 
     year preceding the year in which a general election is held, 
     over
       ``(II) the aggregate amount of 50 percent of gross receipts 
     of the opposing candidate's authorized committee during any 
     election cycle (not including contributions from personal 
     funds of the candidate) that may be expended in connection 
     with the election, as determined on June 30 and December 31 
     of the year preceding the year in which a general election is 
     held.''.

     SEC. 318. CLARIFICATION OF RIGHT OF NATIONALS OF THE UNITED 
                   STATES TO MAKE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 319(b)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(2)) is amended by inserting after 
     ``United States'' the following: ``or a national of the 
     United States (as defined in section 101(a)(22) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act)''.

     SEC. 319. PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MINORS.

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


                ``prohibition of contributions by minors

       ``Sec. 324. An individual who is 17 years old or younger 
     shall not make a contribution to a candidate or a 
     contribution or donation to a committee of a political 
     party.''.

                 TITLE IV--SEVERABILITY; EFFECTIVE DATE

     SEC. 401. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act, 
     or the application of a provision or amendment to any person 
     or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the 
     remainder of this Act and amendments made by this Act, and 
     the application of the provisions and amendment to any person 
     or circumstance, shall not be affected by the holding.

     SEC. 402. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in section 
     308 and subsection (b), this Act and the amendments made by 
     this Act shall take effect November 6, 2002.
       (b) Transition Rule for Spending of Funds by National 
     Parties.--If a national committee of a political party 
     described in section 323(a)(1) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (as added by section 101(a)), including 
     any person who is subject to such section, has received funds 
     described in such section prior to the effective date 
     described in subsection (a), the following rules shall apply 
     with respect to the spending of such funds by such committee:
       (1) Prior to January 1, 2003, the committee may spend such 
     funds to retire outstanding debts or obligations incurred 
     prior to such effective date, so long as such debts or 
     obligations were incurred solely in connection with an 
     election held on or before November 5, 2002 (or any runoff 
     election or recount resulting from such an election).
       (2) At any time after such effective date, the committee 
     may spend such funds for activities which are solely to 
     defray the costs of the construction or purchase of any 
     office building or facility.
       (c) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Federal Election Commission 
     shall promulgate regulations to carry out title I of this Act 
     and the amendments made by such title. Not later than 270 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal 
     Election Commission shall promulgate regulations to carry out 
     all other titles of this Act and all other amendments made by 
     this Act which are under the Commission's jurisdiction.

     SEC. 403. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) Special Rules For Actions Brought on Constitutional 
     Grounds.--If any action is brought for declaratory or 
     injunctive relief to challenge the constitutionality of any 
     provision of this Act or any amendment made by this Act, the 
     following rules shall apply:
       (1) The action shall be filed in the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia and shall be heard by a 3-
     judge court convened pursuant to section 2284 of title 28, 
     United States Code.
       (2) A copy of the complaint shall be delivered promptly to 
     the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary 
     of the Senate.
       (3) A final decision in the action shall be reviewable only 
     by appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. 
     Such appeal shall be taken by the filing of a notice of 
     appeal within 10 days, and the filing of a jurisdictional 
     statement within 30 days, of the entry of the final decision.
       (4) It shall be the duty of the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of 
     the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to 
     the greatest possible extent the disposition of the action 
     and appeal.
       (b) Intervention by Members of Congress.--In any action in 
     which the constitutionality of any provision of this Act or 
     any amendment made by this Act is raised (including but not 
     limited to an action described in subsection (a)), any member 
     of the House of Representatives (including a Delegate or 
     Resident Commissioner to the Congress) or Senate shall have 
     the right to intervene either in support of or opposition to 
     the position of a party to the case regarding the 
     constitutionality of the provision or amendment. To avoid 
     duplication of efforts and reduce the burdens placed on the 
     parties to the action, the court in any such action may make 
     such orders as it considers necessary, including orders to 
     require intervenors taking similar positions to file joint 
     papers or to be represented by a single attorney at oral 
     argument.

[[Page 1352]]

               TITLE V--ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS

     SEC. 501. INTERNET ACCESS TO RECORDS.

       Section 304(a)(11)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(11)(B)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(B) The Commission shall make a designation, statement, 
     report, or notification that is filed with the Commission 
     under this Act available for inspection by the public in the 
     offices of the Commission and accessible to the public on the 
     Internet not later than 48 hours (or not later than 24 hours 
     in the case of a designation, statement, report, or 
     notification filed electronically) after receipt by the 
     Commission.''.

     SEC. 502. MAINTENANCE OF WEBSITE OF ELECTION REPORTS.

       (a) In General.--The Federal Election Commission shall 
     maintain a central site on the Internet to make accessible to 
     the public all publicly available election-related reports 
     and information.
       (b) Election-related Report.--In this section, the term 
     ``election-related report'' means any report, designation, or 
     statement required to be filed under the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971.
       (c) Coordination With Other Agencies.--Any Federal 
     executive agency receiving election-related information which 
     that agency is required by law to publicly disclose shall 
     cooperate and coordinate with the Federal Election Commission 
     to make such report available through, or for posting on, the 
     site of the Federal Election Commission in a timely manner.

     SEC. 503. ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE REPORTS.

       (a) Principal Campaign Committees.--Section 304(a)(2)(B) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is amended by 
     striking ``the following reports'' and all that follows 
     through the period and inserting ``the treasurer shall file 
     quarterly reports, which shall be filed not later than the 
     15th day after the last day of each calendar quarter, and 
     which shall be complete as of the last day of each calendar 
     quarter, except that the report for the quarter ending 
     December 31 shall be filed not later than January 31 of the 
     following calendar year.''.
       (b) National Committee of a Political Party.--Section 
     304(a)(4) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(4)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following flush sentence: 
     ``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a national 
     committee of a political party shall file the reports 
     required under subparagraph (B).''.

     SEC. 504. PUBLIC ACCESS TO BROADCASTING RECORDS.

       Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     315), as amended by this Act, is amended by redesignating 
     subsections (e) and (f) as subsections (f) and (g), 
     respectively, and inserting after subsection (d) the 
     following:
       ``(e) Political Record.--
       ``(1) In general.--A licensee shall maintain, and make 
     available for public inspection, a complete record of a 
     request to purchase broadcast time that--
       ``(A) is made by or on behalf of a legally qualified 
     candidate for public office; or
       ``(B) communicates a message relating to any political 
     matter of national importance, including--
       ``(i) a legally qualified candidate;
       ``(ii) any election to Federal office; or
       ``(iii) a national legislative issue of public importance.
       ``(2) Contents of record.--A record maintained under 
     paragraph (1) shall contain information regarding--
       ``(A) whether the request to purchase broadcast time is 
     accepted or rejected by the licensee;
       ``(B) the rate charged for the broadcast time;
       ``(C) the date and time on which the communication is 
     aired;
       ``(D) the class of time that is purchased;
       ``(E) the name of the candidate to which the communication 
     refers and the office to which the candidate is seeking 
     election, the election to which the communication refers, or 
     the issue to which the communication refers (as applicable);
       ``(F) in the case of a request made by, or on behalf of, a 
     candidate, the name of the candidate, the authorized 
     committee of the candidate, and the treasurer of such 
     committee; and
       ``(G) in the case of any other request, the name of the 
     person purchasing the time, the name, address, and phone 
     number of a contact person for such person, and a list of the 
     chief executive officers or members of the executive 
     committee or of the board of directors of such person.
       ``(3) Time to maintain file.--The information required 
     under this subsection shall be placed in a political file as 
     soon as possible and shall be retained by the licensee for a 
     period of not less than 2 years.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 344, the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and a Member opposed each will 
control 20 minutes.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, for the purposes of yielding, I yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and 7\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), and I ask unanimous 
consent that they be permitted to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just say that this is, in fact, the amendment 
that has worked its way through the House on two occasions, in 1998 and 
1999, and on both occasions has been changed slightly. This amendment 
now has gone to the Senate in which the Senate worked on 21 amendments, 
and we met with Senators from both sides of the aisle to learn what 
they needed in that bill in order for them to pass it, and we think we 
have worked out a bill that is about 85 percent of what we had hoped it 
would be in 1998 and 1999. This is not the identical bill that passed 
the Chamber in 1998 and 1999, but it is darn close.
  I am asking this House to vote out this substitute and allow this to 
be the base bill, so that we can then have the 10 amendments from the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and the 3 amendments that will be 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and myself, 
and by other individuals.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the 
House.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to assert my strong support for the 
Shays-Meehan substitute and to urge my colleagues to do likewise and to 
vote down all poison pills and crippling amendments.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us represents bipartisan, bicameral 
campaign finance reform. A lot has been said on the floor of the House 
relative to changes in this bill over a period of the last several 
months. This bill has been a bipartisan, bicameral work in progress 
over a period of the last several years. I want to thank my Republican 
colleagues, particularly the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for 
his efforts, as well as our colleagues from both sides of the aisle in 
the other body.
  We have crafted a bill that gets at the soft money system that is 
clearly out of control. All one has to do is go back to one's home 
district and listen to people talk about unlimited contributions to 
both political parties, corporate contributions, union treasury dues 
being used for political campaigns, and wealthy individuals 
contributing unlimited amounts of money to the parties.
  Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain once said that it is going to take a 
scandal to get this bill passed. That was back two or three scandals 
ago when we were looking at foreign nationals coming in and 
contributing millions of dollars. The latest one is Enron, $4 million 
over the last 10 years in soft money; 70 percent of all of the money 
that Enron has contributed since 1995, soft money, including nearly $2 
million in the last election cycle.
  We face an historic vote. It is time for the votes to be counted. The 
Congress, the House has an opportunity to fundamentally change the soft 
money system that has been such an abuse over the last decade. The eyes 
of this entire country are looking at this House to determine whether 
or not our bipartisanship and bicameral work will pay off and send a 
bill over to the United States Senate and get it to the President's 
desk.
  I thank all of the Members on both sides of the aisle that have made 
this moment possible. Now it is time for a gut check. All the Members 
who have been for reform over the last several years have to look 
within themselves to show the courage, the independence, the commitment 
to true reform, to make this reform happen today in the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms.

[[Page 1353]]

DeLauro), who has played such a critical role in our efforts to pass 
campaign finance reform.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, today, at long last, we are on the 
precipice of cleaning up our electoral system, of standing up to 
special interests, standing up for democracy.
  This is an historic moment. We have the opportunity to end the era of 
unregulated soft money. We may bring to a close a period when ordinary 
citizens could not be heard above the clamor of the special interests. 
Today is the day Congress can say no to special treatment. The people 
say no more Enrons.
  I ask my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to stand together to 
defend this bill against the onslaught. Our opposition will make 
certain that every vote on every amendment today pits us against one 
another, but the American people are fed up with business as usual. 
They stand with us as we bring down the curtain on this era.
  We have a responsibility to strengthen our democracy. Vote for the 
bipartisan Shays-Meehan substitute. Turn aside the poison pill 
amendments so that in our political process we can empower people over 
money.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this substitute, to the 
substitute to the substitute to the substitute for Shays-Meehan. With 
this substitute, I say to my colleagues, if we pass this substitute, we 
can no longer call it campaign finance reform, it is now campaign 
finance regulation, because with this substitute more loopholes are 
created, more changes are made, and those changes are made to satisfy 
people's own special interests, either in the Senate or in the House. 
This substitute pits the national parties against special interest 
groups, unions and others, and weakens our national party system.
  This substitute, as we found out this morning, when written last 
night, wanted to protect the good soft money that the Democrat national 
parties have already raised and the good soft money that they are going 
to raise between now and the election by changing the effective date. 
And they changed the effective date until the next election. Now, what 
is the difference? If it is bad soft money, and if it is corrupting 
like they say, then what is the difference in doing it now or after the 
election? The difference is they have a bunch of soft money that they 
think is good now and they want to use it. Not only that, but this 
creates a system that allows them to borrow soft money and hard money 
and then pay it off with soft money, a brand new approach to campaign 
finance. It is regulation when you pick winners and losers.
  Now, they have said that they disagree, that my interpretation of 
their language is wrong, and they tried it out on a couple of lawyers, 
a Mr. Larry Noble. Mr. Larry Noble happens to be a lobbyist for the 
Center of Responsive Politics. He is a former FEC counsel that was a 
pretty bad one. He lost almost every case that he ever brought before 
the FEC, and he writes that our interpretation is wrong.
  Then, to add cynicism to this whole process, they sent a person by 
the name of Trevor Potter over to the Republican Tuesday Group. Now, 
Trevor Potter is a lobbyist for the Campaign Finance Institute. He is 
on the board of Common Cause, and he was formerly Senator McCain's 
Presidential counsel. He spoke to the Tuesday Group, told them one 
thing, and when we pull up his Web site, he says something completely 
different than what he told the Republican Tuesday Group.
  Now, when a bunch of lawyers start going around, there is smoke, and 
where there is smoke, there is fire. The point is that I am no lawyer, 
so I am not encumbered. When I read this legislation, it is quite clear 
that they can borrow money, hard or soft, and pay it off with soft 
money. They can do it. They are opening loopholes everywhere. This is 
not reform. This is regulation.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of 
the NRCC.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, a statement was made earlier 
that Trevor Potter has now disowned. For clarification, and this is the 
Website that I would ask be included in the Record, the Website makes 
it very clear that it does not make reference to contributions or 
expenditures; in other words, that the Federal dollars goes along with 
what the gentleman just said. Trevor Potter is a trustee of the 
organization. It may appear that he is now disowning the statement of 
the organization of which he is on the letterhead.
  There is just a lot of double-talk going on around here today. It 
looks to me like an honest drafting error, but it is a very serious 
error that changes the rule of the game that allows unlimited amounts 
of soft money to be spent as Federal dollars in this election cycle, 
and it is currently illegal.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just correct the 
gentleman. It is not an honest drafting error, it is intentional so 
that they can use their good soft money and pay for it later with other 
soft money. It is their use of soft money when they stand before the 
American people saying they are getting rid of this terrible soft 
money.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 35 seconds.
  We believe the interpretation of the gentleman from Virginia and the 
majority whip is absolutely incorrect; wrong. It does not do what they 
say it does.
  However, having said that, for the Record, it is clearly the 
drafters' intent that it not allow, nor do we believe it does allow, 
the use of soft money to pay hard money bills.
  So the interpretation is clear, and the intent is without question. 
The representations of the chairman of the NRCC are incorrect.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, when I think about the Shays-Meehan 
bill, I think of many people who have described it in the news media as 
an incumbent protection act. And I think that adequately describes what 
this bill is all about because we all know that if you are an incumbent 
Member of Congress, it is very easy to raise hard money through 
political action committees. But if you are a challenger to an 
incumbent, it is very difficult to raise hard money, and you get your 
best support from soft money through issue advocacy ads.
  The only thing this legislation does is it does not apply in any way 
to money spent by politicians for their campaigns, but does seriously 
restrict money spent by other groups and entities to talk about 
campaigns, and particularly that is true within the last 60 days of an 
election.
  The Supreme Court has made it very clear that there are two types of 
money. Hard money; if you expressly advocate the defeat or election of 
a candidate, you can only use hard money. But if you talk about issues 
and tell people the way a candidate votes on an issue without expressly 
advocating his defeat or election, you can use soft money. But Shays-
Meehan says that any ad run within 60 days of an election must use hard 
money. And the Supreme Court and other Federal courts have consistently 
said that if you create obstacles to participating in the election 
system in the democracy that we live in, then it is unconstitutional. 
So I do not think there is any question that trying to deprive people 
of speaking within the last 60 days of an election unless they meet all 
of the requirements in meeting the rules and regulations set out by the 
Federal Election Commission, unless they are able to meet that hard 
burden, then they are shut out of the political system. I urge a no 
vote on Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  The gentleman from Kentucky says this is an incumbent protection 
bill.

[[Page 1354]]

Look, under the soft money system in the last election cycle, 98 
percent of the Members of Congress who ran for reelection were 
reelected. The cycle before that under the soft money system, 98 
percent of the Members of Congress who ran for reelection were 
reelected. We could not have a system that is more friendly to 
incumbents than the system we have right now.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, today the people's House can clean up our 
election system. We have a real chance.
  My constituents in Marin and Sonoma Counties just north of San 
Francisco across the Golden Gate Bridge vote 85 percent every time we 
have an election. They come out. They want to make sure that the Shays-
Meehan bill is passed because they wisely understand the influence of 
big money on our government. My constituents want fair campaign 
processes where everyone's involvement counts. They want a government 
that is trustworthy and responsive to their needs, not the needs of 
special interests. They want our children to have an election system 
that they will be proud to participate in.
  Without real reform we tell our children that only wealthy 
contributors have a voice in the political process. I urge my 
colleagues support the Shays-Meehan bill. Vote for it and show our 
children that we want them to participate, too.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to say I appreciate my 
friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), frankly 
acknowledging that the bill that is before us today is different from 
the one that he has been advocating in the past.
  I wonder, Mr. Chairman, however, if this has sunk in on the American 
people, the fact that this is a substantially different bill and it was 
changed at midnight last night to accommodate certain votes that were 
needed to enact the legislation. One of the more egregious changes is 
the creation of a giant loophole in the so-called soft money ban. Under 
the Shays-Meehan amendment, Members of Congress would be allowed to 
raise soft money from 501(c) organizations.
  Now, these are special interest groups that have a legitimate place 
in our society. However, if the Shays proposal is enacted as it is now 
before us, the use of 501(c) organizations will drastically change.
  Last year we all remember one ad from a 501(c) coordinated 
organization in the Presidential campaign. The ad focused on the 
horrific death of a young man in Texas and criticized then-candidate 
Bush for not supporting a proposal regarding hate crimes. By creating 
this loophole regarding special interest groups, sham 501(c) 
organizations will be popping up all over the country to funnel soft 
money to campaigns. Members will be able to get their biggest 
contributors to say, ``I know of a good government group that is 
involved in voter education. Would you please donate a million dollars 
to this good government group?'' And then the good government group 
gets involved in voter education and politics in that Congressman's 
district, aiding or abetting the Congressman's campaign.
  Remember previous finance reforms? They were supposed to fix our 
campaign system; instead they created new loopholes. Mr. Chairman, this 
is a brand new loophole created at midnight last night. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this Shay substitute for that very reason.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I want to welcome converts. I do not always 
get a chance to do that, but for years here I have tried to defend 
freedom of expression, free speech and the first amendment. We have 
passed information censoring the Internet that was thrown out 
unanimously by the Supreme Court. We have passed other restrictions. 
And, frankly, I have usually found most of my friends on the other side 
voting for these restrictions, but today is the day of conversion.
  The first amendment and freedom of speech have gained today defenders 
that they have never had before. Unfortunately, I am afraid they will 
never have them in the future either. But, for instance, I was looking 
at the amendment that will be offered later by the majority leader in 
defense of the first amendment. The first four cases he cites are from 
the Warren Court. Oh, for the days of Warren and Douglas and Black and 
Brennan. That is the version of the first amendment that they are 
embracing, and if I thought that was a lasting embrace, I would welcome 
it. But it is a very temporary use of a particular version of the first 
amendment that they never had before and they will never have again.
  Let us be very clear that if you are, in fact, going to adopt their 
version of the first amendment, which I think is not a correct one, you 
are going to encompass a lot more than simply letting yourselves spend 
money, although maybe that is a distinction.
  I thought about it as free speech. You have had a number of people, 
including the majority whip who just spoke, who had not previously 
distinguished himself, in my view, as a great defender of free speech. 
The key is this: They are for free speech as long as it is not free. If 
you pay for the speech, they are for it. Free free speech they never 
defend, but paid free speech is something that many of these people 
find acceptable.
  I will tell Members this, that, in fact, if you endorse this version 
of virtually untrammeled free expression, understand that in no way 
logically and philosophically can you confine it to this. We have 
obscenity decisions being quoted here. We have decisions about the 
right to speak in very radical terms about opposition to the 
government. It does not fit logically to be someone who has been for 
severe restrictions on free speech in every other context and suddenly 
become a first amendment absolutist in this case.
  And the doctrine of free speech that is being used to try to 
discredit this bill, which I think is an inaccurate one, because the 
notion that speech you pay for is somehow fully endowed and that no 
restriction can be made and no regulation on that, that does not seem 
to me to be free speech. But if that is what people hold, let me say 
the lead Senate opponent of this says to be consistent he is against 
the flag burning amendment because he says he is against this on free 
speech grounds, the Senator from Kentucky, and he is against the flag 
burning constitutional amendment.
  So let us be clear, if you want to adopt that version of free speech, 
adopt it, but you cannot turn it on and off like a water faucet.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished vice 
chairman of the Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, our system of campaign finance is out of 
control, drowning in money, including the money of corporate polluters 
and scam artists like the Enron crowd, and in the process drowning out 
the voices of working Americans and their families.
  I ask why do we not have a patients' bill of rights and why do we 
have a fiasco like Enron? The unlimited, unregulated special interest 
soft money has got to go. It has got to go now, today, once and for 
all.
  Mr. Chairman, democracy is about the people. It is about every single 
person who can hear my voice. This is their House, their Congress, 
their government, and they want it back. But the Republican leadership 
has done everything it can to kill this bill. In fact, the only way we 
got this bill to the floor was by getting Members to sign a discharge 
petition to force the leadership to give this bill a chance. Well, 
today they may try to defeat campaign finance reform with procedural 
tactics and poison bill amendments, and we have to defeat those 
efforts.
  Millions of special interest soft money should not undermine the 
millions of Americans who want their vote to be the powerful tool in 
this democracy. For the sake of our democracy,

[[Page 1355]]

we have to defeat these tactics, level the playing fields, get the 
special interest soft money out of politics once and for all, and 
return this government to the American people.
  Vote for Shays-Meehan. Vote against all of the poison pills, and let 
us have a new day dawn in our democracy, one that is a democracy in 
which the individual citizens' right to their vote and the power of 
their vote will ultimately determine the fate of policy in this 
country, not hundreds of millions of dollars of special interest 
monies.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) has 12 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) has the right to close.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, it is not reform. It is deception. That 
is what Mr. Samuelson from the Washington Post says about Shays-Meehan. 
I want to keep repeating that. It is not reform. It is deception. 
Because that is exactly what it is. It is deception.
  By the way, one part of this deception I really like which is this 
part about the loan provision is marvelous. That is perfectly 
consistent with my plan for deregulation, which would eliminate all the 
limits and would solve this problem once and for all because we would 
have full disclosure, and you would not have to have this subterfuge of 
soft money and issue ads and independent expenditures and all these 
things that are getting worse and worse because of you folks. You gave 
us the present law, and you are making it worse. But this loan 
provision is fantastic.
  I want to draw everyone's attention to it. If this horrible bill 
somehow becomes law, we will take full advantage of it, I promise you, 
because we can do this, too, as Republicans thanks to the provision 
that you have given us.
  Here is the analysis I am reading from. ``In contrast to current law, 
the proposed language would allow the national party committee to pay 
any debt with soft non-Federal dollars from the period of November 5, 
2002, to January 1, 2003.''
  Now, that is not consistent with the current regulations that 
specifically require hard debt to be paid with hard dollars. As a 
practical matter, the plain wording of the proposed language would 
allow a national party committee to borrow hard dollars, spend those 
dollars in an upcoming election, and then use the remaining soft 
dollars to pay the debt. This is great. You cannot even do this under 
current law, but under the change you are making, it is just effective, 
just for the end of this year we will be able to do this.
  Why not just go all the way, defeat your bill and pass deregulation, 
which really does solve the problem? Because if soft money is evil, why 
is it good for you to be able to do this and pack it in with all you 
can with your collateralized loans to get all the advantage you can out 
of this election? Just like Samuelson said, ``It is not reform. It is 
deception.''

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me say just a few months 
ago we sat in this body and the advocates at that point said that this 
bill needs to be passed now, that we could not delay it, we wanted to 
get it ready for the next cycle. Now just a few months later, instead 
of being ready for the 2002 cycle and because the campaign committee on 
the other side of the aisle has been unable to raise hard dollars and 
retire their hard dollar debt and they have looked at the discrepancy 
between the committees, they want the rules to be delayed in 
implementation until the next election. Why? So they can spend their 
soft dollars this year. So they can trade their soft dollars this year 
for hard dollars under the loophole that has been discovered in the 
drafting.
  It reminds me of the old drunk who swears he is going to quit 
drinking tomorrow but tonight he is going to get real drunk and tie it 
down. That is what they are doing.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman made the point about the 
Democratic Party, but was not the gentleman quoted in the front page of 
one of our local newspapers here on the Hill urging us not to consider 
a telecom bill because it would hurt campaign contributions to the 
party?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe I was 
quoted as saying that.
  Tonight this substitute is not fair. It is not bipartisan. It is 
written to gain the current system. Their leadership on the other side 
woke up and found they had a huge hard-dollar gap. If my colleagues 
reject this substitute, remember this, those who signed the petition: 
if my colleagues reject the substitute, we are down to the base bill. 
That is the bill my colleagues signed the discharge petition for. They 
have not lost anything.
  This substitute was unveiled for the first time last evening at 10 
p.m. That is when the public, that is when the opposition got to see 
it; and as we can see, drafting errors occur sometimes when people do 
these things at the last moment, and I think that is the problem that 
we have here.
  The underlying bill would still stand if this substitute is rejected. 
I oppose this legislation as it is now being amended again. I say to my 
friends who signed the discharge petition, if my colleagues reject this 
and beat this they have still the underlying bill. That is what they 
signed the discharge petition for and we can go on amendments from 
there.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to just point out, 
we petitioned out the base bill; but we also knew we were going to come 
forward with the amendments that we intended to come forward with in 
July which was divided into 13 parts. So it is all part of a process 
and this is a substitute, and this is ultimately what we hoped would 
happen.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, if I could say to my friend, 
I understand that was part of the process, but he has to understand 
that nobody knew when they signed the petition what this amendment 
would be, what this substitute would be; and so for many members who 
signed the petition, if they do not like this, they can be consistent 
with signing this petition and vote against this substitute. That is 
the only point. I would say my friend and honorable gentleman who has 
offered this, I think, is most sincere.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, can the Chair tell me what the time is 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) has 7\3/4\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 6\1/4\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) has the right 
to close.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert).
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shays-
Meehan substitute.
  The reason we need Shays-Meehan is quite simple. The American people 
are continuing to lose faith and confidence in our political system 
because of the unregulated flow of soft money into the campaign 
coffers. In fact, we need to look no further for proof of America's 
dissatisfaction than the dismal 51 percent turnout of registered voters 
in the last election, one of the closest elections in history.
  Quite frankly, I am sort of tired of apologizing for a system that I 
think works quite well. People think money taints every decision that 
is made in this Congress. This is not so. I do not believe it for a 
minute, but the fact of the matter is people think it and they

[[Page 1356]]

are losing confidence. We need to change the system.
  Shays-Meehan is not perfect, but it is much better than what we have; 
and for those who would argue that we should do nothing, I would say 
they are not listening to the voice and they are not considering the 
will of the American people. The time for campaign finance reform is 
long overdue, and the Shays-Meehan substitute is one way to get reform 
to the President's desk, and I feel confident that he will sign it.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 5\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) for the honor of participating here in the closing of the debate 
on this meaningful legislation.
  President Roosevelt, the Democrat, FDR, said we have nothing to fear 
but fear itself. I say to our friends in leadership, do not be afraid 
of this legislation. Do not be afraid of giving up soft money. I know 
that fear drives a lot of their actions, but we should not be afraid to 
go into a new era and to leave the old behind.
  I think a lot of their mentality is that they cannot survive without 
it. I respect them but I respectfully disagree. I think both parties 
will do just fine without it. The American people will be encouraged 
greatly, the process will be cleaned up, and we will take a major step 
in the right direction.
  In a lot of ways this debate is about the leadership versus rank-and-
file Members because the truth is there are a lot of rank-and-file 
Members on both sides, people of goodwill, that know this is a problem 
and know that something needs to be done about it. My hope is that they 
will come together later today and along the way for that common 
purpose.
  The people ask how could a bill that has overwhelmingly passed the 
House twice in recent years, passed the Senate with 59 votes, come up 
again today and have so much opposition; and I can only tell them that 
the closer we get to finality the more intense the fight, the higher 
the temperature.
  President Roosevelt, the Republican, Teddy, passionately fought to 
make sure that large corporations, rich and powerful people, were not 
treated differently than ordinary citizens, that they did not receive 
special treatment. I have got to tell my colleagues this soft-money 
loophole has brought about that result a hundred years later.
  My party needs to recommit itself to those TR principles, to make 
sure that ordinary citizens have just as much protection under our laws 
and under our rules as rich and powerful people.
  Soft money is now being given in a shameful way. It has proliferated 
beyond measure in recent years, and it is a real corrupting influence. 
Legislation comes before this body at the same time these large 
unlimited, unregulated contributions go to the political parties. That 
is wrong. We must stop it.
  Even the opponents of Shays-Meehan earlier today with their 
amendments acknowledge it is a problem. They even offered an amendment 
to ban it. We have made a lot of progress in the last 4 years because 
their amendments prove that we are on a just mission.
  This is the people's House. Civility and respect should rule. My 
colleagues may not want to hear this, but Republicans are not always 
right and Democrats are not always wrong. Neither party has an 
exclusive on integrity or ideas. We need to come together as people of 
goodwill, Democrats and Republicans, who might not agree on any other 
issues and put the people ahead of our parties, ahead of our own 
reelection, ahead of all the lobbying and the special interests and do 
what has not been done in 28 years in the United States of America.
  We need to move this process forward today and beat back the 
amendments because this is the most meaningful reform in a generation, 
and this is the moment. We have been on this mission for a long time. 
Today, together, in a civil and respectful way, we will prevail.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would note that we are not afraid to give up soft money. If it is 
bad next year, it is bad now. Let us do it immediately instead of 
waiting till next year.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) 
for yielding me the time.
  We will have a chance to do what the Shays-Meehan bill did in an 
earlier time, to ban all soft money. It did that, it had random FEC 
audits, it had strong penalties for violators. None of those things are 
there, and one of the things that is there is this huge confusion over 
what can be done with the money that is in the coffers of the parties 
after the November 5 election this year.
  This is what happens when my colleagues file a bill at 10 or 11 
o'clock at night to vote on the next day that did not have committee 
hearings, that everybody says would just be devastated by going through 
the regular process and going through conference.
  There has been a lot of discussion about that, a lot of letters 
flying around, lots of things put on the file. I just received from two 
of the current commissioners of the FEC, David Mason, the chairman, and 
Bradley Smith, the commissioner, a letter indicating their views, not 
the official views of the agency, because they have not met yet; but 
this is the chairman and one of the commissioners.
  This says that ``the transition rule allowing national party 
committees to spend soft money between November 6, 2002, and January 1, 
2003, does not prohibit the use of soft money to pay debts related to 
Federal elections. Because the proposed bill effectively invalidates 
the Federal Election Commission's soft money allocation regulations,'' 
which as they apply to national parties, ``as of the effective date of 
November 6, no rule of the Commission would address how parties could 
use these funds to retire debts.'' Two current commissioners of the FEC 
say in the concluding sentence, ``If Congress wishes to prohibit the 
use of soft money to retire hard money debts during the transition 
period, the legislation should be amended to specify this 
restriction.''
  That is exactly what we have been saying on the floor all day. It is, 
in fact, the case. It opens the door fully to use any soft money that 
can be collected or is in either party's coffers this year to retire 
hard-money debts this year. That may not be what my friends who drafted 
this legislation thought it would mean. Maybe they did not even look at 
this particular provision that was being drafted, but that is what it 
means. Not only does this bill not close the door on soft money in the 
future, it knocks down the door on the impact that soft money would 
have in this election.
  We will see the greatest race for soft money, if this bill passes, 
that we have seen to date. Last cycle, my friends on the Democratic 
side collected more soft money than we did on the Republican side. I 
suppose they could do that again. If they do this in a partisan sense, 
it would make a lot of sense. I cannot believe that would be the result 
they would want the American people to think was the purpose of 
campaign finance reform.
  That is what this bill says. It should have had a hearing. A 
conference would be a good thing. We need to do this in the regular 
order. We are not doing it that way.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the two commissioners and I have a lot of 
dealings with the FEC, but they must have had a very quick reading. The 
fact of the matter is section 441(b) of the Federal Election Campaign 
Act prohibits what they assert the bill allows, and the transition rule 
to which they refer does not affect this provision. So that I fear what 
has happened is they have analyzed the transition provision without 
analyzing existing law which is not changed, which prohibits that which

[[Page 1357]]

the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and others have asserted would happen.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Barrett) and apologize for not having more time to yield.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I stand as a proud supporter 
of the Shays-Meehan bill and congratulate the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) for the fine work that they have done. It is time. It is time 
that we start moving this train for reform forward.
  What we have heard this afternoon is we have heard people who have 
long opposed campaign finance reform come down to this well and try to 
nitpick, try to nitpick at this bill. They are trying to love this bill 
to death, to death because the last thing they want to do is have 
campaign finance reform in this country.
  This bill is not perfect; but for the first time in a generation, we 
are trying to clean up this system.

                              {time}  1530

  I love having people in this country involved in our democracy. It is 
the ultimate participatory sport. But fewer and fewer people believe 
that they can have an impact in our democracy when big money rules the 
day.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time for us to pass this bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for a 
long 45 seconds.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), my friend, raised the 
question earlier why did somebody sign the discharge petition. It is 
the first one I have signed in 14 years in this House, and I was number 
218, precisely for the purpose of giving the American people a full and 
fair discussion about campaign finance.
  Everybody knows what has happened in this institution. It is no 
secret that the Republican leadership is opposed to campaign finance. 
Enron has cast a new day around here.
  This debate appears to be complicated. The task ahead of us is really 
quite simple. The time is now to adopt this legislation. This part of 
our campaign finance season in this House is known for one thing: It is 
search and destroy with soft money. It is not to enlighten. It is to 
eviscerate the public debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest now that we take down the ``For Sale'' 
sign that hangs over this wonderful old House and pass Shays-Meehan. We 
need to move forward with this campaign finance bill.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I, too, rise in strong support of Shays-Meehan.
  This has been going on for 3 or 4 years. We hear statements being 
made such as this bill was drafted at 10 or 11 at night, or there 
should have been committee hearings and whatever. It has been going on 
for a long time. We hear about all the substitutes and whatever, but 
the truth of the matter is that what we have before us is what has been 
worked out by a lot of people who have worked on this bill.
  We cannot revert to the underlying bill here. If we did, it would go 
to conference and the bill would be dead. Instead, we have to face what 
we are doing, and basically in this legislation we are doing things 
that I think need to happen. We are not doing other things which should 
not happen. We are not banning voter guides.
  I disagree entirely with the argument that you can use soft money to 
pay off hard money debts. That is another section entirely of the Code, 
and I hope everybody will take the time to read that carefully. And the 
support for that comes from the Democratic side, I might add.
  There is no limit to free speech here. I have heard that. There is no 
limit whatsoever to free speech. In fact, there are no real changes in 
what we are limiting here. We are just focusing on the methodology by 
which money is paid for campaigns, not what is stated, not free speech. 
That is just an absolutely wrong statement with respect to that.
  This bill basically plays no tricks. What you see is what you get. It 
is taking soft money, the large contributions which have come in from 
corporations, labor unions, wealthy individuals, into the parties, and 
then are spent to their benefit out altogether and is providing for a 
good financial package and good elections.
  We should all support the Shays-Meehan substitute.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of 
the Shays-Meehan bill, as it will help us to clean up our campaign 
financing system.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Ney amendment because it 
deviates from the original Shays-Meehan bill that we supported in the 
House. At this juncture, when we are debating the merits of campaign 
finance reform, it is critical that we send a clear message to the 
American people that we are not pawns of campaign contributors.
  Furthermore, given the cynical attitudes of the American public about 
the affect of campaign contributions on the actions of Representatives, 
we must send a deafening message.
  Notwithstanding our past history of using soft monies to facilitate 
traditional and legitimate Get Out The Vote [GOTV] election-day 
efforts, we are prepared to embrace a clean piece of campaign 
legislation, Shays-Meehan, which will place us on the footpath of 
political integrity.
  Mr. Chairman, we stand on the brink of challenge and change. The 
challenge is whether we will support true campaign finance reform and 
will change the landscape of campaigns; or will we opt to poison the 
well of potential campaign finance reform by supporting poison pill 
amendments. I urge my colleagues to vote down all such amendments and 
support Shays-Meehan. Give full democracy back to the people.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today as an ardent supporter of the Shays-Meehan 
substitute because it is time for this House to pass true campaign 
finance reform.
  We have a unique opportunity to step up to the plate and hit a 
homerun for promoting true change in the way we finance campaigns. The 
American people continue to be cynical about whether their legislators 
are bought by special interests. The path to true reform is being 
blocked by poison pill amendments that if agreed to, would have the 
effect of serving as procedural landmines that will have destroyed 
well-conceived and crafted reform language.
  I urge my colleagues to choose the path of cleaning up our campaign 
finance and encourage them and vote down all poison pill amendments, 
and support the Shays-Meehan substitute.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I likewise request unanimous 
consent to revise and extend my remarks, and I congratulate the 
extraordinary leadership of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) in bringing this 
historic, important bill to the floor. I strongly, strongly support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the bipartisan and common 
sense Shays-Meehan bill.
  The time has come to take the money out of politics and return the 
system to the American people.
  We have passed this legislation twice, and it's time to send it to 
the President.
  Shays-Meehan would prohibit officeholders and candidates from 
soliciting soft money in connection with federal elections and would 
prevent national and state parties from spending soft money on federal 
election activities.
  The legislation also would allow capped soft money contributions to 
state and local parties to be used for limited, non-federal voter 
registration and get-out-the-vote activity.
  Shays-Meehan would bring honesty back to political advertising by 
prohibiting the use of corporate and union treasury money for broadcast 
communications that mention a federal candidate within 60 days of a 
general election or 30 days of a primary.

[[Page 1358]]

  We need only to look at the Enron scandal to see how much access 
money can buy in Washington. Recent media reports have indicated that 
Enron established a cleverly calculated system to determine how much 
money to funnel into the coffers of politicians. If a rule change would 
cost Enron too much money, it was time to get out their wallets.
  Enron donated to many campaigns, and played the lobbying game as well 
as anyone.
  We must accept the hard truth that if there weren't so much money in 
politics, there might be more money in the 401k accounts of Enron 
employees.
  Shays-Meehan will take big money out of politics by ending soft money 
contributions to the national political parties and by bringing honesty 
back to campaign advertising.
  Today, we have the opportunity to pass meaningful campaign finance 
reform.
  However, we can accept no substitutes, alternatives, or poison pill 
amendments, which are all designed to prevent this bill from being 
passed.
  Vote for real reform. Vote for Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  We come to the end of the debate on the central amendment. This is 
the amendment. This is the vote. This is the time when Congress will 
decide whether or not we will have campaign finance reform.
  I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. I ask them to 
take this historic step for the House and for America.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  It was mentioned that this bill has changed slightly at the beginning 
of this debate. This bill is a different species. It has morphed all 
the way through the system. And the sad part about it is that it has 
not done it at the desks of the committees, it has done it in the back 
rooms. We can do communication these days, I guess, in the back rooms 
and change something, but, oh, if we want to do an amendment on the 
floor of the House, it is a poison pill, even if it is a good 
amendment. And that was quoted in the newspapers.
  For my colleagues who want to ban soft money, Shays-Meehan does not 
ban soft money. We can drive an Enron limousine, $60 million worth, 
across this country through this bill. It does not do what the original 
Shays-Meehan did, what they said it would do. So if we want to ban soft 
money, it does not do it.
  It does not ban all the issue ads. It only prohibits broadcast ads. 
It is unconstitutional. An issue ad ban is likely to be struck down. 
Then what are we really going to be stuck with?
  It weakens the national parties, but it makes special interest groups 
and individuals stronger. We have a great two-party system, and any 
other party that wants to come onto the scene in this country will be 
weakened by this bill. They will have to come begging for their 
approval and money from the incumbents.
  It treats House and Senate candidates differently. We have talked 
about that. The charity money-raising that is going to go on here and 
the influence-peddling that can come out of that is going to be 
absolutely amazing. If we truly want to clean the system up, this goes 
in reverse.
  I am asking people to vote ``no,'' because my colleagues are going to 
have some amendments and alternatives in the Ney-Wynn proposal that is 
coming up that has disclosure and the good things I think we need to do 
and which embark upon reform. This does not do it. This is a different 
animal today that we are dealing with.
  Above all, the worst part of this bill, I believe, Mr. Chairman, and 
I hope the American people understand, that as we stand here and debate 
this today is the fact that we have the greatest democracy in the 
world, where people speak out, they say what they want to say, groups 
push either direction for advocacy, for what they think is right in 
this country, but this does gag groups, make no bones about it.
  Groups can spend all the soft money they want in the newspapers. If 
they want to speak for the second amendment from an NRA perspective, if 
they want to speak for gun control, they are going to have a problem. 
Millions of people involved in the labor movement are going to have a 
problem. Millions of people that work in small businesses, the people 
of this country, Mr. Chairman, that go out on the treadmill every day 
trying to figure out how on Earth they are going to feed their families 
and keep their communities going, the people that have a right to speak 
out are going to be gagged.
  I ask my colleagues to look into their hearts. They know we are right 
on these issues. They know this has changed. We can do the right thing. 
We will have some alternatives coming down the road today. That is what 
we need to do, vote ``no'' on this. This is not the same bill. This is 
a sham bill. It has the loopholes; it does not do what we thought it 
was going to do. It does not do what they said it would do last year.
  We need to be able to let the American people speak freely. Do not 
gag Americans. Vote ``no'' on this measure.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss an issue in the Shays-
Meehan bill that has prompted some questions--what fundraising 
activities may federal candidates and officeholders engage in.
  These are important and legitimate questions, and I intend here to 
clarify the lines drawn in the bill. It is a key purpose of the bill to 
stop the use of soft money as a means of buying influence and access 
with federal officials. As an important part of this goal, we have 
taken federal officials, including Members of Congress, out of the 
business of raising soft money for political parties, political 
committees and candidates. Federal candidates and officeholders, 
furthermore, cannot establish or control political committees that 
raise or spend soft money.
  We recognize that Federal officeholders and candidates raise money 
for nonprofit organizations. The bill applies some restrictions to such 
fundraising activities when the principal purpose of the organization 
involves get-out-the-vote and voter registration activities, or where 
the solicitation is specifically for the purpose of the funds being 
used for GOTV and voter registration activities. In addition, federal 
officeholders and candidates cannot raise money for nonprofit 
organizations to use on public communications that mention a federal 
candidate.


                   solicitations for party committees

  The basic rule in the bill is that federal candidates and officials 
cannot raise non-federal (or soft) money donations--that is, funds that 
do not comply with federal contribution limits and source prohibitions.
  Thus, the rule for solicitations by federal officeholders or 
candidates for party committees is simple: federal candidates and 
officeholders cannot solicit soft money funds for any party committee--
national, state or local.
  Federal candidates and officeholders also cannot raise funds in 
connection with a non-Federal election, unless those funds comply with 
federal contribution limits and source prohibitions. Thus, if a Federal 
candidate or officeholder raises money for a state candidate, the 
amounts solicited need to comply with the source and amount limitations 
in federal law.
  This, of course, means that a federal candidate or official can 
continue to solicit hard money for party committees. So a federal 
officeholder can, on behalf of his or her national party committees, 
including their congressional campaign committees, solicit individuals 
for contributions of up to $25,000 per year, or $50,000 per election 
cycle, per committee (subject, of course, to a donor's aggregate hard 
money contribution limit of $57,500 to all party committees in a two-
year cycle).
  A federal official can also solicit individuals for hard money 
donations to state party committees--under the bill of up to $10,000 
per year, or $20,000 per cycle, from an individual subject again to the 
donor's aggregate contribution limit, and up to $5,000 per year or 
$10,000 per cycle from a federal PAC. These funds can be spent by the 
state party for activities in connection with a federal election, 
including for federal election activities.
  A federal official can, in addition, solicit money for a state party 
to spend on non-federal elections, as long as the funds comply with 
federal limits and source prohibitions. This would allow a federal 
official to solicit up to $10,000 a year from an individual, or up to 
$5,000 per year from a PAC, to donate to the state party non-federal 
account, even if that same individual has already given a similar 
amount to the state party hard money account.
  The Levin amendment expressly provides that federal candidates and 
officeholders can not solicit the funds authorized to be spent under 
the Levin amendment.
  Similarly, a federal official can solicit money for state candidates, 
but such solicitations

[[Page 1359]]

would be subject to the federal contribution limits and source 
prohibitions--$2,000 per election from individuals and $5,000 per 
election from PACs, and no contributions from corporations or labor 
unions.


                    solicitations for outside groups

  The bill allows federal officials and candidates to make general 
solicitations without restriction for outside non-profit groups (those 
exempt from taxation under the Internal Revenue Code, such as 501(c)(3) 
and (c)(4) groups), so long as the group is not one with a principal 
purpose of conducting get-out-the-vote or voter registration 
activities, and so long as the money is not solicited specifically for 
the purpose of conducting GOTV and voter registration activities. The 
general solicitation cannot specify how the funds will or should be 
spent.
  An official can also make a solicitation for non-profit groups that 
do principally engage in such voter activities, or for funds 
specifically to be spent for GOTV or voter registration activities, but 
the solicitation must be made only to individuals, and is no more than 
$20,000 per year. An official cannot solicit funds from a corporation 
or labor union for such purposes.
  These restrictions apply to the solicitation of funds by a federal 
candidate or official. A federal official can sit on the board of a 
non-profit or otherwise participate in the activities of the nonprofit, 
so long as he or she was not engaged in raising money for the non-
profit on election-related activities. A federal candidate or 
officeholder cannot direct the expenditure of such funds.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, this is a historical day for this House and 
for this country.
  Today we have the opportunity to limit the scandalous infusion of 
money into the electoral process.
  Our Founding Fathers never foresaw this existing system for 
democratic elections.
  Today we can move closer to the principles of those Founding Fathers.
  Vote for the substitute offered today by Mr. Shays and Mr. Meehan.
  This may be our last best chance.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Shays-
Meehan substitute and want to explain one provision in the bill which 
will clarify campaign finance law with respect to contributions to 
federal candidates by U.S. nationals.
  American Samoa is the only jurisdiction under U.S. authority in which 
a person can be born with the status of U.S. national. A national is a 
person who owes his or her allegiance to the United States, but is not 
a citizen. U.S. nationals travel with U.S. passports and are eligible 
for permanent residence in the United States. They are not foreign 
citizens or foreign nationals. In fact, they have most of the same 
privileges and immunities as U.S. citizens. However, federal campaign 
law was enacted before American Samoa had representation in the U.S. 
Congress and current law fails to address the issue of contributions 
from U.S. nationals.
  Mr. Chairman, federal campaign law currently specifies that U.S. 
citizens and permanent resident foreign nationals may make 
contributions to candidates for federal office. Although there is an 
advisory opinion from the Federal Election Commission which interprets 
current law to allow U.S. nationals to contribute to federal elections, 
a federal court could at any time interpret the law to exclude U.S. 
nationals. Our failure to amend current law could also be interpreted 
to mean that Congress originally intended to prohibit U.S. nationals 
from contributing to federal elections.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe it was or is the intent of Congress, 
or the law, to exclude U.S. nationals from contributing to federal 
campaigns. Congress simply enacted a law before American Samoa had 
representation in the U.S. Congress. Now it is time to amend the law to 
specifically address the issue of U.S. nationals. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to support this technical change in any bill which moves 
forward.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, today we are casting historic votes on the 
most important campaign finance reforms since the Watergate reforms of 
25 years ago.
  Today, we will finally have the opportunity to eradicate the biggest 
cancer on the federal campaign finance system--soft money.
  Shays-Meehan will go a long way in reducing the disproportionate and 
undue influence of unregulated and unlimited soft money.
  We should pass this common-sense reform legislation to restore 
people's trust in the system and give the American people a bigger 
voice in their government.
  Mr. Chairman, let's get real honest for a minute! The truth is that 
both political parties are addicted to soft money, and campaign finance 
reform gives both parties heartburn.
  But the political parties will survive and continue to flourish with 
these reforms, and public faith in the political process will be 
enhanced.
  Let's do the right thing! Let's rid the system of unregulated, 
unlimited soft money. Let's pass Shays-Meehan.
  The American people deserve nothing less!
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss one of the key sections of 
the Shays-Meehan substitute, the soft money provisions relating to 
national and state parties. The state party provisions contain a 
section, commonly referred to as the Levin amendment, that I want to 
take this opportunity to explain. In addition, some who oppose campaign 
finance reform characterize the Levin amendment as a major loophole in 
the Shays-Meehan substitute. They are wrong. This discussion is 
intended to spell out what the Levin amendment does and does not allow.


         shays-meehan's treatment of national party soft money

  The soft money provisions of the Shays-Meehan bill regarding the 
national political parties operate in a straight-forward way. The 
national parties are prohibited entirely from raising or spending any 
soft money. At the national party level, the ban on soft money is 
complete. This ban covers not only the national party committees 
themselves, but also the congressional campaign committees of the 
national parties. And it covers any officer or agent acting on behalf 
of the national party committees, as well as any entity that is 
established, financed, maintained or controlled by a national party 
committee.
  The purpose of these provisions is simple: to put the national 
parties entirely out of the soft money business. The provision is 
intended to be comprehensive at the national party level. Simply put, 
the national parties, and anyone operating for or on behalf of them, 
are not to raise or spend, nor to direct or control, soft money. This 
ban covers all activities of the national parties, even those that 
might appear to affect only non-federal elections. Because the national 
parties operate at the national level, and are inextricably intertwined 
with federal officeholders and candidates, who raise the money for the 
national party committees, there is a close connection between the 
funding of the national parties and the corrupting dangers of soft 
money on the federal political process. The only effective way to 
address this problem of corruption is to ban entirely all raising and 
spending of soft money by the national parties.


           shays-meehan's treatment of state party soft money

  The treatment of the state parties is different. This is because 
state parties obviously engage in activities which are purely directed 
to non-federal elections. The Shays-Meehan bill does not regulate the 
kind of money that can be raised by the state parties. That is left to 
state law. What the bill does do is direct the state parties to spend 
only hard money on those activities which affect, even in part, federal 
elections. This is necessary to prevent blatant evasion of the federal 
campaign finance laws.
  This approach is in many ways similar to current law. Currently, if a 
state party engages in activity that directly affects federal 
elections--such as running an ad that says ``vote for Congressman 
Smith''--the state party would be required to spend hard money on these 
activities. Similarly, if the state party engages in activity that 
purely affects state elections--such as an ad that says ``vote for 
Governor Smith''--it could spend whatever non-federal money is 
permitted under state law.
  The Shays-Meehan bill does not change either one of these 
propositions.
  But there is a range of activities that state parties engage in that, 
by their very nature, affect both federal and non-federal elections. 
These are the familiar ``party building activities,'' such as get-out-
the vote drives or voter registration drives. These activities--
registering voters to vote in elections that have both federal and non-
federal candidates, or engaging in activities designed to bring them to 
the polls to vote for federal and non-federal candidates--clearly have 
an impact on both federal and non-federal elections.
  Under current law, state parties pay for these ``mixed'' activities 
using a mixture of both hard and soft money pursuant to allocation 
formulae set by the Federal Election Commission. But these allocation 
rules have proven wholly inadequate to guard against the use of soft 
money to influence federal campaigns. Much state party ``party building 
activity'' is directed principally to influence federal elections, and 
all of the party voter activity inevitably does have a substantial 
impact on federal campaigns. Further, the state parties run TV and 
radio ads, purportedly as ``issue ads,'' that directly praise or 
criticize federal candidates by name without using words like ``vote 
for'' or ``vote against''--and the FEC has taken the unrealistic 
position that such ads have an impact on both federal and non-federal 
elections, and should accordingly be funded with an allocated mixture 
of hard and soft money.

[[Page 1360]]

  The Shays-Meehan bill addresses these problems by simply applying the 
principle of current law--that state parties must use solely hard money 
to pay for activities that affect federal elections--to a category of 
activities which clearly affect federal elections and which the bill 
defines as ``federal election activities.'' Section 101(b) of the bill 
defines these activities as the following:
  (i) Voter registration activity in the last four months before a 
Federal election.
  (ii) Voter identification, GOTV, and generic campaign activity (i.e., 
activity relating to a party not a specific candidate) that is 
conducted in an election in which a Federal candidate appears on the 
ballot.
  (iii) Public communications (also a defined term that includes 
communications by radio, TV, newspapers, phone banks and other methods 
of public political advertising) that refer to a clearly identified 
Federal candidate and that promotes or supports, or attacks or opposes, 
a federal candidate for that office.
  (iv) Services provided by employees of a state or local party who 
spend more than 25 percent of their compensated time on Federal 
elections.
  This definition of ``Federal election activities'' is significant 
because in section 101(a) of the bill (new section 323(b) of the Act), 
there is a requirement that state parties spend only Federal money 
(hard money) on ``Federal election activities.'' That is how the Shays-
Meehan bill prevents soft money from being injected into federal races 
through the state parties.
  Again, the bill does not restrict fundraising by state parties. That 
is left as a matter of state law. But it does say to the state parties 
that when they spend money on activities that affect federal elections, 
including the defined category of ``Federal election activities,'' they 
must spend solely hard money for those activities.
  The lack of a state party soft money provision is a fundamental 
shortcoming of the proposal of Mr. Ney and Mr. Wynn. The restrictions 
on state parties using soft money to influence federal elections is one 
of the most important features of the Shays-Meehan bill. Much of the 
soft money being raised today by the national parties is transferred to 
state parties to be spent on activities that influence federal 
elections. An effective effort to address state party soft money 
spending to influence federal elections is absolutely essential to real 
campaign finance reform and solving the soft money problem.


                          The Levin Amendment

  Critics have contended that the state parties should not be prevented 
from spending money that is legal in their state on activities that are 
designed to improve voter turnout and assist state candidates in a 
state election. When the McCain-Feingold bill was considered in the 
Senate last year. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, a long-time and 
strong supporter of the bill, worked with the sponsors of the 
legislation to craft a provision to allow limited spending of soft 
money by state parties on a limited subset of state party activities. 
On the Senate floor, Senator Levin explained that his amendment:

       . . . will allow the use of some non-Federal dollars by 
     State parties for voter registration and get out the vote, 
     where the contributions are allowed by State law, where there 
     is no reference to Federal candidates, where limited to 
     $10,000 of the contribution which is allowed by State law, 
     and where the allocation between Federal and non-Federal 
     dollars is set by the Federal Election Commission.

  Senator Levin also specified: ``These are dollars not raised through 
any effort on the part of Federal officeholders, Federal candidates, or 
national parties. These are non-Federal dollars allowed by State law.''


             Changes to the Levin Amendment in shays-Meehan

  In addressing the Levin amendment in our substitute, the sponsors of 
the Shays-Meehan bill wanted to accomplish two things. First, we wanted 
to respect the original intent and purpose of the Levin amendment. 
Second, we wanted to make sure that it did not create a new loophole 
for corporations, unions, wealthy individuals to exploit. In our view, 
those purposes were not in conflict, since Senator Levin made it clear 
it was not his intent to undermine the campaign finance reform effort, 
but only to support legitimate state party activities that promote 
voter participation by allowing a limited amount of non-federal money 
to be used for those purposes.
  The changes in the Levin amendment incorporated in our substitute 
have been agreed on with the sponsors of the Senate bill. They do not 
change the essential thrust of the Levin amendment, but they do provide 
additional restrictions to help ensure that the amendment will not 
become a new loophole in the law.


                 description of revised levin amendment

  With that background in mind, let me describe the Levin amendment, as 
modified in the Shays-Meehan substitute. New section 323(b)(2)(A) of 
the FECA permits state parties to spend non-federal money (soft money) 
on certain Federal election activities, as long as the spending is made 
up of both Federal money (hard money) and soft money in a ratio to be 
prescribed by the FEC. The activities that state and local parties can 
pay for under this exception are voter registration in the last 120 
days prior to an election, and certain GOTV and other activities 
specified in new section 301(20)(A)(ii).
  Under new section 323(b)(2)(B)(i), the exception applies only if the 
activity paid for does not refer to a clearly identified Federal 
candidate. In addition, under new section 323(b)(2)(B)(ii), the 
exception does not apply to any activity that involves a broadcast, 
cable or satellite communication, unless that communication refers only 
to state and local candidates. In other words, GOTV efforts paid for in 
part with so-called ``Levin money'' may mention state or local 
candidates or contain a generic party message, but they cannot mention 
Federal candidates. And if these efforts are carried out through radio 
or TV ads they must mention clearly identified state or local 
candidates only, or they will be subject to the state party soft money 
restrictions and no ``Levin money'' can be used. To be clear, ``Levin 
money'' cannot be used by state parties to pay for broadcast ads that 
mention federal candidates.
  In addition, the soft money or ``Levin money'' portion of the 
spending is subject to a number of restrictions. Under new section 
323(b)(2)(B)(iii), it must be legally raised under state law, and no 
person can give more than $10,000 per year to a individual state or 
local committee, even if state law permits greater contributions. So if 
a state allows direct corporate or labor union contributions to 
political parties corporations and unions can make contributions of up 
to $10,000 or the state limit, whichever is lower, to the party 
committee each year. Obviously, if a state prohibits corporate or labor 
union contributions to political parties, the Levin amendment does not 
supersede that prohibition, and corporate or union contributions of 
``Levin money' would be banned.
  After the Senate passed the Levin amendment, the question arose 
whether the amendment was intended to limit a donor to a single $10,000 
contribution to all of the non-Federal political committees in a state, 
or to permit separate contributions to the state committee and local 
committees. Since the Senate appears to have intended that there is not 
a single per donor limit on all contributions to party committees in a 
state, further restrictions on the raising and spending of ``Levin 
money'' by the committees are imposed in order to prevent the Levin 
amendment from becoming a new loophole.
  Accordingly, under new section 323(b)(2)(B)(iv), the version of the 
amendment contained in the Shays-Meehan substitute, all of the non-
Federal and Federal money spent on the activities authorized by the 
Levin amendment must be raised solely by the committee doing the 
spending. Transfers of money between committees are not permitted. 
Thus, a county committee of a political party may accept a $10,000 
contribution, but it must raise and spend that money itself, and it 
cannot work with any other party committee in raising or spending that 
money. It cannot transfer that money to the state committee. 
Furthermore, it must itself raise the hard money allocation required by 
the FEC, and it may not accept a transfer of hard money from a state or 
national party committee to satisfy that allocation requirement.
  Finally, and very importantly, in new section 323(b)(2)(C), we affirm 
that federal candidates or officeholders and the national parties may 
not participate in the raising or spending of the soft money that is 
permitted to be spent under the Levin amendment. In addition, joint 
fundraisers between state committees or state and local committees are 
not permitted. Prohibiting Members of Congress and Executive Branch 
officials from being involved in soft money fundraising is one of the 
central purposes of the campaign finance reform effort. Consistent with 
Senator Levin's original intent, this new provision will ensure that 
that central purpose of the bill is not undermined. The joint 
fundraising prohibition will prevent a single fundraiser for multiple 
state and local party committees.
  Mr. Chairman, let me address two additional questions that have 
arisen as to the interpretation of the Levin amendment. First, the 
$10,000 per year limit applies collectively to a corporation and its 
subsidiaries, and to a union and its locals, in the same way as 
contributions from PACS set up by subsidiaries and local unions are 
treated under current law. See 2 U.S.C. Sec. 441a(a)(5). To allow a 
separate contribution limit to apply to subsidiaries of a corporation 
or locals of a union would

[[Page 1361]]

completely undermine the $10,000 limit as a check against the Levin 
amendment being used to continue the unlimited contributions that the 
soft money system now permits.
  Second, while state and local committees may accept separate 
contributions of up to $10,000 per year from donors permitted to give 
that much under state law, state and local committees are not allowed 
to create their own multiple subsidiary committees to raise separate 
$10,000 contributions under this provision. The proliferation of new 
state party committees (e.g., the Northern California Republican Party 
Committee, the Southern California Party Committee or the New York 
Democratic Committee A, Committee B, Committee C, etc.) would be in 
complete contradiction to the provision, which allows only limited 
amounts of non-federal money to be given to a state or local committee 
for limited party-building activities that do not refer to federal 
candidates.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, today, at long last, the House of 
Representatives will finally get a fair vote on campaign finance reform 
legislation. In order to reach this point, 218 Members had to sign a 
discharge petition to force the anti-reform Republican leadership to 
bring this measure to the floor for a debate and hopefully passage. 
H.R. 2356, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001, is necessary if 
we are to remove the undue influence of soft money on our political 
process and the unregulated issue advertisements that inundate our 
airwaves during each election season.
  When Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 
it included a provision that allowed national political parties to use 
unregulated contributions, ``soft money,'' for generic party-building 
activities such as get-out-the-vote drives and voter registration 
efforts. Initially, the parties adhered to the restrictions on the use 
of soft money, but soon began shifting soft money contributions to 
state parties to be used for paid television and radio campaign 
advertisements. Under FECA, such advertisements were supposed to be 
paid for by regulated hard money that is raised through limited 
contributions to political parties and candidates.
  We have recently seen an unacceptable increase in the amount of soft 
money used in campaigns. In the year 2000 elections alone, $495 million 
in soft money was spent by the parties, an amount that is nearly double 
the $262 million spent four years earlier. The steadily increasing use 
of soft money to skirt federal campaign contribution laws has given it 
a growing role in our system of elections that cannot be allowed to 
continue.
  An equally troubling aspect of today's campaign system is the number 
of issue advertisements broadcast on the television and radio. Although 
these ads technically adhere to federal campaign regulations, they 
violate the spirit of the law. Issue ads are supposed to be used to 
discuss issues of legislation, not to attack or support candidates, 
like they often do today. Through this loophole, corporations, unions, 
and other organizations have avoided federal reporting and disclosure 
laws by running ads that avoid the magic words ``vote for,'' ``vote 
against,'' ``support,'' and ``defeat.'' Since the ads are technically 
campaign ads, the people paying for them do not need to identify 
themselves or their supporters, which is contrary to the basic tenets 
of campaign-finance regulations.
  H.R. 2356 would fill in the gaps left by FECA. First, it would ban 
all national party use of soft money. In order to ensure that get-out-
the-vote drives and other genuinely generic party activities are not 
hindered, it would allow state and local parties to spend soft money on 
these activities. Individuals, corporations, and labor unions can give 
$10,000 in soft money to party committees organized at the state, 
county, and local level for these legitimate efforts.
  H.R. 2356 would also prevent corporations and organizations from 
skirting the law with unregulated issue advertisements by requiring 
that all campaign ads for federal office be paid for with publicly 
disclosed and regulated campaign funds that are subject to federal 
contribution limits. This would be achieved by expanding the definition 
of ``campaign advertisement'' to include any ads that clearly identify 
a federal candidate made within 60 days of a general election or 30 
days of a primary and are targeted to that candidate's electorate.
  Some of my colleagues claim that these regulations would violate the 
freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. That is simply 
untrue. Corporations, labor unions, and other organizations would still 
be permitted to use any funds they have to run ads that discuss issues 
of legislation, so long as they do not specifically refer to a 
candidate for federal office. If they do mention a candidate by name, 
all they have to do is to use hard money, which is regulated, subject 
to contribution limits and disclosure laws. These groups may also fund 
advertisements that do attack or support a specific candidate, the only 
requirement being that they do so through the established regulated 
process using hard money donations to their political action 
committees.
  This bill would also retain several important hard money contribution 
limits. Individuals would still be permitted to contribute only $1000 
per election to candidates for the House of Representatives and 
political action committees would be restricted to the current $5000 
per election limit.
  This day has been a long time coming. We need to reduce the influence 
of unregulated money which has been flowing at an increasing rate into 
our political system. H.R. 2356 reigns in soft money and issue 
advertising that has operated outside the framework of our campaign-
finance laws. I urge my colleagues to support the amendments that the 
reform measure's authors must offer in order to get the complete bill 
to the floor under the GOP leadership's rule. Similarly, I urge Members 
to oppose those ``poison pill'' amendments designed to kill the bill, 
and instead support final passage of this important measure.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the scope of an exception 
to the definition of ``electioneering communications'' set out in 
section 201(3)(B), which include (i) news distributed by broadcast 
stations that are not owned or controlled by a candidate, (ii) 
independent expenditures, (iii) candidate debates and forums and (iv) 
``any other communication exempted under such regulations as the 
Commission may promulgate .  .  . to ensure appropriate implementation 
of this paragraph.'' I wish to discuss the purpose of the fourth 
exception.
  The definition of ``electioneering communication'' is a bright line 
test covering all broadcast, satellite and cable communications that 
refer to a clearly identified federal candidate and that are made 
within the immediate pre-election period of 60 days before a general 
election or 30 days before a primary. But it is possible that there 
could be some communications that will fall within this definition even 
though they are plainly and unquestionably not related to the election.
  Section 201(3)(B)(iv) was added to the bill to provide Commission 
with some limited discretion in administering the statute so that it 
can issue regulations to exempt such communications from the definition 
of ``electioneering communications'' because they are wholly unrelated 
to an election.
  For instance, if a church that regularly broadcasts its religious 
services does so in the pre-election period and mentions in passing and 
as part of its service the name of an elected official who is also a 
candidate, and the Commission can reasonably conclude that the routine 
and incidental mention of the official does not promote his candidacy, 
the Commission could promulgate a rule to exempt that type of 
communication from the definition of ``electioneering communications.'' 
There could be other examples where the Commission could conclude that 
the broadcast communication in the immediate pre-election period does 
not in any way promote or support any candidate, or oppose his 
opponent.
  Charities exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the 
Internal Revenue Code are prohibited by existing tax law from 
supporting or opposing candidates for elective office. Notwithstanding 
this prohibition, some such charities have run ads in the guise of so-
called ``issue advocacy'' that clearly have had the effect of promoting 
or opposing federal candidates. Because of these cases, we do not 
intend that Section 201(3)(B)(iv) be used by the FEC to create any per 
se exemption from the definition of ``electioneering communications'' 
for speech by Section 501(c)(3) charities. Nor do we indent that 
Section 201(3)(B)(iv) apply only to communications by section 501(c)(3) 
charities.
  But we do urge the FEC to take cognizance of the standards that have 
been developed by the IRS in administering the law governing Section 
501(c)(3) charities, and to determine the standards, if any, that can 
be applied to exempt specific categories of speech where it is clear 
that such communications are made in a manner that is neutral in 
nature, wholly unrelated to an election, and cannot be used to promote 
or attack any federal candidates.
  We urge the Commission to exercise this rulemaking power within 90 
days of the effective date of the bill. We also expect the Commission 
to use its Advisory Opinion process to address these situations both 
before and after the issuance of regulations.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

[[Page 1362]]

  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
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 240, 
noes 191, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 21]

                               AYES--240

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Phelps
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--191

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Walden
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cubin
     Riley
     Traficant

                              {time}  1607

  Ms. HART and Mr. SKEEN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the substitute is finally adopted.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Largent was allowed to speak out of 
order.)


                            Farewell Remarks

  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, this being my last week to serve in 
Congress, I wanted to make just a brief statement to my friends and 
colleagues.
  Last week my youngest son Kramer completed an essay on Mark Twain. I 
was struck by how many facts about Mark Twain's life reminded me of my 
7 years in Congress. Samuel Clemens was born at the appearance of 
Halley's Comet in 1835 and died the next time it came around in 1910. I 
thought about that as I prepare to cast my last vote in Congress on 
campaign finance reform and harken back to the days of 1994 when the 
first vote I cast was on GATT, the last vote of the 103rd Congress.
  In my son's report I also learned something I did not know, that 
Samuel Clemens' alias, Mark Twain, was actually a nautical term that 
was used by riverboat crews, and it denoted two fathoms, or 12 feet, 
the depth necessary for safe passage.
  We in Congress often refer to our Nation as our ship of state, and we 
hear pollsters ask questions to voters, do you think that the ship is 
headed in the right direction or the wrong direction? I ran for 
Congress in 1994 because I believed our country was headed in the wrong 
direction, and I wanted to make a difference, like most of you, the 
reason that you ran.
  Now, 7 years later, I believe that together we have worked to move 
our country into safer waters. We worked together to balance the 
budget, we overhauled welfare, we cut taxes, we strengthened the 
military together, we deregulated telecommunications and repealed 
Glass-Steagall.
  Yes, much good has been accomplished the last 7 years, but as we all 
know, there are always potentially treacherous waters around the next 
bend. The long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare, the 
unrestrained growth of government spending and the ongoing war on 
terrorism are all shoals upon which we could run aground.
  As I leave Congress, I wish to thank you all for the gift of your 
wisdom, your guidance and your friendship that you have given me, and I 
want to thank you all for your service to our great country. I admire 
and respect each of you. Early on I have to admit that I sometimes felt 
frustrated when some of you did not think like I did. Though we will 
always have different points of view in this body, I have come to 
appreciate the fact that many of you hold thoughtful and principled 
positions that differ from my own. I recognize that our divergent views 
on the left and right, among Democrats and Republicans, southerners and 
northerners, those representing the east coast and the west coast, are 
a great strength of this Congress. The right course and safe passage 
for the Nation is not the exclusive property of either side.
  Serving with you all in this esteemed body has been the greatest 
honor and the greatest privilege that I have ever known. I want to 
thank the great Oklahomans who entrusted me with this

[[Page 1363]]

rare privilege, and I thank you, my friends and colleagues, for your 
efforts to serve our Nation. I will never forget this 7-year journey.
  As I return to my home State to seek the office of Governor, I will 
continue to pray for each of you. I will pray that God would grant you 
insight as you help our Nation navigate through the challenges ahead. 
Thank you, and may God bless you and our great Nation.

                              {time}  1615

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to the order of 
the House of Tuesday, February 12, 2002, it is now in order to consider 
an amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).


                  Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Hyde

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the majority leader, I 
offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 32 offered by Mr. Hyde:
       Add at the end the following title:

          TITLE VI--NO RESTRICTIONS ON FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

     SEC. 601. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The First Amendment to the United States Constitution 
     states that, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an 
     establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 
     thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; 
     or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to 
     petition the Government for a redress of grievances.''
       (2) The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to 
     such political expression in order ``to assure [the] 
     unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of 
     political and social changes desired by the people. Roth v. 
     United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957).
       (3) According to Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 
     (1966), there is practically universal agreement that a major 
     purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion 
     of governmental affairs, ``. . . of course including[ing] 
     discussions of candidates . . .''.
       (4) According to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 
     254, 270 (1964), the First Amendment reflects our ``profound 
     national commitment to the principle that debate on public 
     issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open''. In a 
     republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the 
     citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for 
     office is essential, for the identities of those who are 
     elected will inevitably shape the course that we follow as a 
     nation.
       (5) The First Amendment protects political association as 
     well as political expression. The constitutional right of 
     association explicated in NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 460 
     (1958), stemmed from the Court's recognition that 
     ``[e]ffective advocacy of both public and private points of 
     view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced 
     by group association.'' Subsequent decisions have made clear 
     that the First and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee ``freedom 
     to associate with others for the common advancement of 
     political beliefs and ideas,'' a freedom that encompasses 
     ```[t]he right to associate with the political party of one's 
     choice.''' Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 56, 57, quoted in 
     Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477, 487 (1975).
       (6) In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court stated, ``A 
     restriction on the amount of money a person or group can 
     spend on political communication during a campaign 
     necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting 
     the number of issues discussed, the depth of their 
     exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is 
     because virtually every means of communicating ideas in 
     today's mass society requires the expenditure of money. The 
     distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails 
     printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies 
     generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the 
     event. The electorate's increasing dependence on television, 
     radio, and other mass media for news and information has made 
     these expensive modes of communication indispensable 
     instruments of effective political speech.''.
       (7) In response to the relentlessly repeated claim that 
     campaign spending has skyrocketed and should be legislatively 
     restrained, the Buckley Court stated that the First Amendment 
     denied the government the power to make that determination: 
     ``In the free society ordained by our Constitution, it is not 
     the government but the people--individually as citizens and 
     candidates and collectively as associations and political 
     committees--who must retain control over the quantity and 
     range of debate on public issues in a political campaign.''.
       (8) In Buckley, the Court also stated, ``The concept that 
     government may restrict the speech of some elements of our 
     society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is 
     wholly foreign to the First Amendment, which was designed `to 
     secure the widest possible dissemination of information from 
     diverse and antagonistic sources,' and `to assure unfettered 
     exchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and 
     societal changes desired by the people'''.
       (9) The courts of the United States have consistently 
     reaffirmed and applied the teachings of Buckley, striking 
     down such government overreaching. The courts of the United 
     States have consistently upheld the rights of the citizens of 
     the United States, candidates for public office, political 
     parties, corporations, labor unions, trade associations, non-
     profit entities, among others. Such decisions provide a very 
     clear line as to what the government can and cannot do with 
     respect to the regulation of campaigns. See Federal Election 
     Comm'n v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 
     (1986); Federal Election Comm'n v. National Conservative 
     Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480 (1985); California 
     Medical Assn. v. Federal Election Comm'n, 453 U.S. 182 
     (1981).
       (10) The FEC has lost time and time again in court 
     attempting to move away from the express advocacy bright line 
     test of Buckley v. Valeo. In fact, in some cases, the FEC has 
     had to pay fees and costs because the theory is frivolous. 
     See FEC v. Christian Action Network, 110 F.3d 1049 (4th Cir. 
     1997), aff'g 894 F. Supp. 946 (W.D.Va. 1995); Maine Right to 
     Life Comm. v. FEC, 914 F. Supp. 8 (D.Me. 1996), aff'd 98 F.3d 
     1 (1st Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 52 (1997); 
     Clifton v. FEC, 114 F.3d 1309 (1st Cir. 1997); Faucher v. 
     FEC, 928 F.2d 468, 472 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 820 
     (1991); FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm., 
     839 F. Supp. 1448 (D. Co.), rev'd on other grounds, 59 F.3d 
     1015 (10th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 116 S. Ct. 2309 
     (1996); FEC v. Central Long Island Tax Reform Immediately 
     Comm., 616 F.2d 45, 53 (2d Cir. 1980); Minnesota Citizens 
     Concerned for Life, Inc. v. FEC, 936 F. Supp. 633 (D. Minn. 
     1996), aff'd 113 F.3d 129 (8th Cir. 1997), reh'g. en banc 
     denied, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 17528; West Virginians for Life, 
     Inc. v. Smith, 960 F. Supp. 1036, 1039 (S.D.W.Va. 1996); FEC 
     v. Survival Education Fund, 1994 U.S. Dist. Lexis 210 
     (S.D.N.Y. 1994), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 65 F.3d 285 
     (2nd Cir. 1995); FEC v. National Organization for Women, 713 
     F. Supp. 428, 433-34 (D.D.C. 1989); FEC v. American 
     Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, 471 F. 
     Supp. 315, 316-17 (D.D.C. 1979). Even the FEC abandoned the 
     ``electioneering communication'' standard soon after the 1996 
     election due to its vagueness.
       (11) The courts have also repeatedly upheld the rights of 
     political party committees. As Justice Kennedy noted: ``The 
     central holding in Buckley v. Valeo is that spending money on 
     one's own speech must be permitted, and that this is what 
     political parties do when they make expenditures FECA 
     restricts.'' Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign Comm. v. Federal 
     Election Comm'n, 518 U.S. 604, 627 (1996) (J. Kennedy, 
     concurring). Justice Thomas added: ``As applied in the 
     specific context of campaign funding by political parties, 
     the anticorruption rationale loses its force. See Nahra, 
     Political Parties and the Campaign Finance Laws: Dilemmas, 
     Concerns and Opportunities, 56 Ford L. Rev. 53, 105-106 
     (1987). What could it mean for a party to `corrupt' its 
     candidates or to exercise `coercive' influence over him? The 
     very aim of a political party is to influence its candidate's 
     stance on issues and, if the candidate takes office or is 
     reelected, his votes. When political parties achieve that 
     aim, that achievement does not, in my view, constitute `a 
     subversion of the political process.' Federal Election Comm'n 
     v. NCPAC, 470 U.S. at 497. For instance, if the Democratic 
     Party spends large sums of money in support of a candidate 
     who wins, takes office, and then implements the Party's 
     platform, that is not corruption; that is successful advocacy 
     of ideas in the political marketplace and representative 
     government in a party system. To borrow a phrase from Federal 
     Election Comm'n v. NCPAC, `the fact that candidates and 
     elected officials may alter or reaffirm their own positions 
     on issues in response to political messages paid for by 
     [political groups] can hardly be called corruption, for one 
     of the essential features of democracy is the presentation of 
     the electorate of varying points of view.' Id. at 498. Cf. 
     Federal Election Comm'n v. MCFL, 479 U.S. at 263 (suggesting 
     that `[v]oluntary political associations do not . . . present 
     the specter of corruption').''. Colo. Republican Fed. 
     Campaign Comm. v. Federal Election Comm'n, 518 U.S. 604, 647 
     (1996) (J. Thomas, concurring). Justice Thomas continued: 
     ``The structure of political parties is such that the 
     theoretical danger of those groups actually engaging in quid 
     pro quos with candidates is significantly less than the 
     threat of individuals or other groups doing so. See Nahra, 
     Political Parties and the Campaign Finance Laws: Dilemmas, 
     Concerns and Opportunities, 56 Ford L. Rev. 53, 97-98 (1987) 
     (citing F. Sorauf, Party Politics in America 15-18 (5th ed. 
     1984)). American political parties, generally speaking, have 
     numerous members with a wide variety of interests, features 
     necessary for success in majoritarian elections. 
     Consequently, the influence of any one person or the 
     importance of any single issue within a political party is 
     significantly diffused. For this reason, as the Party's amici 
     argue, see Brief for Committee for Party Renewal et al. as 
     Amicus Curiae 16, campaign funds donated by

[[Page 1364]]

     parties are considered to be some of `the cleanest money in 
     politics.' J. Bibby, Campaign Finance Reform, 6 Commonsense 
     1, 10 (Dec. 1983). And, as long as the Court continues to 
     permit Congress to subject individuals to limits on the 
     amount they can give to parties, and those limits are uniform 
     as to all donors, see 2 U.S.C. section 441a(a)(1), there is 
     little risk that an individual donor could use a party as a 
     conduit for bribing candidates. Id.''.
       (12) As recently as 2000, the Supreme Court reminded us 
     once again of the vital role that political parties play on 
     our democratic life, by serving as the primary vehicles for 
     the political views and voices of millions and millions of 
     Americans. ``Representative democracy in any populous unit of 
     governance is unimaginable without the ability of citizens to 
     band together in promoting the electoral candidates who 
     espouse their political views. The formation of national 
     political parties was almost concurrent with the formation of 
     the Republic itself.'' California Democratic Party v. Jones, 
     530 U.S. 567 (2000). Moreover, just last year, a Federal 
     court struck down a state law that included a so-called 
     ``soft money ban,'' which in reality was a ban on corporate 
     and union contributions to political parties--which as a 
     factual matter is correct. The Anchorage Daily News reported:
       (13) A Federal judge says corporations and unions have a 
     constitutional right to give unlimited amounts of ``soft 
     money'' to political parties, so long as none of the money is 
     used to get specific candidates elected. In a decision dated 
     June 11, U.S. District Judge James Singleton struck down a 
     section of Alaska's 1997 political contributions law that 
     barred corporations, unions and other businesses from 
     contributing any money to political candidates or parties. 
     The ban against corporate contributions to individual 
     candidates is fine, Singleton said. Public concern about the 
     corrupting influence or corporate contributions on a specific 
     candidate is legitimate and important enough to somewhat 
     limit freedom of speech and political association, the judge 
     concluded. But contributions to the noncandidate work of a 
     political party do not raise undue influence issues and 
     therefore may not be restricted, the judge concluded.
       (14) Sheila Toomey, Anchorage Daily News (June 14, 2001) 
     (reporting on Kenneth P. Jacobus, et al. vs. State of Alaska, 
     et al., No. A97-0272 (D. Alaska filed June 11, 2001).
       (15) Nor is speech any less protected by the First 
     Amendment simply because the one making the speech contacted 
     or communicated with others. For some time, the Federal 
     Election Commission held the view that such ``coordination'' 
     (an undefined term), even of communications that did not 
     contain express advocacy, somehow was problematic, and 
     subject to the limitations and prohibitions of the Act. This 
     view has been rejected by the courts. Federal Election 
     Commission v. Christian Coalition, 52 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C. 
     1999). In fact, lower Federal courts have held that even 
     political party committee limits on coordinated expenditures 
     are an unconstitutional restriction on speech. Federal 
     Election Commission v. Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign Comm., 
     213 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2000). Unless a party committee's 
     expenditure is the functional equivalent of a contribution 
     (and thus not ``coordinated''), it cannot be limited. See 
     Federal Election Commission v. Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign 
     Comm., 150 L.Ed.2d 461, nt. 17, nt. 2 (J. Thomas, dissenting) 
     (2001). As a factual matter, many party committee 
     ``coordinated'' expenditures are not the functional 
     equivalent of contributions. See Amicus Curie Brief of the 
     National Republican Congressional Committee, Federal Election 
     Commission v. Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign Comm., 150 
     L.Ed.2d 461 (2001).
       (16) Commentators, legal experts and testimony in the 
     record echoes the need to be mindful of the First Amendment. 
     Whether it is the American Civil Liberties Union, see March 
     10, 2001 ACLU Letter to Senate (and all cases cited therein) 
     & June 14, 2001 ACLU testimony before the House 
     Administration Committee (and cases cited therein), or the 
     counsel to the National Right to Life Committee and the 
     Christian Coalition, see June 14, 2001 testimony of James 
     Bopp before the House Administration Committee (and cases 
     cited therein), experts across the political spectrum have 
     thoughtfully explained the need to ensure the First Amendment 
     rights of citizens of this country.
       (17) Citizens who have an interest in issues have the 
     Constitutional right to criticize or praise their elected 
     officials individually or collectively as a group. 
     Communication in the form of criticism or praise of elected 
     officials is preciously protected as free speech under the 
     First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
       (18) This Act contains restrictions on the rights of 
     citizens, either individually or collectively, to communicate 
     with or about their elected representatives and to the 
     general public. Such restrictions would stifle and suppress 
     individual and group advocacy pertaining to politics and 
     government--the political expression at the core of the 
     electoral process and of First Amendment freedoms--the very 
     engine of democracy. Such restrictions also hinder citizens' 
     ability to communicate their support or opposition on issues 
     to their elected officials and the general public.
       (19) Candidate campaigns and issue campaigns are the 
     primary vehicles for giving voice to popular grievances, 
     raising issues and proposing solutions. An election, and the 
     time leading up to it, is when political speech should be at 
     its most robust and unfettered.

     SEC. 602. NO RESTRICTIONS ON FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

       Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, and in 
     recognition of the First Amendment to the United States 
     Constitution, nothing in this Act or in any amendment made by 
     this Act may be construed to abridge those freedoms found in 
     that Amendment, specifically the freedom of speech or of the 
     press, or the right of people to peaceably assemble, and to 
     petition the government for a redress of grievances, 
     consistent with the rulings of the courts of the United 
     States (as provided in section 601).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
344, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and a Member opposed each 
will control 10 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) seek to control the time 
in opposition?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) 
will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, with the passage of the Shays-Meehan 
substitute all the suspense seems to have gone out of this controversy, 
and all I have to look forward to is the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank) berating me for not being a charter member of the Earl 
Warren Fan Club, and I await his bashes with mild interest.
  Mr. Chairman, since some of us feel that the first amendment is in 
jeopardy, nonetheless, rereading the first amendment of our 
Constitution might be therapeutic. ``Congress shall make no law,'' no 
law, emphasis my own, ``respecting an establishment of religion, or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of 
speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceably 
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.''
  Now, the amendment I am offering consists of 14 pages. The first 13 
are a listing of findings based on Supreme Court decisions explaining 
the first amendment and/or its relationship to free speech.
  For example, on page 2, we cite the New York Times Company versus 
Sullivan, a 1964 case which said the first amendment reflects our 
``profound and national commitment to the principle that debate on 
public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.'' The first 
amendment protects political association as well as political 
expression, NAACP versus Alabama, and so on. Page 3 of the amendment 
quotes Buckley v. Valeo.
  But the essence of what I am offering is section 602, which is on 
pages 13 and 14, and if I may read that, you will have the amendment's 
gravamen in your grasp.
  ``Section 602: Notwithstanding any provisions of this Act, and in 
recognition of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, 
nothing in this Act or in any amendment made by this Act may be 
construed to abridge those freedoms found in that Amendment, 
specifically the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the 
people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for 
redress of grievances, consistent with the rulings of the courts of the 
United States.''
  So, that is rather simple. Supporting my amendment gives us a chance 
to reaffirm our loyalty, our dedication, our devotion to the first 
amendment.
  Now, before going on much farther, I would like to give the House a 
quotation from an article, January 28, 2002, in the National Journal, 
and this is by Stewart Taylor, Jr., who is not conservative. I do not 
think he is liberal. I think he is a true moderate.
  But in writing about this issue, he said something that I found 
extraordinarily interesting. Mr. Taylor says Shays-Meehan's most 
extreme and least publicized provisions have nothing to do with soft 
money. One would

[[Page 1365]]

make it a Federal crime for any association of citizens other than PACs 
to criticize, praise or even name a candidate for Congress in an ad 
broadcast in his or her State within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of 
a general election. Another would define illegal spending/coordination 
with candidates so broadly as to make it risky for any group to praise 
or even mention at any time in any public communications a Member of 
Congress with whom it had met or worked on legislative issues.
  I think that is interesting, and that is another reason why I am very 
disturbed about what we are doing here today.
  If ever there was a time where free speech should be unfettered, 
robust, it is at election time. Instead, this legislation in essence 
tells democracy to shut up and sit down. We are suffocating uninhibited 
political advocacy, that rare dynamic earned for us by the blood of our 
forefathers. And why? Because there is too much money in politics.
  No, we are not talking about Major League Baseball, a utility 
infielder. We are not talking about a professional basketball team or a 
rock band. We are talking about politics.
  In the last Presidential election, so excited by the prospect of 
picking a President, 51 percent of those eligible to vote, of voting 
age, bothered to vote. Now, it seems to me a little more interest in a 
Presidential election in a viable democracy is certainly called for.
  In the congressional cycle of 1999 and 2000, I am talking about 2 
years now, Congress raised $1.05 billion. Coca-Cola, in one year, 2000, 
marketing and advertising, spent $1.74 billion. One B-2 Stealth Bomber 
costs $1.16 billion. So too much money in politics is, I think, a bit 
of a stretch.
  By banning soft money to the political parties from unions, 
corporations and individuals, money that pays for issue ads, you do 
real damage to the parties. You emasculate them and you make the voices 
of the special interests the last and the loudest voices to be heard in 
the campaign. A vigorous two-party system has been the bedrock of our 
democracy. You hurt challengers and reinforce incumbency, and political 
advocacy is strangled, not encouraged.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying that we all respect the 
gentleman from Illinois. Those who read this amendment will nod their 
heads in agreement on much of this amendment. But I am reminded of the 
words of the great President from the State of Illinois, the State of 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), Abraham Lincoln. Abraham 
Lincoln once observed during the course of the Civil War that if in the 
end things turned out all right, nothing that was said would matter; 
but however, if in the end things turned out wrong, that all the angels 
in Heaven speaking on its behalf would not matter.
  In the last page of this amendment, section 602, the language says: 
``Notwithstanding any provision of this Act and in recognition of the 
First Amendment to the United States Constitution, nothing in this Act 
or in any amendment made by this Act may be construed to abridge those 
freedoms found in that amendment.''
  With all due respect, that is not within the power of this Congress. 
It is not within the power of this Congress to say that this is 
constitutional or it is not constitutional. And why is that? It is 
because the Founding Fathers' genius was to separate the powers and to 
give to an independent judiciary the right to say whether an act of 
Congress is constitutional or whether it was not.
  If that were not the case, then a majority of us could say, ``No, 
that which we have done is constitutional.'' That clearly would not be 
consistent with either the separation of powers, or the general purpose 
for the creation of a Supreme Court, which could protect the minority. 
And I say to my friend from Illinois, that nothing we say in this bill 
can abridge the constitutional rights of any American, if the Supreme 
Court determines by five or more votes, that we have abridged those 
rights. It is not within our power, except by way of a constitutional 
amendment, which, of course, this bill is not, to take that step.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say it is true, we do not have 
the power to adjudicate constitutionality, but we certainly have the 
power to recognize it when we see it and assert our opinion that 
something is unconstitutional. We are sworn to protect that document.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I agree with the 
gentleman; and I say to the gentleman, he and I have voted on different 
sides of an issue that I think was a very central first amendment 
right. He and I differed on that issue. But our opinion on that issue, 
other than that it may have motivated each of us to vote, is 
irrelevant. In the final analysis what is relevant, what is important 
to the individual, is what the Supreme Court of the United States says 
we did, and nothing we say in our legislation, affirming its 
constitutionality or questioning its constitutionality, will make any 
difference. It is the opinion of the Supreme Court that will make the 
difference.
  Therefore, I oppose this amendment, not because its sentiment is 
wrong--because its sentiment is not--but because it is mere surplusage, 
and not relevant to this legislation. I do not mean to say to the 
gentleman from Illinois that his opinion as to the constitutionality of 
one or more provisions of the act is not relevant. Clearly it is, and 
it may well motivate his vote on this particular piece of legislation. 
But to add this surplusage does not add to or subtract from the 
substance of this legislation.
  I would hope that this body would reject this amendment because of 
the process that this amendment will require the legislation to then go 
through.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Rivers).
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, Shays-Meehan does not prohibit speech of 
any type. It seeks to stop the use of soft money to pay for campaign 
ads. This is a long-standing authority that Congress has been able to 
exercise, starting with prohibitions on corporation monies in 1907, 
unions in 1947, and then 1974 for Buckley v. Valeo.
  Soft money is not protected by the Constitution. Soft money was 
created by the FEC in 1978. It is a creature of the Federal 
bureaucracy. It has no particular standing under the Constitution. The 
Supreme Court has never held soft money to be constitutionally 
inviolate, and to argue that the Congress cannot undo what a Federal 
agent has wrought is to deliberately ignore who is the master and who 
is the servant. There is no free-speech violation in Shays-Meehan and 
no reason to support this amendment.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the Hyde 
amendment to this legislation.
  I consider it a privilege to debate men of such eloquence as the 
gentleman from Maryland in this Chamber, but, if I may say so, I take 
issue with the assertion that the determination of constitutionality is 
outside of our purview. I will grant the point to the gentleman from 
Maryland that it is not our purview under this Constitution to 
determine what is and is not constitutional, but I would offer that 
while it is not our power, it is most assuredly our duty expressed in 
the oath of office that every man and woman who has served in this 
institution takes, an oath of office to defend and uphold and support 
the Constitution of the United States of America. It presupposes that 
we make a judgment in our own hearts, in our own minds, and express it 
with our own vote about that which we consider to be constitutional and 
that which we do not.

[[Page 1366]]

  I must tell my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that this bill's prohibition 
of political speech in the last 2 months by individuals or 
organizations other than political action committees is even to my 10-
year-old son a clear violation of those words that ``Congress shall 
make no law abridging the freedom of speech.'' Only by adopting the 
Hyde amendment will we as an institution say that whatever the courts 
may do, and, if I may say so, they have occasionally made some bone-
headed decisions, whatever the courts may do at whatever level, that it 
was never the intention of this institution to trample on that first 
amendment.
  If I may say, Mr. Chairman, I think many of the advocates of this 
bill suspect the provisions might be unconstitutional. It is perhaps 
the reason why they oppose the nonseverability provisions that have 
attempted to be added to this bill. I believe it is the reason why they 
do not want to stand with those of us that say, if there is a part of 
this found unconstitutional, then all of it must be rejected. Let us 
say yes to the blood-bought freedoms of the Bill of Rights and yes to 
the Hyde amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has 1 minute remaining; the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I was struck by reading the findings. 
Members will be pleased to know that if they vote for this amendment, 
they will be certifying the American Civil Liberties Union as an expert 
on the interpretation of the first amendment.
  Now, I often agree with the ACLU on the First Amendment, not on some 
other amendments, but I think this is a new height in freedom of 
expression. Look at finding 16 on page 12: Whether it is the American 
Civil Liberties Union or the counsel to National Right to Life, experts 
have thoughtfully explained this need. I am sure the ACLU appreciates 
the gentleman from Illinois's very occasional endorsement, because I 
must say, having served on the Committee on the Judiciary with him for 
years, I do not remember too many other occasions when he and the ACLU 
have agreed on constitutionality; not on the antiterrorism bill.
  In fact, I agree with the gentleman from Indiana. I do not think we 
should vote for things that we think are unconstitutional. That is why 
I have consistently voted against the censorship of the Internet which 
this House passes every other year, and, in the alternative year, the 
Supreme Court throws out.
  The fact is that there is a pattern here of people who have never 
found much virtue with the ACLU and the first amendment suddenly 
becomes believers. Now, it also sanctifies here the case of New York 
against Sullivan, the libel case that I have heard Members be critical 
of, but people also talk about draftsmanship. Let me say I was 
particularly impressed with finding 14.
  This is the finding. Finding 14: Sheila Toomey, Anchorage Daily News. 
It does not say anything else, except that she was reporting on a 
story. So Ms. Toomey, whoever she is, has now become an official 
finding of the United States if you pass that amendment. That is a 
great honor to her. So you have sanctified the expertise of the ACLU, 
you have officially found Ms. Toomey, who probably did not know 
heretofore that she was lost, and you have, in fact, added surplus 
verbiage, at best.
  The gentleman from Illinois is well aware nothing we can do could 
impinge on the First Amendment. So what this amendment comes down to, 
in addition to certifying the expertise of the ACLU, and they will 
appreciate every Republican who votes that way, and they will probably 
cite you in their literature, and you may expect the people in your own 
districts to be thanked by the ACLU for sending a supporter of their 
expertise to the Congress of the United States and to officially vote 
and certify them as experts.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware that in this 
resolution a case is cited by name, Federal Election Commission v. 
Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Commission, citing a case that has 
been overruled by the Supreme Court? Was the gentleman aware of that?
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I was not, but I hope Sheila Toomey has not 
been lost in this thing.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I hope not.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has 
1 minute remaining; the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 2 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I had some people who wanted to talk, but 
they do not seem to be here.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield for 1 minute, I 
have the right to close, and I have 2 minutes, and I will yield to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), and then the gentleman from 
Illinois can take his minute, and I will take the last minute to close.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland. Just so 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) does not leave the room.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I cannot guarantee that, I would say to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Clement).
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  This is a critical debate, and I am very pleased, number one, that 
the Shays-Meehan passed by such an overwhelming vote. Now we have 
various amendments that could very well impact Shays-Meehan. I am not a 
lawyer, I am not a constitutional scholar, but I know one thing, that 
this language contains biased findings and attempts to impose a one-
sided interpretation of the First Amendment as a matter of statutory 
law to falsely imply that the Shays-Meehan bill violates the First 
Amendment.
  All of us have to look at all of these amendments very, very closely, 
particularly these perfecting amendments, and how is it going to affect 
Shays-Meehan, because we have a good piece of legislation. We have not 
had any major reform on campaign finance reform since the 1970s. Why? 
Because of Watergate. And why are we getting the vote on Shays-Meehan 
and real campaign finance reform today? Because of the Enron scandal. 
Let us support strongly Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
just to say to my friend from the upper regions of Massachusetts that 
Nadine Strossen, the president of the ACLU, has written me several warm 
letters, and we have worked together on civil asset forfeiture, a 
concept that the gentleman has supported. So we found common ground on 
more than one issue with the ACLU.
  Lastly, I would hope the gentleman would read section 602. The 
inaccuracies and errors in the petition itself are the result of 
midnight draftsmanship which is brought upon us as a gift from the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and his party whose devotion to 
rapidity sometimes intrudes on coherence.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. HYDE. Surely.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer) was not involved in this, but secondly, let me say to the 
gentleman that I will remind him of his remarks as we go through 
legislation in the coming months.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde) has expired.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, this is the second time we have heard 
reference on the other side to the haste, et cetera. These are the 
people who refused to let the bill out. These are the people who 
bottled it up and forced it

[[Page 1367]]

to be forced out by the petition. So I have never seen a case where 
people guilty of a misdeed freely blamed other people for the 
consequences of their own action. Yes, it was not done the appropriate 
way. That is because the other side would not allow it to be done in 
the appropriate way.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have 50 seconds remaining; is that 
correct?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is 
recognized for the remaining time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me respond to the 
gentleman from Illinois. These issues were raised over 2 years ago, not 
last night, not the night before, or the night before that. The issues 
we raise in this legislation were raised 2 years ago, and 4 years ago, 
and we all know that. They are legitimate issues, and they will be 
issues that will be fought out in the future in front of the Supreme 
Court.
  But this amendment is not appropriate on this piece of legislation at 
this time, not because we do not subscribe to the first amendment, not 
because we do not want to ensure that the Constitution is followed in 
our legislation, but because we all know that it is time to act, time 
to adopt this reform, and not the time to pretend that we are doing 
things that we do not have the power to do. Vote this amendment down.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment and 
I want to thank my colleague and friend, Chairman Hyde for bringing it 
to the floor. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes at the very heart of 
this debate, but, more importantly, it strikes at the heart of our 
Constitution, which is the bedrock of our great nation and the 
foundation of our democracy. This afternoon Members of Congress have 
the opportunity to lay partisan self-interests aside and vote to 
support the 1st amendment to the Constitution. There are no frills to 
this amendment, there are no special interests who are serviced in this 
amendment. Rather, it serves the interests and protects a fundamental 
right of the American people. It states simply and seeks only to insure 
that nothing in the act shall violate the 1st amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States--our right to speak freely, to speak 
politically without the threat of censorship or retribution from the 
government. Are we going to turn our backs today on this fundamental 
right, to sacrifice our freedom of speech on the altar of campaign 
finance reform?
  Let me remind some of my colleagues who will not support this 
amendment what we believe about free speech in this country. We believe 
that free speech is an inalienable right. We believe that all people 
should be allowed to express their political beliefs openly, without 
arbitrary rules that restrict the means with which they can share and 
debate ideas. We believe that our constitution should govern Congress' 
laws, not the other way around. Mr. Chairman, this amendment assures 
the constitutionality of this proposed law. By supporting our 
Constitution, and our freedom as Americans to enjoy free speech, it 
affords the broadest protection to political expression, and it assures 
the unfettered exchange of ideas.
  Mr. Chairman, every type of organized communication takes money. 
Pamphlets need to be printed, letters need to be written and mailed, 
and television ads need to be broadcasted. The scam that is being 
pulled here by my colleagues who support H.R. 2356 is really quite 
remarkable. In the name of stabilizing our Nation's political system, 
they want to prevent people from spending the money necessary to share 
their ideas with each other. Whether this is the result of malicious 
intent or a totally misguided effort to ``reform'' our campaign finance 
system, it is not any less outrageous.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to take a look at this amendment, 
search their hearts, and vote to protect our Constitution. Let's have 
campaign finance reform, but let's live up to our oath of office and 
protect our Constitution.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to take this 
opportunity to explain his ``present'' vote on the Hyde amendment to 
H.R. 2356, the Campaign Reform Act of 2001. This Member voted 
``present'' on the amendment as he believes that there is nothing 
Congress can do through such an amendment itself to assure that the 
language of this measure is constitutional. As to the matter of the 
constitutionality of any such legislation, that determination is within 
the power and authority given to our judicial branch--not the Congress. 
The language offered in the Hyde amendment is irrelevant. It is the 
nature of the language itself which will be judged to be constitutional 
by the courts and ultimately by the U.S. Supreme Court. That fact is 
one reason why the ``Severability Clause'' is essential to foster some 
advancement of campaign finance reform legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 237, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 22]

                               AYES--188

     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--237

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney

[[Page 1368]]


     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Phelps
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Bereuter
       

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Aderholt
     Brady (TX)
     Cubin
     Rangel
     Riley
     Smith (NJ)
     Traficant
     Watt (NC)
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1700

  Ms. McCOLLUM and Ms. SANCHEZ changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio and Mr. GILCHREST changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 22 I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 22 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to the order of 
the House of Tuesday, February 12, 2002, it is now in order to consider 
an amendment by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) or the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).


             Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Green of Texas

  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the 
designee of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Green of Texas:
       Strike section 305.
       In section 306(a), strike the subsection designation and 
     all that follows through ``Content of broadcasts.--'' and 
     insert the following:
       (a) In General.--Section 315(b) of the Communications Act 
     of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 315(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(b) The charges'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Charges.--
       ``(1) In general.--The charges'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Content of broadcasts.--
       In section 306(a), strike ``or (2)'' each place such term 
     appears.
       In section 306(b), strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(2)''.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
344, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) and a Member opposed each 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to split 
our allowable time with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), 
my colleague from the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore.
  The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) will control 5 minutes 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) will control 5 minutes.
  The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  As a long-time supporter of the Shays-Meehan legislation, including 
signing the discharge petition, I believe we are on the verge of 
passing this historic campaign finance legislation. I am offering an 
amendment that would correct, I think, an oversight that was in the 
Senate bill that came to the House; and that is what my colleague, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), and I are doing.
  The amendment we are offering today is not a poison pill, and if 
passed would not force the underlying bill into conference with the 
Senate. Senators McCain and Feingold have already indicated that the 
passage of this amendment would not be a hindrance in the Senate. It is 
not a poison pill.
  This amendment is designed to remove a provision out of the Shays-
Meehan bill that creates a new perk for candidates for Federal offices. 
We cannot blame the problems associated with the high costs of 
campaigning on television, and this is an example of Congress 
overreaching and helping ourselves; and that is why we offer this 
amendment and encourage my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Green 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) will control 10 minutes.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, it is no wonder that so many of our colleagues have 
been lobbying heavily to oppose the section 305, despite the fact that 
the air waves are a public resource. And let me restate that again. 
Despite the fact that the airwaves belong to the people of the United 
States, the Broadcasting Industry Association has spent millions of 
dollars lobbying against legislation to regulate political ads. If we 
add up the money that was spent lobbying for the broadcasting industry 
from 1996 to 1999, the total is well over $111 million.
  In the past few years, I have personally encountered the power of the 
broadcasting lobby. Throughout the 1990s I lobbied for a bill called 
Fairness in Political Advertising which would have required stations to 
offer modest blocks of free television time to candidates. However, the 
broadcasting industry spent $11 million to defeat that one bill. The 
broadcasting industry has successfully blocked reform by spending vast 
amounts of money to protect its interest. I find it extremely ironic 
that this body would consider an amendment to protect this special 
interest group as we work to limit the influence of special interest 
money in our political process. If we are really serious about campaign 
finance reform we must preclude this provision.
  Please join me in supporting the lowest unit charge provision within 
Shays-Meehan, which passed the Senate by over two to one and obviously 
is realized by the Senate to be an integral part of campaign finance 
reform. This part of this legislation is a simple way to close the 
loophole in existing law that has never worked, never worked in the way 
it was designed.
  By reducing the greatest single expense of campaigns, we can decrease 
the need for candidates to raise outrageous amounts of money, and this 
is an excellent way for us to improve political discourse in the 
electoral process and to balance the playing field.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we all know that the major problem we are 
dealing with in all this campaign finance reform legislation is that 
the cost of campaigning, of getting a message out to the public, has 
gotten out of hand; and consequently, Members and challengers feel 
compelled to spend much of their time in an ever-increasing race of 
trying to get more and more money from contributors, from special 
interest groups, et cetera; and that has caused all the problems that 
we have been dealing with.
  TV stations use a public resource. We have given them the license to 
use the public air waves, a scarce public resource, because they are 
limited for free. Just a few years ago we gave them

[[Page 1369]]

for nothing $77 billion to the broadcasters of additional spectrum. 
Senator Dole was quite outraged, and properly so, at this.
  Now they have the nerve to say that we should not enforce the 1971 
law that said that when they sell ads to political candidates they must 
do it at the lowest rate they give it to anyone else. There are two 
loopholes to this law. One, they will sell a candidate an ad for the 
lowest cost; but then they will say, oh, we are going to bump the 
candidate from 6 p.m. the day before the election to 3 a.m. because 
someone else is willing to pay a higher rate, unless of course the 
candidate pays the premium rate to guarantee getting the 6 p.m. slot. 
No candidate can risk that, so everybody pays the premium rate. They 
have completely undermined the existing law which says they have got to 
pay the cheapest rate.
  All this bill does, and the amendment would negate, is enforce the 
existing law and say they must give them unpreemptible time so people 
can take it and it means it at the lowest rate they have sold for the 
last few months.
  Secondly, it is amazing to see that the sponsor of this amendment 
would say that this is a new perk for candidates. It is not a perk for 
candidates. It is saying that as a beginning of paying off their 
obligation to the public, we no longer have the equal-time doctrine, we 
no longer have the fairness doctrine, we no longer enforce anything 
that says they have got to really cover political campaigns for the 
public service requirement for which they get their license. They do 
not have to cover someone that 45 seconds per campaign or 45 seconds 
per election per night. We are simply saying sell the ads, but sell it 
as the Congress has said 30 years ago, for the lowest unit rate they 
sell it to anybody else.
  TV ads cost 80 percent of the cost of all communication to voters. 
There is no reason why we cannot ask these broadcasters who get, again 
their entire product is on public air waves, which we give them for 
free, we license to them for free, the least we can ask is that they 
enable candidates to try to conduct election campaigns for the cheapest 
rate they sell to other people to strengthen our democracy.
  Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if ever there was an amendment that 
provided preferential speech in America it is the Torricelli amendment, 
and we ought to strike it.
  This amendment says that somehow Federal candidates for office in 
America, Federal politicians are entitled to special privileges, 
special rates, special time on the broadcast waves of America while 
other citizens are treated differently. Other citizens do not get those 
breaks. Other people who want to speak in this country politically do 
not get those breaks, just Federal candidates. Come on.
  This is the sort of thing the Founding Fathers worried about when 
they wrote the first amendment that said we should protect American 
citizens against the government dictating free speech.
  Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from North 
Carolina for yielding me the time.
  Every 2 years we as Members raise our right hand and swear to uphold 
and defend the Constitution of the United States. That means when bills 
come before this House we have a responsibility to, in our opinion, 
look to see if we are, in fact, following the Constitution.
  One of the unconstitutional provisions in the underlying bill is this 
provision that would require broadcasters to sell time at the lowest 
unit cost of any time during the last 180 days. It is clearly 
unconstitutional. There is no requirement in here that newspapers sell 
us ad time at the lowest possible rate or radio stations who get their 
air waves from the public. There is no requirement there that they pay 
the lowest unit cost.
  This is a subsidy to Federal office holders and only Federal office 
holders. It is blatantly unconstitutional. We should support the 
amendment offered by our colleagues, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Green) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), and approve 
this product.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, the Torricelli language allows Federal 
candidates to buy premium air time at a dirt cheap price. Some say that 
if ad time costs less, campaigns will spend less. To the contrary, they 
will spend more. If my colleagues think people are sick of 30-second 
attack ads now, imagine how they will feel if we keep the Torricelli 
language.
  We have got to get back to the basics, the firm handshake, the 
sincere look in the eye and the sympathetic ear. Not only would this 
amendment require us to rely on personal connections with the people, 
it will also prevent us from placing an unfair burden on the broadcast 
industry. As Federal candidates we do not deserve special treatment. 
Vote for this amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) has 5 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Green) has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Burr) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1715

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I do not understand the argument that this 
part of Shays-Meehan is unconstitutional. The LUC provision has been in 
the law for 30 years. The problem is that it is not working.
  TV advertising is a major method of communication. It is said by the 
proponents of this amendment that TV is only 25 percent, but in 
contested elections it is probably 60 or 70 percent of the cost.
  And here is what has been happening with the present law, and I read 
and I quote from someone who is a time buyer. ``It's become common 
practice for station ad salesmen to pressure you out of buying LUC into 
buying non-preemptible by telling you it's the only way they can be 
sure the ads will be run when you want.''
  And so here is the problem. These TV costs have been skyrocketing. 
There is a question of corporate responsibility here. The last month of 
the election of 2000, the TV stations on the average gave 1 minute of 
time, free media, for candidate discourse. So I think there is a real 
challenge to the broadcast industry.
  The Senate addressed it by a 70-to-30 vote. By a 70-to-30 vote. This 
amendment would reverse it and essentially leave us back where we were. 
That is not a responsible approach to the needs of democracy or a 
responsible approach by the broadcast media of this country.
  I urge for that reason that we defeat the Green amendment.
  Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), the greatest football coach in 
my lifetime.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time and for that fine endorsement. I appreciate it.
  I rise in support of the Green-Burr amendment, which would strike 
section 305 of the Shays-Meehan bill. While attempting to reform the 
campaign finance system, section 305 unfairly burdens television 
stations. Giving political candidates dramatically lower rates for 
advertising hurts the television industry and interferes with normal 
commerce. Lowering the amount of money candidates spend on television 
ads supplants advertisers who pay standard rates, and this is very 
unfair.
  In addition, section 305 will not reduce campaign spending. If 
candidates are allowed to buy cheaper spots on

[[Page 1370]]

television, this will only lead to a large influx of political ads 
during the campaign season.
  I urge support for the Green-Burr amendment.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Towns).
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly urge my colleagues to 
vote ``yes'' on the Green-Burr amendment.
  Everyone in this Chamber agrees that campaigns are too expensive and 
that the majority of the money is spent on the airwaves. I can 
understand how some might think that the solution is to lower the cost 
of air time, but they are so wrong.
  It sounds great, but the only thing lowering the rates of television 
air time will do is to increase the amount of ads that will be on. It 
will increase the cost of campaigns.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman 
from North Carolina for offering this cost-saving amendment, and I urge 
my colleagues to support this amendment. This is the right thing to do.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Owens), one of our brightest and most articulate Members 
and my colleague from New York.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, the airwaves, the spectrum, is owned by the 
American people. Most of the American people do not know that we own it 
and that the representatives of government, including the Members of 
Congress, are the trustees for the American people. We need to take 
back our airwaves and use our airwaves and our spectrum and our media 
for the benefit of the people.
  This is not an infringement upon the rights of the broadcasters. This 
is a fulfillment of the capacity and the possibilities of the broadcast 
media. Most of the industrialized nations, the civilized nations, are 
providing greater access to media for candidates, far greater than we 
are. So we need to take this first step.
  The broadcasters are very anxious, upset, because they know if we 
take one step, it might lead to a greater realization by the public as 
a whole that the airwaves belong to the people. Freedom of speech has 
to be guaranteed some way. We cannot do it the way we do with the print 
media, where anybody can get access to the print. We regulate, we 
carefully regulate the airwaves and the spectrum.
  There is not enough room for everybody, so those who are regulated 
must bow to the regulation which puts forward the interest of the 
people. They must bow to certainly making our political campaigns more 
accessible to people.
  Big money will always have an advantage, as long as we leave the 
broadcasters in charge, to charge what they want to charge. Eventually 
we must reach the point where the airwaves time is mostly free. That is 
the point they do not want us to move toward, and any step in that 
direction is going to hurt. That is why we have such great resistance 
to this tiny step forward by having them lower the unit cost to allow 
everybody to be able to afford, or most candidates better afford access 
to the media.
  It belongs to us in the first place. We are not infringing on any 
God-given right of the broadcasters. We are returning the spectrum to 
the people and letting the people know it belongs to them.
  Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague. I rise in strong 
support of the Green-Burr amendment.
  Do my colleagues want to see what happens when we force the networks 
to subsidize the races for Members of Congress? Go to the June 10, 
1998, article in The Hill magazine. They talked about the campaign in 
California. The campaign was such that the requests for political 
advertising were so overly demanding, the networks could not even 
comply. The TV stations in response to such high demands were forced to 
restrict local and State candidates besides those running for Governor 
from airing political ads. As a result, some TV stations even refused 
to take ads from campaigns other than the Governor or Federal 
candidates, infuriating candidates for other office, squeezing out all 
candidates for local races.
  Without this amendment, this bill will result in further socializing 
political campaigns. Furthermore, it epitomizes the law of unintended 
consequences, ultimately doing more harm than good in attempting to 
level the political playing field.
  So I urge the Green-Burr amendment.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) has 
2\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) 
has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to my colleague, 
the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, if we hear one more talk about special 
interests. This is all special interests. The question is whether it is 
in the public interest or not.
  I can tell my colleagues what is going to happen, and we all better 
remember it. All politics is local. And out where I am anyway, if 
anyone thinks they are going to show the football game at one time and 
another infomercial at another time, and that is going to work out 
somehow in the number of days that you got where you get the lowest 
rate, you are dreaming.
  What is going to happen is the local advertisers, aside from me or 
aside from my colleagues, are going to have to make up the difference. 
And I am not going back in my district and tell people that are trying 
to make a living, especially after 9/11, in their advertising that they 
have to pay more so that people can listen to me.
  All I am trying to do when I get down there is express all the 
virtues I have. And at least in my district they already know I am full 
of virtue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Burr-Green amendment.
  It obviates Section 305 of underlying bill, a provision that does not 
address the central issues of the campaign finance debate: soft money 
and so-called ``issue ads''.
  The language in Section 305 is well intentioned. It seeks to lower 
the costs of campaigns, a goal everyone agrees is worthwhile.
  However, the mechanism if flawed. Forcing broadcasters to charge 
artificially low rates for political ads only invites them to look 
elsewhere to make up the lost revenue. Section 305 virtually forces 
them to raise the rates for non-political ads.
  Using an example from my home state of Hawaii, is it realistic to 
expect a station to charge the same rate for the UH-BYU football game 
as for a late-night infomercial? If we force broadcasters to do that, 
we shouldn't be surprised when business economics compel them to charge 
more for the ads in slots with smaller audiences. And who ultimately 
winds up paying for the added charge? Not the advertisers--they're 
going to turn around and make it up with higher prices for their goods 
and services.
  So the ultimate subsidizer of forced ad rate reductions is--you 
guessed it--the consumer. That's you, me and all the people in our 
districts. We'll pay more for food, prescription drugs, gasoline--
everything from Spam musubi to that neighbor island trip for a family 
reunion.
  The bottom line is that Burr-Green is pro-consumer. It has no effect 
on the thrust of Shays-Meehan. This is an amendment that every Member 
can support, regardless of which side of this debate you're on.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This is a debate that has gone on one way or another here in the 
House since the early 1970s. It was considered a great reform in 1970 
that we would try to do something about controlling television time.

[[Page 1371]]

  I even remember there was a bill way back in the dark days by 
Congressman Udall when he was here. Congressman Udall did not believe 
if you owned a major television station in a media market that you 
should also own the newspapers and all the radio stations, and Congress 
agreed with him. It was really quite an astonishing thing.
  We will never see the like of that again, because I think we have 
gotten to the point now where, at least in my media market, there is 
not a homegrown station there. They are all bought out by conglomerates 
back and forth, and several have one room where large machines spill 
out talk radio all day long, call-in shows. At any rate, that is media 
in America today.
  As my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), pointed 
out, almost every civilized country in the world understands it is an 
important thing for democracy, not to help candidates out, but for 
democracy, to hear two sides of an issue. We have not been able to do 
that in the United States over the media since 1986 when it was taken 
away.
  We are on the cusp of history here, and I want to urge my colleagues 
not to take a chance on losing this bill by annoying the Senate, who 
passed this 2 to 1. Please vote ``no.''
  Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), a good friend and a proven 
reformer.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am not bound by the rule that if it 
passes in the Senate 2 to 1, it is a good idea. That may come later in 
my life, but not right now.
  This is not reform. When I signed up in 1996, I never envisioned that 
reform would be that we would require a local TV station to sell some 
Federal politician an ad at a cheap rate during the Super Bowl almost a 
year before the election. That is not reform. And that should not kill 
any effort to reform the way we do our campaigns.
  By making the campaigns start a year earlier, or 7 or 8 or 9 months 
earlier, and giving a Federal politician a better deal than we give 
somebody living in our own State, that is not reform, that is bad 
business. Vote for the amendment.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, there have been studies done, and every campaign is 
different, but that the average amount spent on TV in a campaign is 25 
percent. Now, maybe somebody is spending more than that percent, but 
maybe they should do like my colleague the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Strickland) suggested and get out and meet the folks. We may still need 
to do TV, but there are a lot of other ways to do it.
  We already enjoy, since 1971, the lowest unit cost preferences when 
we buy political ads. No other elected officials can enjoy that. What 
this would do with the Torricelli amendment is add insult to injury. 
The lowest unit cost means that we politicians or public servants get 
the same rates broadcasters provide their best-paying commercial 
customers. What the Torricelli amendment does is back that up and say 
we can pick the rates of the dog days of summer. That is what is wrong. 
That is why we need to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, since 1971, an amazing thing has happened. This law has 
actually worked, with no complaint since 1995, and yet we are here 
talking about changing it. The result on average is that candidates 
have received a 30 percent discount.
  To my colleagues that are here, I ask that we not shift this to the 
businesses in communities. They do not need it now. To my colleagues 
who are here, I suggest we support this legislation because it is the 
right thing to do.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, shame on us. This is an outrage. Current 
law says that Members of Congress get the lowest unit rate now on radio 
and television. This amendment says we get the lowest unit rate on the 
basis of being preemptable. That makes the other users of the broadcast 
spectrum subsidize us. The mom-and-pop stores, the drugstores, the 
automobile dealers, are all going to be paying our costs for our 
political ads, as will the local political candidates.
  We are literally putting our hands in the pockets of the local folks 
to get ourselves a special benefit. I do not have the arrogance to vote 
for a proposal of this kind, or to say this is in the public interest. 
This is nothing more or less than dipping into the pockets of the home 
folks to get Members a subsidy for the campaign. What is the change 
that it makes? It changes the law so that now, if passed, the bill 
would give special treatment to us above and beyond these other 
persons. This is unfair. I urge Members to adopt the amendment which 
will be approved by the Senate. Read BNA's publication this morning.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 327, 
noes 101, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 23]

                               AYES--327

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)

[[Page 1372]]


     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--101

     Ackerman
     Barrett
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Brady (PA)
     Capuano
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Foley
     Frank
     Gephardt
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Horn
     Houghton
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thune
     Tierney
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brady (TX)
     Cubin
     Gutierrez
     Riley
     Traficant
     Watt (NC)

                              {time}  1750

  Ms. McCOLLUM changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. MORELLA, Mr. PALLONE and Mr. McHUGH changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to the order of 
the House of Tuesday, February 12, 2002, it is now in order to consider 
an amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).


               Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Pickering

  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the majority leader, 
I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 27 offered by Mr. Pickering:
       Add at the end title II the following new subtitle:

   Subtitle C--Exemption of Communications Pertaining to the Second 
                     Amendment of the Constitution

     SEC. 221. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 
     protects the right of individual persons to keep and bear 
     arms.
       (2) There are more than 60,000,000 gun owners in the United 
     States.
       (3) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States protects the right of Americans to carry firearms in 
     defense of themselves and others.
       (4) The United States Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Emerson 
     reaffirmed the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is 
     an individual right protected by the Constitution.
       (5) Americans who are concerned about threats to their 
     ability to keep and bear arms have the right to petition 
     their government.
       (6) The Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Cruikshank (92 U.S. 542, 
     1876) recognized that the right to arms preexisted the 
     Constitution. The Court stated that the right to arms ``is 
     not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any 
     manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.''.
       (7) In Beard v. United States (158 U.S. 550, 1895) the 
     Court approved the common-law rule that a person ``may repel 
     force by force'' in self-defense, and concluded that when 
     attacked a person ``was entitled to stand his ground and meet 
     any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way 
     and with such force'' as needed to prevent ``great bodily 
     injury or death''. The laws of all 50 states, and the 
     constitutions of most States, recognize the right to use 
     armed force in self-defense.
       (8) In order to protect Americans' constitutional rights 
     under the Second Amendment, the First Amendment provides the 
     ability for citizens to address the Government.
       (9) The First Amendment to the United States Constitution 
     states that, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an 
     establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 
     thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; 
     or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to 
     petition the Government for a redress of grievances.''.
       (10) The Supreme Court recognized and emphasized the 
     importance of free speech rights in Buckley v. Valeo, where 
     it stated, ``A restriction on the amount of money a person or 
     group can spend on political communication during a campaign 
     necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting 
     the number of issues discussed, the depth of their 
     exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is 
     because virtually every means of communicating ideas in 
     today's mass society requires the expenditure of money. The 
     distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails 
     printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies 
     generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the 
     event. The electorate's increasing dependence on television, 
     radio, and other mass media for news and information has made 
     these expensive modes of communication indispensable 
     instruments of effective political speech.''.
       (11) In response to the relentlessly repeated claim that 
     campaign spending has skyrocketed and should be legislatively 
     restrained, the Buckley Court stated that the First Amendment 
     denied the government the power to make that determination: 
     ``In the free society ordained by our Constitution, it is not 
     the government but the people--individually as citizens and 
     candidates and collectively as associations and political 
     committees--who must retain control over the quantity and 
     range of debate on public issues in a political campaign.''.
       (12) In Buckley, the Court also stated, ``The concept that 
     government may restrict the speech of some elements of our 
     society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is 
     wholly foreign to the First Amendment, which was designed `to 
     secure the widest possible dissemination of information from 
     diverse and antagonistic sources,' and `to assure unfettered 
     exchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and 
     societal changes desired by the people'''.
       (13) Citizens who have an interest in issues about or 
     related to the Second Amendment of the Constitution have the 
     Constitutional right to criticize or praise their elected 
     officials individually or collectively as a group. 
     Communications in the form of criticism or praise of elected 
     officials is preciously protected as free speech under the 
     First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
       (14) This title contains restrictions on the rights of 
     citizens, either individually or collectively, to communicate 
     with or about their elected representatives and to the 
     general public. Such restrictions would stifle and suppress 
     individual and group advocacy pertaining to politics and 
     government--the political expression at the core of the 
     electoral process and of First Amendment freedoms--the very 
     engine of democracy. Such restrictions also hinder citizens' 
     ability to communicate their support or opposition on issues 
     concerning the right to keep and bear arms to their elected 
     officials and the general public.
       (15) Candidate campaigns and issue campaigns are the 
     primary vehicles for giving voice to popular grievances, 
     raising issues and proposing solutions. An election, and the 
     time leading up to it, is when political speech should be at 
     its most robust and unfettered.

     SEC. 222. EXEMPTION FOR COMMUNICATIONS PERTAINING TO THE 
                   SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

       None of the restrictions or requirements contained in this 
     title shall apply to any form or mode of communication to the 
     public that consists of information or commentary regarding 
     the statements, actions, positions, or voting records of any 
     person who holds congressional or other Federal office, or 
     who is a candidate for congressional or other Federal office, 
     on any matter pertaining to the Second Amendment.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
344, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) and the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My amendment is very compact, simple and precise. My amendment 
preserves the free speech rights of any constituency or grassroots 
organization that desires to educate the public as to the voting 
record, statements or actions of Federal officeholders or candidates 
for office as they relate to the

[[Page 1373]]

second amendment. This amendment protects all parties that want to 
engage in the debate over the second amendment, from Sarah Brady to the 
NRA.
  One of the fundamental problems I have with this legislation is its 
regulation of free speech by grassroots organizations that engage in 
issue advocacy and educating the public to the voting record and 
positions of candidates. The base text of Shays-Meehan regulates the 
free speech of everyone from the far left to the far right, from the 
prolife movement to farmers, from veterans groups to religious 
organizations.
  I regret that I did not have more time to draft an amendment that 
would have been able to restore more of the free speech rights of some 
of these other organizations; however, I believe this amendment is a 
bright line for which Members must make a stand on whether they support 
the first amendment protections afforded to our citizens and afforded 
to grassroots organizations, or whether they support the regulation of 
these groups' free speech rights.
  In short, you are either for the first amendment and the second 
amendment, or you oppose those free speech first amendment rights and 
the rights of those who want to defend the second amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which 
effectively states that the provisions of campaign finance reform shall 
not apply to any form of communication on any matter pertaining to the 
second amendment.
  Imagine a world in which campaign finance reform applies to 
everything except the second amendment, and you might ask, how could 
that possibly be constitutional? And, of course, the answer is, it 
cannot be. We cannot single out any amendment, no matter how favored it 
might be, for different treatment under the law. Those regulations that 
are content-based, as opposed to time, place or manner, are the most 
suspect under the first amendment, and plainly we cannot 
constitutionally single out the second amendment, or any other, for 
different treatment under the campaign finance laws.
  But even if we could, is this good policy? And, of course, it is not. 
Whether you are a strict constructionist of the second amendment or you 
are not, whether you are pro-gun control or anti-gun control, why would 
you want to allow unlimited, unaccountable, anonymous expenditures on 
campaign ads around election time on something as important as the 
second amendment and be precluded from knowing who is paying for it? 
Because if this amendment were to pass and somehow be constitutional, 
that is what we would have. We would have these anonymous, unlimited 
expenditures on ads about the second amendment, and you would not know 
who is paying the freight. How can that possibly be good policy? It is 
not. Whatever your position on the second amendment is, this is bad 
policy.
  So why is it offered when it is plainly unconstitutional and when it 
is bad policy whether you are for or against a strict construction of 
the second amendment? It is offered precisely because it is 
unconstitutional, because it would force the bill into conference 
committee, because it would effectively kill Shays-Meehan.
  Make no bones about it. These amendments are all over the boards. 
This one goes after the second amendment; another, civil rights. But 
the design is the same. It is to kill reform. Oppose this amendment.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, again to quote from today's Washington 
Post, Robert Samuelson, not a conservative, not even a Republican, says 
of Shays-Meehan, ``It's not reform, it's deception.'' ``It's not 
reform, it's deception.''
  Why are we offering this on the second amendment, the previous 
speaker asked? We have amendments to exempt everyone, frankly. The 
point we want to make is that this deception is trying to curb the free 
speech rights of all Americans. It is unbelievable how, despite the 
facts, these people continue to pursue this quest to regulate and crimp 
down as much as you can on the amount of money that can be spent.
  Mr. Samuelson, if anybody takes the time to read this, says this 
about campaign contributions:
  ``Do restrictions on campaign contributions curb free speech? Yes.

                              {time}  1800

  ``Because modern communication, TV, mailings, phone banks, Internet 
sites require money, limits on contributions restrict communication. 
More restrictions on contributions to political candidates and parties 
is self-defeating. It simply encourages outside groups, unions, 
industry associations, environmental groups with their own agendas to 
increase campaign spending to influence elections.''
  Mr. Chairman, the only reason we have all of the soft money is 
because these so-called reformers with their failed reforms who gave us 
the present law have so restricted the amounts of money that can be 
contributed from hard-money sources that all you have left is soft 
money.
  When they get done taking away the soft money, we will move the 
speech further out into these so-called special interest groups. The 
previous speaker talked about, well, would this not be terrible, having 
these unaccountable groups? If he wants the unaccountable groups, vote 
for Shays-Meehan.
  It is not reform, it is deception, to quote once again Mr. Samuelson, 
because I guarantee you, you are moving speech away from the candidate 
and out into third parties increasingly as you clamp down on the amount 
of money that can be spent. You empower some groups at the expense of 
others.
  We think groups that want to discuss the second amendment ought to be 
able to do so. We think all Americans ought to be able to do so. We 
will offer amendments to protect the rights of all Americans, and I 
guess you can vote against all of their rights too.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of the 
second amendment and proud to be a life member of the NRA and the Texas 
Rifle Association and Houston Gun Collectors; and if I thought this 
Shays-Meehan would stop those groups from contacting me or any of my 
constituents, I would vote for the amendment. But that is not true.
  They can do the letters, everything they need to do to make sure 
their members know how we as Members of Congress are voting. That is 
why I think this is just another one of those poison pill amendments to 
come up with an issue that is not there. That is why I urge a vote in 
opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time, and I rise in strong support of his amendment.
  The constitutional rights of many Americans are being trampled upon 
by this legislation; but I want to address my remarks to a more 
troubling issue, an issue that arose last night at midnight. It is the 
language on page 79 of this legislation which does something shocking. 
It provides that in this election and this election only, you can spend 
money that you borrow as though it were hard money to expressly 
advocate the defeat of a candidate, and then you can repay that debt 
with soft money.
  If soft money is so evil, why was this language inserted in the bill 
late last night? I know that Mr. Shays did not write this language; and 
I know that both sides, Mr. Shays and his colleagues on the other side, 
have said it is not our intent to do that, and I have read the two 
letters they have produced to address that issue.
  But it is our job not to rely on our intent, but on the words we 
write; and I

[[Page 1374]]

would urge my colleagues to read the words on page 79. They are very 
clear. They say: ``The committee may spend such funds to retire 
outstanding debts.''
  It does not say outstanding soft-money debts, Chris. It says 
outstanding debts of every kind. I have read both of the letters that 
you have produced, and I want to ask you, Chris, if you understand that 
this language means that you can take soft money that you have on hand 
and spend borrowed money for hard-money purposes, you can advocate the 
defeat of a candidate with that and then repay it with soft money, 
something you say you do not intend, are you willing to amend this? 
Because that is what this language does. It will create a huge loophole 
through which $40 million of money can be borrowed and then spent on 
hard-money purposes to advocate the defeat of candidates this year, and 
then repaid with soft money. The letters do not say to the contrary, 
Chris.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, we do not 
agree with the gentleman's analysis, but I want to answer the question.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, find me one sentence in here, Chris, 
find me one word, you can read English, do you have page 79 of your 
bill?
  Mr. SHAYS. Yes, I do.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Will you please read it, Chris?
  Mr. SHAYS. I did read it. That is what I gave you.
  Mr. SHADEGG. No. Well, read it right now, and read these words, 
Chris. Would you read these words? It says ``retire outstanding 
debts.''
  Mr. SHAYS. I do not disagree with the gentleman's words. I do not 
disagree. But may I have a chance to respond?


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Members will suspend.
  The Chair would request that Members yield time properly, and the 
Chair further requests Members address their remarks to the Chair, and 
finally the Chair requests that Members refer to other Members by their 
proper State designation and not by first names.
  The gentleman from Arizona controls the time.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Chris, I would be happy to yield to you, if you would 
look at the words and insert, or the gentleman from Connecticut. Will 
the gentleman from Connecticut read the words of his bill and show me a 
word in there that says that it cannot be used to repay hard debts?
  Mr. SHAYS. If the gentleman will yield further, I would cite to the 
gentleman the entire law. It is illegal to use soft money for hard 
money. I would just answer this one question you asked me. Please allow 
me this opportunity, if I could. If there was a vehicle that we can 
satisfy your ambiguity, the ambiguity that you think exists, I would be 
eager to settle this and to adopt it. Eager to.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Oh, it is not ambiguous, Chris.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Shows).
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to speak in favor of this language 
protecting the constitutional freedoms guaranteed to Americans by the 
second amendment. The second amendment does not belong to the 
Republican Party, and it does not belong to the Democrats either; it 
belongs to all the people in this great country.
  No one in this Chamber is a stronger advocate of second amendment 
freedoms than I am, and I appreciate having this time to make this 
clear to my colleagues. I am committed to protecting our second 
amendment freedoms and to making sure that the language we are debating 
right now is included in any campaign reform legislation that is 
advanced by this House.
  Let us pass this pro-freedom amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Pickering) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, my dear friend, the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Shadegg), there is probably little that can be done to satisfy his 
concerns, I would say to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), 
because he was opposed to the bill before reading the excerpt from last 
night.
  I am reminded in some ways as I hear my colleagues of the recent 
Presidential race, when our current President, and congratulations 
again to him, would say to his opponent, Al Gore, that this guy will 
say anything to win. In a lot of ways, my friends on this side of the 
aisle are pulling any and everything out of their hat to try to confuse 
and distort Members on this side and their own to try to send this bill 
to conference.
  I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), the 
same columnist you cite over and over again, Mr. Samuelson, he referred 
to the Republican tax package as deceptive also. Maybe he is wrong on 
both fronts.
  I say to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), and to my 
dear friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), and to my 
friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), all the amendments that 
are being offered, this is the same group that was opposed to campaign 
finance before we arrived here today.
  I close on this: the addiction to soft money, all of us will be okay 
without it. We can find ways to pay for our golf tournaments, to pay 
for our resort visits. We can find ways to pay for all of those things 
we pay for with soft money now. Vote for Shays-Meehan. Vote down these 
poisoned amendments.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, we should all oppose this amendment irrespective of our 
position for or against gun control. We should oppose this amendment 
because it is unconstitutional. It violates the equal protection clause 
of the U.S. Constitution. The underlying bill is a proper regulation of 
free speech. What is wrong with this amendment is that it segregates 
that regulation of free speech according to what you are saying.
  So this body is going to say if you speak about the second amendment, 
you have one set of rights; but if you speak about anything else, 
anything else, you do not have that same set of rights.
  On its face, on its face, this amendment violates the equal 
protection clause of the United States Constitution; and whether you 
are for gun control or against gun control, you should honor your oath 
to uphold the Constitution and oppose this amendment.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, you have heard me say many times on this floor that 
freedom is not free, and it is paid for by the blood of our sons and 
daughters.
  This is a constitutional issue. This is a right of people to protect 
their right to keep and bear arms. Allowing people to have that 
discourse is critical in this constitutional Republic.
  I am proud that my constituents have called me today overwhelmingly 
in support of this amendment. I am going to be true to them. This is a 
pro-gun vote, and I want you to know and my constituents to know that I 
am standing up for the second amendment with this vote.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, the Constitution is not a buffet table. We cannot walk 
in and pick and choose which rights we want to protect. That is what 
this amendment does.

[[Page 1375]]

  I have people back home that care greatly about prayer in schools. 
This amendment will not let them have the same rules as gun owners back 
home. I have people back home that care about the President's faith-
based initiative. This amendment does not protect their rights of 
speech in the same way.
  The Constitution is not a buffet table, that we select one thing we 
like and one thing we do not. Vote ``no'' on this blatantly 
unconstitutional amendment.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I have 
read it. It has nothing to do with the second amendment. It has nothing 
to do with the first amendment. It has everything to do with creating a 
little mischief on the bill before us today. That is all that it does.
  I am reminded at this time of the infamous words of Will Rogers when 
he said, ``It ain't people's ignorance that bothers me so much, it is 
them knowing so much that ain't so that is the problem.''
  As you listen to the debate and discussion on this, I would challenge 
anyone to find anyone in this body more strongly in favor of the second 
amendment and/or the first amendment, and that is why I rise in strong 
opposition to this amendment. The amendment before us would create a 
tremendous loophole that would allow the flood of soft money from 
wealthy individuals, corporations and union dues to continue to 
unfairly dominate our electoral system.
  There is a lot of misinformation about what the Shays-Meehan bill 
actually does, and it is circulating all over my district today. The 
Shays-Meehan bill does not prohibit political advertisement by groups 
prior to an election. It does not prohibit using the name of any Member 
of Congress or other candidate in a group's political advertisement. It 
does not prohibit any group from providing its Members information 
about the records of elected officials through mailings or other 
communications.
  The bill simply requires that independent organizations who 
participate in the political process do so in the sunshine so voters 
know who is trying to influence their decision and make their own 
judgment about the ads. Under the bill before us, any organization 
could run ads right up to election day, mentioning names of candidates 
and their positions as they wish, so long as they comply with the rules 
that apply to everyone else, including Members of Congress. I have to 
comply with these rules, and I do not feel they restrict my speech in 
any way.
  I strongly support free speech. I strongly support the right of 
anyone to say whatever they want to about me or anyone else running for 
office. But I do not believe that the right to free speech is about the 
ability of someone to spend $1 million to influence elections without 
disclosing who they are or where they get their money.
  I do not believe that the first amendment offers individuals or 
groups to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence an election 
without disclosing who they are and where their money is coming from. 
This bill should not be a problem for groups such as the National Rifle 
Association and National Right-to-Life who have a large political 
action committee, and they can use that to finance whatever ads they 
want to.

                              {time}  1815

  The folks who will be affected by this bill are those who are not 
willing to be open and aboveboard in their efforts to influence 
elections. The current campaign finance system gives a loudspeaker to 
wealthy individuals who can afford to make large political donations 
and gives the average working man and woman little voice in the 
political process. Our campaign rules have been abused by smart lawyers 
and political consultants who have found loopholes to get around the 
law. We need to put teeth back into laws long on the books preventing 
corporate treasury money, union dues, and unlimited contributions from 
wealthy individuals from being used for campaign ads. We need to be 
closing these loopholes, not creating new loopholes that can be abused 
to avoid sunshine.
  Vote against this amendment. This amendment will create a gigantic 
loophole that we are trying to close, those of us who support the 
Shays-Meehan. Oppose this amendment. It has nothing to do with the 
second amendment or the first amendment. It has everything to do with 
whether or not we are going to clean up our political system just a 
little bit.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Let me use the words of those who advocate this reform to tell what 
this legislation is all about. They are very clear about their 
purposes.
  Scott Harshberger, the president of the Washington D.C.-based Common 
Cause, says, ``We need to make the connection with every person who 
cares about gun control that there is a need for campaign finance 
reform because that is how you are going to break their power.''
  He goes on to say, ``The equation,'' he says, ``is a simple one. A 
vote for campaign finance reform is a vote against the second amendment 
gun lobby.'' It says, ``This is one of those times when there is a very 
direct connection.'' They say, ``A vote for campaign finance reform is 
a vote for policies about guns.''
  It is very clear that their intent here is to gut and to defeat those 
who want to advocate and defend the second amendment. A vote here is to 
take away the rights of those on the first amendment, the freedom of 
speech, to help defeat those who want to defend the second amendment.
  This is about the second amendment. The whole underlying text of the 
legislation of this section is unconstitutional. I am convinced it will 
be struck down. But we need to make sure that people know what is 
really going on right here. This is an attempt by their own words to 
defeat those who want to defend and protect the second amendment. If 
one stands for the second amendment, if one believes in the first 
amendment, then I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
amendment to H.R. 2356, offered by Representative Chip Pickering.
  This so-called campaign finance reform legislation is a direct attack 
on every American's fundamental right of free speech. It is the 1st 
amendment right of free speech that is most necessary to protect and 
defend the Bill of Rights and the entire Constitution.
  Those supporting this legislation have delivered long and flowery 
orations, telling us how campaign finance ``reform'' is about the 
wealthy and the corrupt influencing our electoral process. In fact, it 
is about who controls the information being delivered to the 
electorate. Should it be the liberal and media elitists who are so 
removed from the average American? Should it be this same group that at 
every opportunity attempts to prohibit law-abiding Americans everywhere 
from owning firearms? Or should it be grassroots organizations; 
reflecting the views of their millions of members? It should be the 
latter, and the Pickering amendment will help ensure that.
  It is preposterous to place the power of media access into the hands 
of the elite; and the Pickering Amendment will at least ensure this 
cabal will not be able to dominate the 2nd Amendment debate that is the 
lifeblood of our freedoms. If this vital amendment fails, then one of 
our most fundamental liberties will be diminished. That small group of 
elitists who disdain the common American, and scorn their right to own 
firearms, will do everything in their power to influence the gun debate 
by libeling candidates who stand firm in the protection of the 2nd 
amendment.
  It is our constitutional freedom that is at stake here, and we must 
not allow it to be jeopardized under the guise of ``reforming the 
electoral process.'' I urge you to vote ``aye'' on the Pickering 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.

[[Page 1376]]

                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 209, 
noes 219, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 24]

                               AYES--209

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--219

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Fletcher
     Kennedy (RI)
     Riley
     Roukema
     Traficant

                              {time}  1847

  Mr. WAMP and Mr. WATT of North Carolina changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. RADANOVICH and Mr. EHRLICH changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 24, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 24, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to the order of 
the House of Tuesday, February 12, 2002, it is now in order to consider 
an amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).


           Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Watts of Oklahoma

  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the 
designee of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 31 offered by Mr. Watts of Oklahoma:
       Add at the end title II the following new subtitle:

Subtitle C--Exemption of Communications Pertaining to Civil Rights and 
                      Issues Affecting Minorities

     SEC. 221. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) More than 70 million people in the United States belong 
     to a minority race.
       (2) More than 34 million people in the United States are 
     African American, 35 million are Hispanic or Latino, 10 
     million are Asian, and 2 million are American Indian or 
     Alaska Native.
       (3) Minorities account for around 24 percent of the U.S. 
     workforce.
       (4) Minorities, who owned fewer than 7 percent of all U.S. 
     firms in 1982, now own more than 15 percent. Minorities owned 
     more than 3 million businesses in 1997, of which 615,222 had 
     paid employees, generated more than $591 billion in revenues, 
     created more than 4.5 million jobs, and provided about $96 
     billion in payroll to their workers.
       (5) Self-employment as a share of each group's 
     nonagricultural labor force (averaged over the 1991-1999 
     decade) was White, 9.7 percent; African American, 3.8 
     percent; American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut, 6.4 percent; and 
     Asian or Pacific Islander, 10.1 percent.
       (6) Of U.S. businesses, 5.8 percent were owned by Hispanic 
     Americans, 4.4 percent by Asian Americans, 4.0 percent by 
     African Americans, and 0.9 percent by American Indians.
       (7) Of the 4,514,699 jobs in minority-owned businesses in 
     1997, 48.8 percent were in Asian-owned firms, 30.8 percent in 
     Hispanic-owned firms, 15.9 percent in African American-owned 
     firms, and 6.6 percent in American Native-owned firms.
       (8) Minority-owned firms had about $96 billion in payroll 
     in 1997. The average payroll per employee was roughly $21,000 
     in the major minority groups and ranged from just under 
     $15,000 to just over $27,000 in various subgroups of the 
     minority population.
       (9) African Americans were the only race or ethnic group to 
     show an increase in voter participation in congressional 
     elections, increasing their presence at the polls from 37 
     percent in 1994 to 40 percent in 1998. Nationwide, overall 
     turnout by the voting-age population was down from 45 percent 
     in 1994 to 42 percent in 1998.
       (10) In 2000, there were 8.7 million African American 
     families. The United States had 96,000 African American 
     engineers, 41,000 African American physicians and 47,000 
     African American lawyers in 1999.
       (11) The number of Asians and Pacific Islanders voting in 
     congressional elections increased by 366,000 between 1994 and 
     1998.
       (12) Businesses owned by Asians and Pacific Islanders made 
     up 4 percent of the nation's 20.8 million nonfarm businesses.

[[Page 1377]]

       (13) Asians tend to have larger families--the average 
     family size is 3.6 persons, as opposed to an average 
     Caucasian family of 3.1 persons.
       (14) The First Amendment to the United States Constitution 
     states that, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an 
     establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 
     thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; 
     or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to 
     petition the Government for a redress of grievances.''.
       (15) The Supreme Court recognized and emphasized the 
     importance of free speech rights in Buckley v. Valeo, where 
     it stated, ``A restriction on the amount of money a person or 
     group can spend on political communication during a campaign 
     necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting 
     the number of issues discussed, the depth of their 
     exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is 
     because virtually every means of communicating ideas in 
     today's mass society requires the expenditure of money. The 
     distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails 
     printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies 
     generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the 
     event. The electorate's increasing dependence on television, 
     radio, and other mass media for news and information has made 
     these expensive modes of communication indispensable 
     instruments of effective political speech.''.
       (16) In response to the relentlessly repeated claim that 
     campaign spending has skyrocketed and should be legislatively 
     restrained, the Buckley Court stated that the First Amendment 
     denied the government the power to make that determination: 
     ``In the free society ordained by our Constitution, it is not 
     the government but the people--individually as citizens and 
     candidates and collectively as associations and political 
     committees--who must retain control over the quantity and 
     range of debate on public issues in a political campaign.''.
       (17) In Buckley, the Court also stated, ``The concept that 
     government may restrict the speech of some elements of our 
     society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is 
     wholly foreign to the First Amendment, which was designed `to 
     secure the widest possible dissemination of information from 
     diverse and antagonistic sources,' and `to assure unfettered 
     exchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and 
     societal changes desired by the people' ''.
       (18) Citizens who have an interest in issues about or 
     related to civil rights have the Constitutional right to 
     criticize or praise their elected officials individually or 
     collectively as a group. Communications in the form of 
     criticism or praise of elected officials is preciously 
     protected as free speech under the First Amendment of the 
     Constitution of the United States.
       (19) This title contains restrictions on the rights of 
     citizens, either individually or collectively, to communicate 
     with or about their elected representatives and to the 
     general public. Such restrictions would stifle and suppress 
     individual and group advocacy pertaining to politics and 
     government--the political expression at the core of the 
     electoral process and of First Amendment freedoms--the very 
     engine of democracy. Such restrictions also hinder citizens' 
     ability to communicate their support or opposition on issues 
     concerning civil rights to their elected officials and the 
     general public.
       (20) Candidate campaigns and issue campaigns are the 
     primary vehicles for giving voice to popular grievances, 
     raising issues and proposing solutions. An election, and the 
     time leading up to it, is when political speech should be at 
     its most robust and unfettered.

     SEC. 222. EXEMPTION FOR COMMUNICATIONS PERTAINING TO CIVIL 
                   RIGHTS AND ISSUES AFFECTING MINORITIES.

       None of the restrictions or requirements contained in this 
     title or the amendments made by this title shall apply to any 
     form or mode of communication to the public that consists of 
     information or commentary regarding the statements, actions, 
     positions, or voting records of any individual who holds 
     congressional or other Federal office, or who is a candidate 
     for congressional or other Federal office, on any matter 
     pertaining to civil rights and issues affecting minorities.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
344, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and a Member opposed, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts).
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise to stand up for free speech on civil rights and other issues 
involving members of minority communities. This bill will create 
consequences for all constituents that are not good.
  The 34 million Americans of African descent, 35 million Hispanics and 
Latinos, 10 million Asian Americans, and 2 million American Indians 
deserve the right to free speech as enshrined in the first amendment to 
the United States Constitution. These important constituencies have 
interests that are unique and special. They should not be gagged in the 
name of reform.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is pretty simple. It states that no 
restrictions in the Shays-Meehan bill can ban statements, actions or 
positions of a candidate pertaining to civil rights and other issues 
affecting minorities.
  This amendment is not about soft money. It is not about the RNC, the 
DNC, the NRCC, the DCCC. It makes clear, regardless of political party, 
issues concerning civil rights and minorities will not be restricted in 
any way as a result of some parameters on free speech politicians write 
today to protect their incumbency.
  Let us take education for example, Mr. Chairman. It is a documented 
fact that Americans in the black communities support giving parents the 
choice of where to send their kids to school. They support the right to 
send students to private and religious schools if they think those 
schools are better suited to their educational needs. Why should an 
organized group of black parents not be able to communicate on 
television or radio, at any time, their opinions on a candidate's views 
about parental choice? I would also ask the question, if it is bad 
somehow or another to say that they cannot voice their concerns, their 
opinions in the last 60 days, why should they be able to voice their 
concerns at all? If it is bad in the last 60 days, it ought to be bad 
all year round. Under the Shays-Meehan bill, these parents would be 
silenced. Under my amendment, we protect their first amendment rights.
  The voices of African Americans should not be constrained. The 
thoughts and ideas of those speaking on issues concerning minorities 
and civil rights must not be muted. The right to free speech is too 
important to sacrifice at the altar of what I believe is a flawed 
campaign finance bill.
  Winston Churchill, in a speech to the British House of Commons in 
1944, said: ``The United States is a land of free speech. Nowhere is 
speech freer.'' I say we might not like what people say about us, but 
we ought to protect the right to say it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price) at the outset for the purpose of entering a 
colloquy with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), and then I 
will respond.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shays-Meehan bill, 
which would plug two gaping loopholes that have made a mockery of the 
law. It would ban unlimited, unaccountable soft-money contributions; 
and it would place issue-advocacy ads that mention candidates under the 
same rules that govern other campaign ads.
  Campaign reform is not just about money, however. It is also about 
encouraging truthfulness and a focus on the issues. We cannot and 
should not regulate the content of ads, but we can and must ensure that 
candidates take responsibility for the content of their ads and their 
campaign materials. That is the intent of the provisions in the bill 
that would strengthen the disclaimers contained in radio and TV ads.
  I am grateful to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for working with me to 
include most components of my Stand by Your Ad bill, H.R. 156, in this 
bill. The Shays-Meehan bill improves upon similar Senate-passed 
language, giving candidates and representatives of political committees 
the option of appearing full screen in their television ads and 
delivering the disclaimer directly, or delivering the disclaimer in 
voice-over with a ``clearly identifiable'' picture on the screen. This 
tracks the law passed in North Carolina in 1999, which most believe had 
a positive effect on the 2000 gubernatorial elections.

[[Page 1378]]

  There is one aspect of the bill's language about which I wish to seek 
additional clarification, and I would like to yield to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) to get an answer to the following 
question.
  I would like to clarify for the record the authors' intent with 
respect to the voice-over option. To my mind, the postage stamp-sized 
picture that often accompanies disclaimers cannot be considered 
``clearly identifiable.'' Is that the gentleman from
Massachusetts's view, or could he provide any further sense of the 
intent of the term ``clearly identifiable'' with respect to the size of 
the photograph that would appear on screen?
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Price) not only for his question but his very important support on 
this most important issue.
  I do think the FEC standard should understand that the language reads 
not identifiable but clearly identifiable. There will be some 
photographic images that would not meet the clearly identifiable 
standard.
  So I do think that the FEC should understand that the language reads 
not identifiable but clearly identifiable; and there would be some 
photographic images, as I said, that would not meet the clearly 
identifiable standard, and I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Price) for his question.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for his clarification. The FEC will no doubt 
issue regulations that carry out the intent of this language.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this vitally important legislation, to 
restore the faith of the American people in the integrity of our 
election process, an indispensable keystone of democracy.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment 
is no different than the two amendments like it which we previously 
defeated. In fact, it is in essence exactly like the last amendment.
  I tell my friend from Oklahoma that this is not about whether we are 
for or against civil rights. I take a backseat to no one in this 
institution in support of civil rights and human rights, here and 
around the world.
  This is about making some speech more protected than other speech. 
The first amendment does not say that. In fact, it is the essence of 
the first amendment that all speech is protected, that no speech is 
more protected than any other, that there is no State-favored speech. 
This is about a bill which I suggest to the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Watts) does not stop any speech, contrary to his representations.
  Does it say under the rules that someone has to use hard money that 
is discloseable to make that speech on television and on radio? Yes, it 
does, and it treats all speech exactly the same. If it were not so, I 
suggest to the gentleman it would be unconstitutional.
  The gentleman may take the position that, in fact, the bill is 
unconstitutional, and that will be argued clearly in the Supreme Court; 
but this is not about undermining civil rights speech, undermining 
speech about the second amendment, undermining speech, in fact, 
pursuant to the first amendment.

                              {time}  1900

  This is about reforming campaign finances.
  And I will say to my friend that this amendment, like the other 
amendments, clearly is designed, in my opinion, to undermine and defeat 
campaign finance reform, not to protect civil rights speech, which is, 
in fact, protected under the first amendment, which is, in fact, 
protected under the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments.
  This amendment, like its predecessors, which were exactly alike, is 
unnecessary, unneeded, and ought to be opposed.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume to say to my friend from Maryland that he is right, these 
amendments are offered to show the consequences that this legislation 
creates is going to be bad for every constituency in America that wants 
to have a voice the last 60 days of a campaign.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Pickering).
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma. The previous amendment dealt 
with the second amendment. We are trying to make the point, whether it 
is on civil rights or the second amendment, whether it is a prolife 
group, religious or secular group, farmers, veterans, those who want to 
participate in the political process, that we are going to regulate 
them, restrict their first amendment or free speech rights, their 
political rights to express themselves.
  In my district, the African American community, the Choctaw Tribe, 
the Mississippi Band of Choctaws, a growing Hispanic community, if they 
want to engage in a grassroots organization in informing people of the 
positions and the parties or the candidates, are we going to place the 
heavy hand of government on them to make it more difficult to 
participate, to restrict their freedoms?
  This is something that should cut across all groups, all parties, in 
the defense of the very fundamental rights we have as Americans, that 
we enjoy as Americans, and that is the freedom of speech without 
government regulating it, restricting it, or making it more difficult 
for people to participate regardless of their power or their position. 
This is a long tradition that we have had in American politics. I think 
in name of reform we are forgetting very foundational, fundamental 
truths and principles that we want to protect as a country, as a 
Nation, and as a people.
  So I rise in proud support of the amendment. I am disappointed that 
the previous amendment on the second amendment did not pass, but this 
is still the fundamental issue before us; the first amendment rights 
for all groups at any time to participate without the government 
regulation and restriction upon them.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds for the purpose of 
saying that everybody's speech is protected. It is how we fund it that 
is critical. It is how we fund it so that the American people know who 
is talking to them, that is the issue here, as well as the freedom to 
talk. Both are protected under Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who, as I have said before, has risked life and 
health to protect the civil rights of not only African Americans, but 
all Americans.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), for yielding me this time.
  This amendment is another poison pill. It is a phony issue. It has 
nothing but nothing to do with free speech or with civil rights. I know 
something about civil rights. I grew up at a time when I saw those 
signs that said ``white men,'' ``colored men,'' ``white women,'' 
``colored women,'' ``white waiting,'' ``colored waiting.'' As a child, 
I tasted the bitter fruits of integration and racial discrimination, so 
I know something about civil rights.
  In 1960, when we were sitting in; in 1961, when we went on the 
freedom rides; in 1963, when we marched on Washington; in 1964, when we 
went to Mississippi during the Mississippi summer project; in 1965, 
when we marched from Selma to Montgomery, that was about civil rights. 
We did not have a Web site, a Web page. We did not have a fax machine. 
We did not have a cellular telephone. But we had our bodies. We had our 
feet. And we put our bodies on the line for civil rights. We did not 
have much money of any kind, hard or soft, but we had a dream that we 
could create an America, a truly interracial democracy, a beloved 
community.
  I say to my colleagues that we should be real. This is not about 
civil rights. This is not about free speech. This is

[[Page 1379]]

about cleaning up our political process, opening it up and letting all 
the people come in. This is about campaign finance reform. That is what 
it is about. Do not be fooled tonight.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and I would submit to my colleagues that I, too, remember 
the day that I could not swim in the public swimming pool; that I had 
to sit in the balcony of the movie theater; that I could not sit down 
below with my white friends.
  Now, to say that in the last 60 days of a campaign that a Member of 
Congress who had voted to keep J.C. Watts in the balcony of the movie 
theater, to make J.C. Watts go to the swimming pool in somebody's 
backyard and not the public swimming pool, to say that some Member of 
Congress is protected, to say that I cannot point out that they voted 
for that in the last 60 days of a campaign, that is straight from the 
annals of Fidel Castro.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I want to say respectfully to my very good friend from 
Georgia, as well as my very good friend from Oklahoma, that civil 
rights is not a franchise of any one race. True, some in a race may 
have felt it stronger than others, but having been a white child to 
integrate a black high school in Athens, Georgia, and my friend from 
Georgia may well remember Bernie Harris, I was in the civil rights 
issues, knew them very personally, very many issues, which we have 
discussed in the past.
  I would say that the gentleman from Oklahoma is right. How do we turn 
around to people and say they have free speech but not in the last 60 
days? Sunday night I had the opportunity to go to the Chinese 
Benevolent Society in Savannah, Georgia, and welcome in the Year of the 
Horse, which was yesterday. I have a hard time saying to these Chinese 
American constituents that they can participate in the system, but here 
is how your free speech is protected. If you are in a certain group, 
you can give up to $60 million in soft money.
  But I do not think they are going to be able to raise that at the 
Chinese Benevolent Society because they are a small group.
  If I go down to Toombs Central High School, in Toombs County, 
Georgia, and I say to a very strong, growing Hispanic group of people, 
listen, we are going to clean it up, but there is going to be about $40 
million in the bill that can go to the Democrats to build a new 
building. That is cleaning up America.
  I would say very carefully, very guardedly that what the Watts 
amendment does is make it unequivocal to all minority groups that civil 
rights will be protected, because the distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia and so many others from so many other States and so many other 
races have paid such a high price for full participation in our society 
today.
  As we celebrate February and Black History Month, one of the clear 
messages that comes to me from my African American constituents is that 
the struggle continues. It is not over. And I believe that what this 
amendment says is that we need to protect that and make it abundantly 
clear, and I think that is what this is about.
  I can understand people wanting to vote ``no.'' I can understand for 
partisan reasons voting one way or the other on any bill. But let us 
not say this bill protects the interests of minorities or anybody else. 
It just refunnels the money. It reregulates it. Soft money is not 
banned under this bill, it just says that certain interest groups get 
the last whack at it. Certain interest groups are protected just a 
little bit more than others.
  So I would urge my colleagues to vote for the Watts amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I stand here in strong 
opposition to this amendment.
  This is a clear case where we must read the label very carefully, 
look at the small print, because to say that this is about civil 
rights, if this House and if we wanted to talk about civil rights, we 
would be really talking about election reform. This bill has nothing to 
do with civil rights. It is what I would call mislabeling.
  What this bill is about is about allowing people who have been locked 
out of a process to be in the process. What this bill is about is about 
not misleading people with ads at the end of a campaign that tells them 
something that is not true. What this bill is about is really about the 
first amendment rights of people, having the right to petition when 
they feel aggrieved, and the American people have felt aggrieved with 
what we are doing here with campaign financing, and it needs reforming.
  This is not a civil rights bill.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Civil rights is extremely personal, it has 
to do with convictions and commitment. I am reminded of the time Rosa 
Parks sat down on a Montgomery bus and she called Martin King. There 
were no special interest dollars there, and a civil rights movement 
began, and it changed the Nation.
  That is the basis for what we do today, and that is how we open the 
doors now for new voices to be heard, like the NAACP, LULAC, the 
Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, 
and others. None of them who have a need to advocate are prevented by 
Shays-Meehan from doing so. This amendment does not protect civil 
rights it only protects special interest large soft dollars.
  When the civil rights movement marched to Washington the momentum 
created the opportunity for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voter 
Rights Act of 1965 to pass no special interest dollars were there, only 
the heart and soul of people who believed in a better nation. It was 
simply the right decision for America and its people.
  I have said before, let us stand alongside the voices of the people 
today and refute all of these poison pills and vote for real campaign 
finance reform so that the people's voices can be heard for the new 
civil rights movement of the 21st century, above the disjangled chords 
of special interest money.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  We have heard a lot today about people being locked out. What has 
this Congress worked on the last 7 years? We have given people more of 
their money to spend. We have paid down the public debt. We have given 
our soldiers more money to protect America's interests and protect 
themselves around the country. We have had a successful welfare reform 
bill passed that Republicans and Democrats both boast about. Those are 
the things that we have done.
  My constituents have a right to vote against me if they do not like 
what we have done. How has anyone been locked out of the process?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that this bill is not 
about true campaign finance reform. What the amendment of the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) tries to do is it tries to stop the 
censorship of free speech having to do with civil rights and protecting 
and being a proponent of protecting the rights of minorities. Without 
this amendment, and contrary to what has been said before, there are 
elevated cases of increased scrutiny on certain classes of speech, on 
certain attributes of individuals in this country.
  What we are trying to do by this amendment is to ensure that free 
speech having to do with the protection of civil rights will be 
protected.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, if an argument lacks substance, Members create a straw 
man, and make that straw man look exceedingly bad. Then they knock that

[[Page 1380]]

straw man down, and then say how great that is. The problem here is 
this straw man is hollow and not true. There is no restriction in this 
bill for any American to raise an issue on either side of the second 
amendment, to raise any first amendment issue, or to raise any issue of 
civil rights. There is no Member of this House on this side, and I do 
not believe there is any Member on that side, who would stand to limit 
debate or speech on any of those issues. That is a straw man.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is about campaign finance reform. This bill 
is about letting Americans know who is paying for elections. This bill 
is trying to give Americans confidence that they are included in the 
process.
  Mr. Chairman, I reject out of hand the straw man, and let us reject 
out of hand this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Watts).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 237, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 25]

                               AYES--185

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--237

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shows
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Brady (TX)
     Cubin
     DeFazio
     Johnson (CT)
     Oxley
     Payne
     Riley
     Roukema
     Rush
     Stark
     Tiahrt
     Traficant

                              {time}  1936

  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon and Messrs. Maloney of Connecticut, Larson of 
Connecticut and Wynn changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to the order of 
the House of Tuesday, February 12, 2002, it is now in order to consider 
an amendment by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) or the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).


                Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mrs. Capito

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee of 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mrs. Capito:
       Add at the end of title III the following new section:

     SEC. 320. MODIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR 
                   HOUSE CANDIDATES IN RESPONSE TO EXPENDITURES 
                   FROM PERSONAL FUNDS.

       (a) Increased Limits.--Title III of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by 
     inserting after section 315 the following new section:


 ``modification of certain limits for house candidates in response to 
                personal fund expenditures of opponents

       ``Sec. 315A. (a) Availability of Increased Limit.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), if the 
     opposition personal funds amount with respect to a candidate 
     for election to the office of Representative in, or Delegate 
     or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress exceeds $350,000--
       ``(A) the limit under subsection (a)(1)(A) with respect to 
     the candidate shall be tripled;
       ``(B) the limit under subsection (a)(3) shall not apply 
     with respect to any contribution made with respect to the 
     candidate if the contribution is made under the increased 
     limit allowed under subparagraph (A) during a period in which 
     the candidate may accept such a contribution; and
       ``(C) the limits under subsection (d) with respect to any 
     expenditure by a State or national committee of a political 
     party on behalf of the candidate shall not apply.
       ``(2) Determination of opposition personal funds amount.--
       ``(A) In general.--The opposition personal funds amount is 
     an amount equal to the excess (if any) of--
       ``(i) the greatest aggregate amount of expenditures from 
     personal funds (as defined in subsection (b)(1)) that an 
     opposing candidate in the same election makes; over

[[Page 1381]]

       ``(ii) the aggregate amount of expenditures from personal 
     funds made by the candidate with respect to the election.
       ``(B) Special rule for candidate's campaign funds.--
       ``(i) In general.--For purposes of determining the 
     aggregate amount of expenditures from personal funds under 
     subparagraph (A), such amount shall include the gross 
     receipts advantage of the candidate's authorized committee.
       ``(ii) Gross receipts advantage.--For purposes of clause 
     (i), the term `gross receipts advantage' means the excess, if 
     any, of--

       ``(I) the aggregate amount of 50 percent of gross receipts 
     of a candidate's authorized committee during any election 
     cycle (not including contributions from personal funds of the 
     candidate) that may be expended in connection with the 
     election, as determined on June 30 and December 31 of the 
     year preceding the year in which a general election is held, 
     over
       ``(II) the aggregate amount of 50 percent of gross receipts 
     of the opposing candidate's authorized committee during any 
     election cycle (not including contributions from personal 
     funds of the candidate) that may be expended in connection 
     with the election, as determined on June 30 and December 31 
     of the year preceding the year in which a general election is 
     held.

       ``(3) Time to accept contributions under increased limit.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), a candidate 
     and the candidate's authorized committee shall not accept any 
     contribution, and a party committee shall not make any 
     expenditure, under the increased limit under paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) until the candidate has received notification of the 
     opposition personal funds amount under subsection (b)(1); and
       ``(ii) to the extent that such contribution, when added to 
     the aggregate amount of contributions previously accepted and 
     party expenditures previously made under the increased limits 
     under this subsection for the election cycle, exceeds 100 
     percent of the opposition personal funds amount.
       ``(B) Effect of withdrawal of an opposing candidate.--A 
     candidate and a candidate's authorized committee shall not 
     accept any contribution and a party shall not make any 
     expenditure under the increased limit after the date on which 
     an opposing candidate ceases to be a candidate to the extent 
     that the amount of such increased limit is attributable to 
     such an opposing candidate.
       ``(4) Disposal of excess contributions.--
       ``(A) In general.--The aggregate amount of contributions 
     accepted by a candidate or a candidate's authorized committee 
     under the increased limit under paragraph (1) and not 
     otherwise expended in connection with the election with 
     respect to which such contributions relate shall, not later 
     than 50 days after the date of such election, be used in the 
     manner described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Return to contributors.--A candidate or a candidate's 
     authorized committee shall return the excess contribution to 
     the person who made the contribution.
       ``(b) Notification of Expenditures From Personal Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Definition of expenditure from personal funds.--In 
     this paragraph, the term `expenditure from personal funds' 
     means--
       ``(i) an expenditure made by a candidate using personal 
     funds; and
       ``(ii) a contribution or loan made by a candidate using 
     personal funds or a loan secured using such funds to the 
     candidate's authorized committee.
       ``(B) Declaration of intent.--Not later than the date that 
     is 15 days after the date on which an individual becomes a 
     candidate for the office of Representative in, or Delegate or 
     Resident Commissioner to, the Congress, the candidate shall 
     file a declaration stating the total amount of expenditures 
     from personal funds that the candidate intends to make, or to 
     obligate to make, with respect to the election that will 
     exceed $350,000.
       ``(C) Initial notification.--Not later than 24 hours after 
     a candidate described in subparagraph (B) makes or obligates 
     to make an aggregate amount of expenditures from personal 
     funds in excess of $350,000 in connection with any election, 
     the candidate shall file a notification.
       ``(D) Additional notification.--After a candidate files an 
     initial notification under subparagraph (C), the candidate 
     shall file an additional notification each time expenditures 
     from personal funds are made or obligated to be made in an 
     aggregate amount that exceeds $10,000. Such notification 
     shall be filed not later than 24 hours after the expenditure 
     is made.
       ``(E) Contents.--A notification under subparagraph (C) or 
     (D) shall include--
       ``(i) the name of the candidate and the office sought by 
     the candidate;
       ``(ii) the date and amount of each expenditure; and
       ``(iii) the total amount of expenditures from personal 
     funds that the candidate has made, or obligated to make, with 
     respect to an election as of the date of the expenditure that 
     is the subject of the notification.
       ``(F) Place of filing.--Each declaration or notification 
     required to be filed by a candidate under subparagraph (C), 
     (D), or (E) shall be filed with--
       ``(i) the Commission; and
       ``(ii) each candidate in the same election and the national 
     party of each such candidate.
       ``(2) Notification of disposal of excess contributions.--In 
     the next regularly scheduled report after the date of the 
     election for which a candidate seeks nomination for election 
     to, or election to, Federal office, the candidate or the 
     candidate's authorized committee shall submit to the 
     Commission a report indicating the source and amount of any 
     excess contributions (as determined under subsection (a)) and 
     the manner in which the candidate or the candidate's 
     authorized committee used such funds.
       ``(3) Enforcement.--For provisions providing for the 
     enforcement of the reporting requirements under this 
     subsection, see section 309.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 315(a)(1) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a), as amended by 
     section 304(a), is amended by striking ``subsection (i),'' 
     and inserting ``subsection (i) and section 315A,''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
344, the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. 
Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as a strong supporter of campaign finance reform, I am 
glad to see us debating this issue on the floor this evening. I want to 
thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for allowing me to 
offer this amendment, and I appreciate his willingness to allow me to 
stand in to offer the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment was created in cooperation with the most 
ardent supporters of campaign finance reform in an attempt to devise a 
way to correct what I believe is one of the most glaring inequities in 
the current system, the problem of self-financed candidates giving 
unlimited personal resources to outspend and defeat their opponents. 
Unfortunately, the bill that we are currently considering tilts the 
playing field away from average Americans wishing to run for office. My 
amendment would help return a sense of balance to congressional 
elections by allowing candidates who are unfairly disadvantaged by 
their opponent's personal wealth to raise matching funds through higher 
contribution limits and additional assistance from the national party.
  Quite simply, once a candidate spends $350,000, and I think that is 
quite a bit, or more of their own money on their own campaign, their 
opponent is eligible to raise matching funds. These matching funds can 
come in the form of national party assistance and/or additional 
individual contribution raised at three times the current limits. Once 
parity is achieved, the regular contribution limits go back into 
effect.
  I want to stress to my colleagues that my intention in offering this 
amendment is not to add more money to the system. Rather, I want to 
encourage all candidates, wealthy or not, to play by the same rules. 
This amendment is not about throwing more money into campaigns. It is 
about making money less important by correcting the inequities that are 
created when wealthy candidates use their own resources to sway 
elections.
  There are many candidates, and I am one, who have attempted to run a 
successful campaign against an opponent who had an unlimited war chest 
of personal finances. It is unfortunate that the strength and the 
seemingly bottomless nature of a candidate's pocketbook can present 
additional obstacles beyond the basic debate over the merits of ideas. 
Large personal fortunes were not a prerequisite that our Founding 
Fathers envisioned for being a public servant. The creators of our 
government never intended for big bank accounts to be the key to 
ensuring many years in office. That was to be a decision for the 
voters.
  The American public's cry for campaign finance reform is a testimony 
to the widespread, accepted truth that money can have the ability to 
distort government and politics. The uneven playing field that is 
created when candidates throw millions and millions of

[[Page 1382]]

their own money into an election must be addressed and remedied here 
and now if we want true and comprehensive campaign finance reform.
  The only way a pure American democracy can work is if people have 
faith in the system and if they participate. That includes running for 
office. It is time to recognize that the realities of today's elections 
prevent many from participating.
  I urge my colleagues to accept the amendment so that any American 
running for office can compete on an even playing field.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman makes a persuasive case for 
her amendment. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Owens).

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman makes a persuasive case, and 
I would not want to argue with the fairness, logic or commonsense 
arithmetic of what she has to say. It makes sense.
  The important thing is that Shays-Meehan makes sense as it is right 
now, and if this amendment is being offered as another way of tinkering 
with it in a way which makes it impossible to get a settlement between 
the two Houses, then that I would be certainly opposed to.
  But I cannot argue with the logic. All of us ought to understand that 
the American public out there, our constituents, are like the little 
child in Hans Christian Anderson's tale of ``The Emperor's New 
Clothes.'' They understand what is happening. They understand what 
makes sense.
  If we are tinkering and posturing in order to prevent anything moving 
forward, they can understand that. In the long run, we will have to be 
on the side of logic, and this amendment certainly makes a lot of 
sense. In fact, the campaign finance reform bill law which is in effect 
in New York City governing municipal elections is a very good law that 
I would point to as a good model.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OWENS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask the author of the amendment, 
could they clarify whether this language was considered in the Senate. 
If we could get some clarification, it might be helpful.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OWENS. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the Senate has what they refer to as a ``millionaire's 
amendment'' or a level playing field amendment. They allow for three 
times the amount of hard money at a certain level, and then at a 
certain point they allow 10 times the amount. But each Senate district 
is different. So they did it for each Senate territory. The States have 
different populations and so on.
  So what was done by the gentlewoman from West Virginia is an 
amendment that allows House Members to have the same kind of amendment. 
It would be compatible with the Senate amendment. It works in harmony 
with it.
  We have this as what we refer to as a neutral amendment. The Senate 
does not care whether we pass it or not. We want to make sure that the 
House does its will. I support this amendment with all my heart. I 
think the one weakness in our bill is that when you run against someone 
wealthy, you cannot get the same resources and you are put at a 
disadvantage, and especially if we are going to take away soft money.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will say emphatically 
I support the amendment if it is not part of a process of under the 
cloak of good government attempting to sabotage the Shays-Meehan bill. 
I think it makes sense. As I said before, it is in harmony with the New 
York City municipal election law which has provisions similar to this, 
and I would certainly support it.
  I hope we understand that the people out there understand also when 
we are posturing. They want to see some real reform. They understand 
the relationship between Enron's contributions and Global Crossing's 
contributions and the fact that regulators have not regulated 
appropriately.
  It is just a matter of time before all of this is going to be clearly 
understood by the whole public, and we might as well move to stay ahead 
of the people and have real reform here.
  I would certainly support this particular amendment in that spirit.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from 
Connecticut has made it clear this is not offered as a gutting 
amendment. This is in fact harmonious with a similar Senate version, 
but I think a much better version.
  This gets around the Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo that 
basically said millionaire candidates can spend as much money as they 
want on behalf of their own campaigns, while the rest of us are limited 
in what we can raise by the Federal election law.
  This relaxes those laws that will allow parties to come in relaxing 
their contributory limits to candidates, and also the way we raise 
money. This evens the playing field for candidates who are challenging 
millionaires or who are challenged by millionaires; the individual who 
can go to McDonald's, have breakfast with himself, write himself a $3 
million check and have the largest fund-raising breakfast in history. 
This would allow us the tools to be able to go and compete fairly with 
them.
  So I think I applaud the gentlewoman for her amendment in this case. 
I think it makes a bad bill better. I think it is a problem that is in 
existing law. It does not exist because of the Shays-Meehan bill; this 
is a problem in existing law. And I think this is an appropriate 
remedy, and I would urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this 
amendment because I think it brings fairness to this process.
  Mr. Chairman, today, as we debate this critical legislation, it is 
important to remember how we got here. In the aftermath of the 
Watergate scandal, our nation began looking for a way to address the 
major problems facing our political system. Congress led the way to 
reform by amending the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) in the 
hope that we could clean up our politics and diminish the influence of 
big money in campaigns and elections.
  After Watergate, we heard stories of bags of cash used to corrupt our 
politics. Those bags of cash were the Soft Money of their day. Then we 
had soft money in cash--today we have soft money checks. And the 
amounts are astronomical.
  Almost 30 years later, we are faced with a system that, while 
certainly better than it was in the early 1970's, remains riddled with 
loopholes that allow wealthy special interests to exert too much 
influence. In the resulting flood of cash, the average voter isn't 
heard. The 1970's campaign finance reforms were intended to clean up 
our system. Yet the well-intentioned efforts failed to imagine how 
corporations, unions and individuals would exploit loopholes and find 
ways to inject their money into the political system.
  It is legitimate to ask: why ban soft money. What do political 
parties and interest groups do with their money other than advocate for 
the election of their candidates? They do very important party building 
work such as registering voters and encouraging them to vote, but too 
much of their money is spent buying attack ads paid for with soft 
money. Shays-Meehan will still allow these real and important party-
building activities, but we can take a step in the right direction 
today to end sham issues ads.
  Campaign finance reform goes even deeper than today's debate. All 
legislation we debate is affected.
  If we are to finally achieve what our predecessors sought over a 
quarter century ago, we much put an end to the soft money that makes a 
mockery of our current campaign finance laws. What is at stake is 
nothing less than our democracy. The principle of one man, one vote is 
consistently undermined by

[[Page 1383]]

the ability of wealthy individuals and interests to purchase political 
power.
  I am often asked why Congress has not been able to pass legislation 
such as a patient's bill of rights or a Medicare prescription drug 
benefit for the nation's seniors. I have to say that we in Congress 
must fight against a powerful tide of money as we try to protect the 
public interest against the interests of a privileged few. The 
ubiquitous and pernicious influence of money in Washington mocks our 
best efforts to protect the underprivileged. Campaign finance reform is 
especially important because it will allow us to serve those who need 
our help the most, the average citizens who can't afford to give 
hundreds of thousands in soft money.
  The time for change is now.
  I traveled all across my district in January conducting town hall 
meetings at every stop. My constituents were outraged by the Enron 
scandal and what it really means. My constituents detected the 
corrupting connection between money and politics and so do yours.
  In the aftermath of Enron, many in the halls of government and across 
the country are taking a new look at the role that soft money plays in 
politics. The true outrage of Enron is not that they broke the rules, 
it is that they were able to use their money and influence to make the 
rules in the first place. Enron got the best regulations money can buy, 
and their workers and shareholders paid the price.
  The case of Enron only proved what most people already know about our 
campaign finance system. Even before Enron, 75 percent of Americans 
supported campaign finance reform. But, if the American people so 
overwhelming support it, why has this government failed to enact 
meaningful reform? It is because for years, opponents of reform have 
found a way to kill reform proposals quietly, ensuring that they would 
never have to take a stand against such popular measures.
  This year, opponents of reform will yet again attempt to kill reform 
through dishonesty and subterfuge. We will see amendment after 
amendment aimed at sending Shays-Meehan, the most comprehensive reform 
bill currently on the table, to conference committee, where its 
opponents predict it will die a slow but silent death. These amendments 
will no doubt seem reform-oriented on the surface, but beneath their 
shell they are poison pills, designed to kill our efforts for reform. 
That's what poison does . . . it kills. We must stand together against 
these poison pills. If we hold our united front on these tough 
amendments, we will have a final product that we can send to the other 
body and to President Bush for his signature.
  If the American people are to participate in and respect the 
electoral process, they must see that the influence of the voter is not 
outweighed by the purchased influence of wealthy special interests. We 
must restore dignity to the process by putting people ahead of money. 
Shays-Meehan, although it is not the end of the road, is a real step 
towards a political system of, by and for the people, without the 
corrupting influence of enormous amounts of soft money. I hope you will 
join me in passing Shays-Meehan, free of poison pill amendments, so 
that we may take yet another step toward a more representative 
democracy and a more perfect union.
  In closing, I want to congratulate and thank my colleagues, Mr. Shays 
and Mr. Meehan, for their leadership on this issue. I am proud to 
associate myself with their hard work on this important legislation and 
look forward to its passage.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on these sham poison pill amendments 
and vote yes on final passage. It's the best option for honest campaign 
reform we have had in a generation.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this very-well-thought-out 
amendment. I commend the author for her efforts in crafting what 
appears to be a very sensible approach to this issue.
  I would also say that this amendment rather distinguishes itself in 
the long line of amendments we are dealing with tonight, as I think it 
is a serious amendment to improve the legislation and not an attempt to 
scuttle it.
  Again, I think adjusting the hard-money contributions when one runs 
against a person with great wealth is fair, reasonable and entirely 
consistent with the underlying scheme, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
in favor of the amendment.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleagues for their support 
and in verbalizing it this evening. My intent, of course, is to improve 
the legislation and not to bring it down in any form or fashion. I 
think I made a good point that I have worked with the most ardent 
supporters of campaign finance reform to improve this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, on reflection from the debate and persuaded by my 
worthy colleague, I would recede from my opposition. I urge all Members 
to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Tuesday, February 12, 2002, it is now in order to consider an amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).


          Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas

  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Texas a designee of 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey)?
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 28 offered by Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas:
       Add at the end of title II the following new subtitle:

    Subtitle C--Exemption of Communications Pertaining to Veterans, 
                     Military Personnel, or Seniors

     SEC. 221. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) More than 42,000,000 men and women have served in the 
     United States Armed Forces from the Revolution onward and 
     more than 25 million are still living. Living veterans and 
     their families, plus the living dependents of deceased 
     veterans, constitute a significant part of the present United 
     States population.
       (2) American veterans are black and they are white; they 
     are of every race and ethnic heritage. They are men, and they 
     are women. They are Christians, they are Muslims, they are 
     Jews. They are fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, sons and 
     daughters. They are neighbors, down the street or right next 
     door. They are teachers in our schools, they are factory 
     workers. They are Americans living today who served in the 
     armed services, and they are the more than 1,000,000 who have 
     died in America's wars.
       (3) America's veterans are men and women who have fought to 
     protect the United States against foreign aggressors as 
     Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Coast Guardsmen and Marines. The 
     members of our elite organization are those who have 
     discharged their very special obligation of citizenship as 
     servicemen and women, and who today continue to expend great 
     time, effort and energy in the service of their fellow 
     veterans and their communities.
       (4) There is a bond joining every veteran from every branch 
     of the service. Whether drafted or enlisted, commissioned or 
     noncommissioned, each took an oath, lived by a code, and 
     stood ready to fight and die for their country.
       (5) American men and women in uniform risk their lives on a 
     daily basis to defend our freedom and democracy. Americans 
     have always believed that there are values worth fighting 
     for--values and liberties upon which America was founded and 
     which we have carried forward for more than 225 years, that 
     men and women of this great nation gave their lives to 
     preserve.
       (6) It is the sacrifice borne by generations of American 
     veterans that has made us strong and has rendered us the 
     beacon of freedom guiding the course of nations throughout 
     the world. American veterans have fought for freedom for 
     Americans, as well as citizens throughout the world. They 
     have helped to defend and preserve the values of freedom of 
     speech, democracy, voting rights, human rights, equal access 
     and the rights of the individual--those values felt and 
     nurtured on every continent in our world.
       (7) The freedoms and opportunities we enjoy today were 
     bought and paid for with their devotion to duty and their 
     sacrifices. We can never say it too many times: We are

[[Page 1384]]

     the benefactors of their sacrifice, and we are grateful.
       (8) Of the 25,000,000 veterans currently alive, nearly 
     three of every four served during a war or an official period 
     of hostility. About a quarter of the Nation's population--
     approximately 70,000,000 people--are potentially eligible for 
     Veterans' Administration benefits and services because they 
     are veterans, family members or survivors of veterans.
       (9) The present veteran population is estimated at 
     25,600,000, as of July 1, 1997. Nearly 80 of every 100 living 
     veterans served during defined periods of armed hostilities. 
     Altogether, almost one-third of the nation's population-
     approximately 70,000,000 persons who are veterans, dependents 
     and survivors of deceased veterans--are potentially eligible 
     for Veterans' Administration benefits and services.
       (10) Care for veterans and dependents spans centuries. The 
     last dependent of a Revolutionary War veteran died in 1911; 
     the War of 1812's last dependent died in 1946; the Mexican 
     War's, in 1962.
       (11) The Veterans' Administration health care system has 
     grown from 54 hospitals in 1930, to include 171 medical 
     centers; more than 350 outpatient, community, and outreach 
     clinics; 126 nursing home care units; and 35 domiciliaries. 
     Veterans' Administration health care facilities provide a 
     broad spectrum of medical, surgical, and rehabilitative care.
       (12) World War II resulted in not only a vast increase in 
     the veteran population, but also in large number of new 
     benefits enacted by the Congress for veterans of the war. The 
     World War II GI Bill, signed into law on June 22, 1944, is 
     said to have had more impact on the American way of life than 
     any law since the Homestead Act more than a century ago.
       (13) About 2,700,000 veterans receive disability 
     compensation or pensions from VA. Also receiving Veterans' 
     Administration benefits are 592,713 widows, children and 
     parents of deceased veterans. Among them are 133,881 
     survivors of Vietnam era veterans and 295,679 survivors of 
     World War II veterans. In fiscal year 2001, Veterans' 
     Administration planned to spend $22,000,000,000 yearly in 
     disability compensation, death compensation and pension to 
     3,200,000 people.
       (14) Veterans' Administration manages the largest medical 
     education and health professions training program in the 
     United States. Veterans' Administration facilities are 
     affiliated with 107 medical schools, 55 dental schools and 
     more than 1,200 other schools across the country. Each year, 
     about 85,000 health professionals are trained in Veterans' 
     Administration medical centers. More than half of the 
     physicians practicing in the United States have had part of 
     their professional education in the Veterans' Administration 
     health care system.
       (15) 75 percent of Veterans' Administration researchers are 
     practicing physicians. Because of their dual roles, Veterans' 
     Administration research often immediately benefits patients. 
     Functional electrical stimulation, a technology using 
     controlled electrical current to activate paralyzed muscles, 
     is being developed at Veterans' Administration clinical 
     facilities and laboratories throughout the country. Through 
     this technology, paraplegic patients have been able to stand 
     and, in some instances, walk short distances and climb 
     stairs. Patients with quadriplegia are able to use their 
     hands to grasp objects.
       (16) There are more than 35,000,000 persons in the United 
     States aged 65 and over.
       (17) Seniors are a diverse population, each member having 
     his or her own political and economic issues.
       (18) Seniors and their families have many important issues 
     for which they seek congressional action. Some of these 
     issues include, but are not limited to, health care, Social 
     Security, and taxes.
       (19) The First Amendment to the United States Constitution 
     states that, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an 
     establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 
     thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; 
     or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to 
     petition the Government for a redress of grievances.''.
       (20) The Supreme Court recognized and emphasized the 
     importance of free speech rights in Buckley v. Valeo, where 
     it stated, ``A restriction on the amount of money a person or 
     group can spend on political communication during a campaign 
     necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting 
     the number of issues discussed, the depth of their 
     exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is 
     because virtually every means of communicating ideas in 
     today's mass society requires the expenditure of money. The 
     distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails 
     printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies 
     generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the 
     event. The electorate's increasing dependence on television, 
     radio, and other mass media for news and information has made 
     these expensive modes of communication indispensable 
     instruments of effective political speech.''.
       (21) In response to the relentlessly repeated claim that 
     campaign spending has skyrocketed and should be legislatively 
     restrained, the Buckley Court stated that the First Amendment 
     denied the government the power to make that determination: 
     ``In the free society ordained by our Constitution, it is not 
     the government but the people--individually as citizens and 
     candidates and collectively as associations and political 
     committees--who must retain control over the quantity and 
     range of debate on public issues in a political campaign.''.
       (22) In Buckley, the Court also stated, ``The concept that 
     government may restrict the speech of some elements of our 
     society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is 
     wholly foreign to the First Amendment, which was designed `to 
     secure the widest possible dissemination of information from 
     diverse and antagonistic sources,' and `to assure unfettered 
     exchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and 
     societal changes desired by the people' ''.
       (23) Citizens who have an interest in issues about or 
     related to veterans, military personnel, seniors, and their 
     families have the Constitutional right to criticize or praise 
     their elected officials individually or collectively as a 
     group. Communications in the form of criticism or praise of 
     elected officials is preciously protected as free speech 
     under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United 
     States.
       (24) This title contains restrictions on the rights of 
     citizens, either individually or collectively, to communicate 
     with or about their elected representatives and to the 
     general public. Such restrictions would stifle and suppress 
     individual and group advocacy pertaining to politics and 
     government--the political expression at the core of the 
     electoral process and of First Amendment freedoms--the very 
     engine of democracy. Such restrictions also hinder citizens' 
     ability to communicate their support or opposition on issues 
     concerning veterans, military personnel, seniors, and their 
     families to their elected officials and the general public.
       (25) Candidate campaigns and issue campaigns are the 
     primary vehicles for giving voice to popular grievances, 
     raising issues and proposing solutions. An election, and the 
     time leading up to it, is when political speech should be at 
     its most robust and unfettered.

     SEC. 222. EXEMPTION FOR COMMUNICATIONS PERTAINING TO 
                   VETERANS, MILITARY PERSONNEL, OR SENIORS.

       None of the restrictions or requirements contained in this 
     title or the amendments made by this title shall apply to any 
     form or mode of communication to the public that consists of 
     information or commentary regarding the statements, actions, 
     positions, or voting records of any individual who holds 
     congressional or other Federal office, or who is a candidate 
     for congressional or other Federal office, on any matter 
     pertaining to veterans, military personnel, or senior 
     citizens, or to the immediate family members of veterans, 
     military personnel, or senior citizens.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
344, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and a Member opposed 
each will control 10 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) seek to control the 
time in opposition?
  Mr. FATTAH. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania will be 
recognized for 10 minutes in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, addresses the rights of veterans of 
this Nation. As a 29-year Air Force veteran and prisoner of war who had 
my freedom stripped away for many years, nearly 7, I am appalled that 
anyone would try to take away the rights of any American, especially 
those who put their lives in harm's way to defend our Constitution and 
this Nation.
  Let us not forget that between 1940 and 1947, over 16 million 
Americans signed up to stand with their country against the forces of 
fascism and tyranny. Over 400,000 never returned.
  Let us not forget that a decade later, almost 7 million Americans 
served in the Korean War, and 55,000 ended up giving up their lives.
  Throughout the conflicts, from the Revolutionary War to Vietnam, 
Desert Storm, and now Afghanistan, let us not forget that more than 42 
million brave men and women have answered the call to protect our 
freedom, and today more than 25 million of those brave souls are still 
alive in this country wanting their freedom.
  Veterans understand that freedom is not free, and I think everyone in 
here knows that. Those men and women fought and defended this Nation 
for us to be able to stand here on this floor today and talk. It must 
be defended

[[Page 1385]]

again. Would anyone disagree with this? I do not think so.
  Is there anyone who would deny a veteran's right to be heard or the 
right to hear what affects them? After all, veterans' issues are not 
Republican issues. They are not Democrat issues either. Veterans' 
issues are not liberal; they are not conservative. Veterans' issues are 
American issues. They have the right to talk about them, and we have an 
obligation to listen to them.
  Veterans' issues are about defending our country, providing quality 
health care and protecting Social Security. We must not silence the men 
and women who have fought and died to keep America free. I need a vote 
for this amendment. We need to vote for veterans.
  Let me just tell you that our veterans today are over there in 
Afghanistan protecting the freedoms of America and the freedom of the 
world. We are doing everything we can to provide them the sustenance, 
the equipment, the best training possible; and we have the best-trained 
men and women in the world. They are going to protect us and our 
rights, and we need to protect them and their right to free speech.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) may control 5 minutes of my time and be 
permitted to yield said time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) 
will control 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Fattah) will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from the great State of Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I cochair the Bipartisan House Army 
Caucus. I represent the largest Army installation in the United States, 
Fort Hood. I represent over 65,000 military retirees and veterans. I 
will match my record in supporting veterans and a strong national 
defense with any Member of either party in this House.
  This amendment is not about fighting for veterans. If we want to 
fight for veterans, then maybe some Members of this House can vote 
``no'' tomorrow on some tax cuts, that because of those tax cuts we 
will have less money for veterans' health care.
  This amendment would actually allow an anti-veteran, anti-defense 
group to run a sham ad in the last hours of a campaign under the guise 
of a Texans for Veterans group.
  So let no one be deceived. Despite the good intentions perhaps of 
this amendment that this is all about pro-veteran, pro-military, pro-
senior citizen groups wanting to come in and want ads, most veterans I 
represent in my district do not have $1 million to put into a soft-
money account. They are hard-working, decent Americans like most 
others, trying to struggle to pay their bills.
  Mr. Chairman, if we want to fight for veterans, let us fight for 
funding for veterans' health care and not try to make this amendment 
look like it is a litmus test vote of whether you are for or against 
military might or veterans and our servicemen and women.
  This is a bad amendment; it is a Trojan horse; it is a poison pill. 
We should vote against it.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate being yielded the time.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will do what the gentleman from Texas 
says it will do. It is a good amendment. Veterans come from all walks 
of life and represent a true cross-section of this country. They took 
an oath, lived by a code and stood ready to fight and die for their 
country. Should those who defended our Nation against tyranny and 
oppression not have a strong voice in our political process? Should 
they not be heard above all else?
  It is not easy to wear the uniform of one's Nation, and too often the 
needs of these great men and women are overlooked by the great country 
they proudly served. This amendment guarantees our veterans will have 
the right to express their views on issues affecting them.
  The Constitution grants Americans the right to criticize or praise 
their elected officials, and we should not punish the very individuals 
who put their lives on the line to protect our freedom and way of life 
by depriving them, as this bill would probably do, of their voice in 
our political process.
  As a 4-year veteran myself, I urge my colleagues to support this 
important amendment. We will never be able to properly thank those 
veterans who gave up so much for our Nation, but we can honor them.

                              {time}  2000

  We can honor them by passing this amendment. Vote for the Armey-
Johnson amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I would like to start by saying I have a number of heroes in this 
House. One of them is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), right 
over there, the best reason why we should not ever think of having term 
limits. Another hero is sitting right there.
  When I was elected, I wanted to meet the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Lewis) more than almost anyone else, but after I was elected, when I 
heard that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) won, I wanted to 
meet him more than anyone else. I went to him and asked him if I could 
get his book and pay for it, and he did not make me pay for it, but I 
read that book, and I figuratively bended my knees in gratitude for his 
service.
  So I say that because I think he believes that his amendment is 
needed, but his amendment is not needed, and his veterans have all the 
voice they need.
  What we are doing in our substitute is we are saying the 1907 law 
banning corporate treasury money will be enforced, the 1947 law banning 
union dues money will be enforced, and the 1974 law that says 
individual contributions can have limits unless it is just one 
individual who is spending it.
  We allow for people to speak out. Sixty days before an election, soft 
money can be used. Sixty days to an election, it is hard money 
contributions. All of the money that individual veterans raise can be 
spent and can be advertised.
  So I know he believes in this amendment, but I can tell my 
colleagues, we have had a lot of groups that have voiced concern, but 
the veterans are not one of them. They know in this country they have a 
voice, and they know in this Congress they have a lot of people who 
listen.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Strickland).
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I think all of us honor our veterans in 
this Chamber, but what veterans are really interested in is having 
adequate health care.
  Just a few days ago, this administration changed the $2-per-
prescription copay or deductible that veterans have been required to 
pay for their prescription medications to $7 a prescription, a whopping 
$250 one-time increase. Many veterans in my district get 10 or more 
prescriptions per month. We take 7 times 10, that is $70 a month on 
veterans with a fixed income. I think we ought to all join in 
supporting my legislation to return that deductible to $2 per 
prescription and keep it there for the next 5 years.
  Why are we imposing a $1,500 deductible, annual deductible, for 
veterans who get health care at many of our VA facilities? That is a 
new policy.
  If we want to help our veterans, we will make sure they get the kind 
of health care they need rather than putting an additional burden upon 
them.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I kind of agree with the 
gentleman, but if we take away their right to speak, we are not ever 
going to get that fixed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

[[Page 1386]]

  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, make no mistake about it, this is a vote for veterans, 
if one supports the Johnson amendment, which I do; if we vote against 
it, it is a vote against veterans.
  The gentleman from Ohio made the case very, very strongly. Their 
voice. Look at the gentleman from Texas. Look at how he walks. Look at 
his hand. Do we not want veterans to have free speech at the time of an 
election when decisions are made?
  I represent Fort Bragg. My veterans, my soldiers, men and women in 
uniform appreciate tax cuts as well, because that gives them the 
freedom and the flexibility and the financial ability to meet the 
challenges that they face.
  So please join me in voting for the Johnson amendment which will 
allow veterans the voice that they need, particularly at election time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, can I have an audit of the time, please?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining; the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) has 4\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me this time.
  As the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Benefits of the House 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am pleased and proud to rise in 
strong support of this amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sam Johnson).
  Mr. Chairman, it is a curious process here, because actually, through 
the amendment process, we are trying to restore first amendment rights. 
Think about what was done earlier today. It was bad enough that we 
established a new and, really, the ultimate loophole with this bill, 
allegedly taking effect or going to take effect the day after Election 
Day. Curious timing. Congratulations if it helps the fine folks in a 
partisan manner and allows them to take soft money, use it as 
collateral, turn it into hard money and presto-chango, the day after 
the election, pay off the loan. It is very crafty. But the American 
people see through it.
  Now, tonight we are in the ironic position of trying to restore first 
amendment rights piece by piece, group by group, to American citizens. 
To the very people who fought to defend the first amendment, we have to 
say tonight, could we possibly restore those rights?
  What should be beyond debate, beyond dispute is now suddenly put in 
contention. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, that is the very 
problem with the legislation, and that leads us to the irony of tonight 
where we seek to restore the first amendment.
  Now, you are going to hear under the misguided label of reform, that 
oh, no, no, there is no intention to in any way diminish the rights of 
Americans. Why, this notion of reform, the same misguided notion of 
reform that leads to a loophole, that is obscene, a loophole that takes 
something that is illegal today, makes it legal for a certain amount of 
time. This is what is labeled in this almost Orwellian legislation as 
reform. And now our friends tell us, oh, no, no, it is not their intent 
to in any way abridge the first amendment. It is not their intent to in 
any way stop free debate. Yet here we are tonight trying to thaw the 
chilling effect of abridging the first amendment, of abridging debate 
on the part of everyday Americans who, yes, have the right and the 
franchise to vote, but should not lose their voice in the process.
  Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice. It is sad to see this 
deliberative body put behind the looking glass.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have a lot of respect for the gentleman from Arizona, but I totally 
disagree with his analysis. The reason why we are opposing this 
amendment is because we do not believe that the amendment is needed 
because we know that first amendment rights are not threatened. One of 
the curious things here is that this does not just involve veterans, it 
involves senior citizens. Senior citizens.
  AARP supports and has asked for this amendment, asked for our bill, 
our substitute, because they think their voice is being drowned out by 
large corporate interests and large union dues interests, as do some 
veterans. Some veterans think their voice has been drowned out by the 
voice of large corporations. My party for some reason has given the 
impression that this is doomsday if this bill passes. The thing that 
they are really saying is that they cannot exist unless they have large 
corporate contributions. I do not believe it, and I do not think it is 
true.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, the amendment we have before us is smoke 
and mirrors. Veterans have every right, and, in fact, today I am going 
to ask every single veteran to contact the Democrats, contact the 
Republicans and hold them accountable. Hold them accountable on the 
fact that today we have had a budget in the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs that talks about $3.1 billion. Yes, of that $3.1 billion, there 
is a $1,500 codeductible that our veterans are going to have to pay. I 
am going to ask them to call and call, call every single Congressman, 
including the Democratic side.
  That bill also calls for the fact that our veterans are going to have 
to pay $400 million additional monies on prescriptions. I am going to 
ask them, and they have the right, to call their Congressman, whether 
Republican or Democrat.
  They are also being asked to cut $600 million from VA. That is part 
of the budget that is calling for a $3.1 billion increase when in 
reality it is less than $1 billion, which is not even enough to take 
care of existing costs.
  If we want to help veterans, let us make sure we help veterans by 
giving them the needs that they have and the health care needs that 
they need now.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair, 
who has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Fattah) as a member of the committee has the right to close.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 2\1/4\ 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) has 1\1/
4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the time for my close, and I have 
no further speakers.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We are more than halfway through our legislation. We have worked very 
hard on it. This is one of the last amendments alleging that somehow 
people's voices are not going to be able to be heard. There is no truth 
to that at all, but the allegations are made. This is a bill that 
enforces the 1907 law banning corporate treasury money, the 1947 law 
banning union dues money, and enforces the 1974 reform laws.
  Now, one of the allegations is that because we cannot use soft money, 
we cannot use that corporate treasury money and the union dues money, 
that somehow veterans do not have a voice. That is an absurdity. They 
have a voice as individuals, and they have a voice to pool their 
resources and to advertise. They just cannot do it with corporate 
treasury money and union dues money. Most veterans think that makes 
sense, because they do not have a lot of corporate treasury money and a 
lot of union dues money. They do not get it. They do not have a lot of 
wealthy people allowing them to advertise. What they have is a lot of 
numbers of small contributions, of hard money, that enables them to 
have quite a voice.
  I would just make the point to my colleagues that this amendment is 
dearly a threat to our legislation because it suggests something that 
is not true.

[[Page 1387]]

  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of 
whatever time I have to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) so 
that he can close.
  Mr. Chairman, do I have any time remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman has three-quarters of a 
minute remaining.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman from Texas closes, I 
would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am on the House Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs and have been on that committee for the entire 10 
years I have been here in this Congress. Let me tell my colleagues I am 
very upset over the fact that we have a budget before this Congress 
that talked a great talk for veterans, but does not walk the walk. I 
cannot believe that we are going from $2 to $7 for copayments. We in 
this Congress ought to be ashamed of ourselves. If we want to help the 
veterans, help them financially and not with this phony talk.
  Vote down this amendment.
  I believe that the Bush Administration budget for veterans is an 
absolute disgrace. Their proposal is particularly disappointing when 
one considers the fact that the Bush Administration made various public 
statements describing how they were going to improve and increase the 
veterans' budget.
  The Administration claims that this year's budget requests a record-
setting $25.5 billion for medical programs, but in reality, they are 
asking Congress to appropriate $22.75 billion for veterans' medical 
care--$2.75 billion less than the reported record-setting reported 
total. And of the $25.5 billion the Administration claims the budget 
will provide for veterans medical care, $794 million will simply shift 
personnel related costs to VA from the Office of Personnel Management 
(OPM). Moreover, there is another $1.28 billion to offset cost 
increases like inflation, higher pharmaceutical prices, and federal pay 
raises. Taken together, this $2 billion increase doesn't provide a 
single dime more for medical care for veterans. Not only does this 
budget make it tougher for the veterans to receive the health care that 
they deserve, but it actually adds costs to the veterans by increasing 
their prescription drug co-payments.
  In addition, the proposed increase in the medical care appropriation 
for fiscal year 2003 is approximately $100 million more than the $1.3 
billion Congress appropriated for fiscal year 2002 which the 
Administration acknowledges is $400 million short of meeting veterans' 
needs. Five of VA's 22 networks have already projected shortfalls in 
funding for veterans medical care by the year's end. The Administration 
already plans to request a $142 million supplement for funding to 
continue to treat non-service connected, higher income veterans, and 
they claim they will ``find'' another $300 million in ``management 
efficiencies''. As proposed by the Administration, the fiscal year 2003 
VA medical care budget will require VA to find an additional $316 
million in management savings in order to meet veterans' demand for 
health care.
  This is purely shameful. It is preposterous that the Bush 
Administration, who has requested $48 billion for the military, refuses 
to request more money to take care of our nation's heroes who have 
risked their lives to defend our democracy.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas once 
again.
  My good friend from Florida proves the point. She has objections to 
what has gone on in the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Why muzzle the 
veterans 60 days before the election? If they have concerns in a free 
society, let them bring them forth and make them clear. Do not abridge 
that. Oh, yes, I guess that is right, that they can advertise on the 
pages of the New York Times. I know that is of acute interest to at 
least a few in this Chamber. But why would we abridge their rights to 
freedom of speech?
  This is the essence of the battle of ideas in a free society, and 
what has gone on here is suppression of that debate, the very thing we 
should champion.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is absolutely correct, and I 
happen to agree with the gentlewoman over there. I think we should do 
something for our veterans. I think that is atrocious that they have 
doubled or tripled that cost. I think that is the best reason I can 
think of why we should not subjugate the veterans of the United States 
of America, past, present, future, to some unconstitutional law that we 
are trying to pass tonight. This amendment will fix that for our 
veterans now and in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) has 1\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to this amendment.
  There is not a veteran or person in our armed services who has served 
this country who desires some special set of rights or some special 
circumstances. What they desire for themselves is the same that we 
would provide for any American citizen. And what we are doing here is 
removing from politics the corruption of unlimited soft-money 
expenditures.
  We will not have the Enrons of this country taking a few of their 
people and saying this is some kind of veterans committee and dumping 
millions of dollars into campaigns. What this amendment would do is 
tear away from the great work of John McCain, who is a well-recognized 
veteran who has given a great deal of sacrifice to bring our country 
now to the edge of history in terms of reforming and transforming our 
politics.
  So I would ask the Members not to be swayed and to come to the floor 
and vote ``no'' on this amendment so that we can move finally at some 
hour tonight to finally reforming the campaign election laws of our 
country in terms of moving away the corruption of money in unlimited 
sums and allowing the voice of our people, veterans and nonveterans, to 
be heard so that our democracy can prosper.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200, 
noes 228, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 26]

                               AYES--200

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon

[[Page 1388]]


     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--228

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Cubin
     Oxley
     Riley
     Roukema
     Traficant

                              {time}  2036

  Mr. WU changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to the order of 
the House of Tuesday, February 12, 2002, it is now in order to consider 
an amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).


                Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Combest

  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee of 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 30 offered by Mr. Combest:
       Add at the end of title II the following new subtitle:

Subtitle C--Exemption of Communications Pertaining to Workers, Farmers, 
                       Families, and Individuals

     SEC. 221. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) There are approximately 138 million people employed in 
     the United States.
       (2) Thousands of organizations and associations represent 
     these employed persons and their employers in numerous forms 
     and forums, not least of which is by participating in our 
     electoral and political system in a number of ways, including 
     informing citizens of key votes that affect their common 
     interests, criticizing and praising elected officials for 
     their position on issues, contributing to candidates and 
     political parties, registering voters, and conducting get-
     out-the-vote activities.
       (3) The rights of American workers to bargain collectively 
     are protected by their First Amendment to the Constitution 
     and by provisions in the National Labor Relations Act. 
     Federal law guarantees the rights of workers to choose 
     whether to bargain collectively through a union.
       (4) Fourteen percent of the American workforce has chosen 
     to affiliate with a labor union. Federal law allows workers 
     and unions the opportunity to combine strength and to work 
     together to seek to improve the lives of America's working 
     families, bring fairness and dignity to the workplace and 
     secure social and economic equity in our nation.
       (5) Nearly three quarters of all United States business 
     firms have no payroll. Most are self-employed persons 
     operating unincorporated businesses, and may or may not be 
     the owner's principal source of income.
       (6) Minorities owned fewer than 7 percent of all United 
     States firms, excluding C corporations, in 1982, but this 
     share soared to about 15 percent by 1997. Minorities owned 
     more than 3 million businesses in 1997, of which 615,222 had 
     paid employees, generated more than $591 billion in revenues, 
     created more than 4.5 million jobs, and provided about $96 
     billion in payroll to their workers.
       (7) In 1999, women made up 46 percent of the labor force. 
     The labor force participation rate of American women was the 
     highest in the world.
       (8) Labor/Worker unions represent 16 million working women 
     and men of every race and ethnicity and from every walk of 
     life.
       (9) In recent years, union members and their families have 
     mobilized in growing numbers. In the 2000 election, 26 
     percent of the nation's voters came from union households.
       (10) According to the 2000 census, total United States 
     families were totaled at over 105 million.
       (11) In 2000, there were 8.7 million African American 
     families.
       (12) Asians have larger families than other groups. For 
     example, the average Asian family size is 3.6 persons, as 
     opposed to an average Caucasian family of 3.1 persons.
       (13) American farmers, ranchers, and agricultural managers 
     direct the activities of the world's largest and most 
     productive agricultural sectors. They produce enough food and 
     fiber to meet the needs of the United States and produce a 
     surplus for export.
       (14) About 17 percent of raw United States agricultural 
     products are exported yearly, including 83 million metric 
     tons of cereal grains, 1.6 billion pounds of poultry, and 1.4 
     million metric tons of fresh vegetables.
       (15) One-fourth of the world's beef and nearly one-fifth of 
     the world's grain, milk, and eggs are produced in the United 
     States.
       (16) With 96 percent of the world's population living 
     outside our borders, the world's most productive farmers need 
     access to international markets to compete.
       (17) Every State benefits from the income generated from 
     agricultural exports. 19 States have exports of $1 billion or 
     more.
       (18) America's total on United States exports is $49.1 
     billion and the number of imports is $37.5 billion.
       (19) By itself, farming-production agriculture-contributed 
     $60.4 billion toward the national GDP (Gross Domestic 
     Product).
       (20) Farmers and ranchers provide food and habitat for 75 
     percent of the Nation's wildlife.
       (21) More than 23 million jobs-17 percent of the civilian 
     workforce-are involved in some phase of growing and getting 
     our food and clothing to us. America now has fewer farmers, 
     but they are producing now more than ever before.
       (22) Twenty-two million American workers process, sell, and 
     trade the Nation's food and fiber. Farmers and ranchers work 
     with the Department of Agriculture to produce healthy crops 
     while caring for soil and water.
       (23) By February 8, the 39th day of 2002, the average 
     American has earned enough to pay for their family's food for 
     the entire year. In 1970 it took 12 more days than it does 
     now to earn a full food pantry for the year. Even in 1980 it 
     took 10 more days--49 total days--of earning to put a year's 
     supply of food on the table.
       (24) Farmers are facing the 5th straight year of the lowest 
     real net farm income since the Great Depression. Last 
     October, prices farmers received made their sharpest drop 
     since United States Department of Agriculture began keeping 
     records 91 years ago.

[[Page 1389]]

     During this same period the cost of production has hit record 
     highs.
       (25) The First Amendment to the United States Constitution 
     states that, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an 
     establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 
     thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; 
     or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to 
     petition the Government for a redress of grievances.''.
       (26) The Supreme Court recognized and emphasized the 
     importance of free speech rights in Buckley v. Valeo, where 
     it stated, ``A restriction on the amount of money a person or 
     group can spend on political communication during a campaign 
     necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting 
     the number of issues discussed, the depth of their 
     exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is 
     because virtually every means of communicating ideas in 
     today's mass society requires the expenditure of money. The 
     distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails 
     printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies 
     generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the 
     event. The electorate's increasing dependence on television, 
     radio, and other mass media for news and information has made 
     these expensive modes of communication indispensable 
     instruments of effective political speech.''.
       (27) In response to the relentlessly repeated claim that 
     campaign spending has skyrocketed and should be legislatively 
     restrained, the Buckley Court stated that the First Amendment 
     denied the government the power to make that determination: 
     ``In the free society ordained by our Constitution, it is not 
     the government but the people--individually as citizens and 
     candidates and collectively as associations and political 
     committees--who must retain control over the quantity and 
     range of debate on public issues in a political campaign.''.
       (28) In Buckley, the Court also stated, ``The concept that 
     government may restrict the speech of some elements of our 
     society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is 
     wholly foreign to the First Amendment, which was designed `to 
     secure the widest possible dissemination of information from 
     diverse and antagonistic sources,' and 'to assure unfettered 
     exchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and 
     societal changes desired by the people' ".
       (29) Citizens who have an interest in issues about or 
     related to their lives have the Constitutional right to 
     criticize or praise their elected officials individually or 
     collectively as a group. Communications in the form of 
     criticism or praise of elected officials is preciously 
     protected as free speech under the First Amendment of the 
     Constitution of the United States.
       (30) This title contains restrictions on the rights of 
     citizens, either individually or collectively, to communicate 
     with or about their elected representatives and to the 
     general public. Such restrictions would stifle and suppress 
     individual and group advocacy pertaining to politics and 
     government--the political expression at the core of the 
     electoral process and of First Amendment freedoms--the very 
     engine of democracy.
       (31) Candidate campaigns and issue campaigns are the 
     primary vehicles for giving voice to popular grievances, 
     raising issues and proposing solutions. An election, and the 
     time leading up to it, is when political speech should be at 
     its most robust and unfettered.

     SEC. 222. EXEMPTION FOR COMMUNICATIONS PERTAINING TO WORKERS, 
                   FARMERS, FAMILIES, AND INDIVIDUALS.

       None of the restrictions or requirements contained in this 
     title or the amendments made by this title shall apply to any 
     form or mode of communication to the public that consists of 
     information or commentary regarding the statements, actions, 
     positions, or voting records of any individual who holds 
     congressional or other Federal office, or who is a candidate 
     for congressional or other Federal office, on any matter 
     pertaining to any individual.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
344, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and a Member opposed, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest).
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I am offering would ensure that 
nothing in H.R. 2356 would restrict workers, farmers, or their family 
members from communicating their views and needs to their elected 
leaders and the public. I believe that Shays-Meehan contains unfair 
restrictions on the rights of citizens, either individually or 
collectively, to communicate with their elected representatives and the 
general public. Such restrictions would stifle and suppress individual 
and group activity and advocacy pertaining to the public and 
government.
  My neighbors at home in Texas do not want more restriction on their 
speech and ability to participate in the political process. They 
already fear that those in Washington do not hear their wants and 
needs. I can assure my colleagues that they do not know that this bill 
would further limit their ability to impact the national debate.
  One of the most effective ways for citizens to communicate is to pool 
their voices and resources with like-minded individuals who many times 
would not be heard if not for this ability. This is essential for 
minority populations and those from rural areas. Without these tools to 
educate those not from rural areas of our unique needs, it would be 
impossible to positively impact the political debate.
  The campaign finance reform debate demonstrates how out of touch 
Washington, D.C., is with rural America. East Coast editorial writers 
are the only ones who care about this issue. Before I came over to the 
floor today, I held a telephone conference with my rural newspaper 
editors; and not one question was asked about campaign finance reform; 
and yet if one listened to and read a few Eastern publications, they 
would think that the world is silently awaiting out there tonight for 
this House to respond and to act on this bill.
  These terrible special interest groups that we hear so much about are 
made up of workers, farmers and families. These folks are trying to 
make a living and raise their families, and their personal time is 
scarce. They rely on their industry representatives to track important 
issues and to alert them when action is needed.
  Most important to them is when the group reports how a particular 
candidate views their issue of interest. The problem is not interest 
groups, but the groups that have somehow been deemed politically 
incorrect by the political and media elites. To them Washington knows 
best, and if they are from a less-populated rural area of the country, 
their view and television ad should not count or be heard.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) may each control 4 minutes of time allocated to me and that 
they may yield time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for the purpose of a colloquy.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage the sponsor of the 
legislation in a colloquy concerning election-related advertising that 
is permitted by the Shays-Meehan substitute.
  Would the gentleman from Massachusetts please respond to the 
following question: Does the Shays-Meehan substitute allow political 
action committees of labor unions and nonprofit organizations, such as 
the Sierra Club or the National Rifle Association, to pay for broadcast 
ads that name a candidate for Federal office during the last 60 days of 
an election cycle?
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to respond to the gentleman's 
inquiry, and the answer is yes. Political action committees, commonly 
known as PACs, raise money from individual donors in amounts that are 
limited by Federal law. They are subject to the Federal Election 
Campaign Act, thus they are not affected at all by title II of the 
Shays-Meehan substitute which relates to electioneering communications. 
Title II provides that corporations, including nonprofit corporations 
and unions, cannot use their treasury funds to pay for ads that mention 
a Federal candidate during the last 2 months of the election cycle. 
However, PACs, because they are not corporations or unions, can run ads 
that mention a candidate at any time

[[Page 1390]]

during the election cycle without any restriction.
  Mr. STUPAK. Reclaiming my time, just to clarify, Mr. Chairman, am I 
correct in saying that the Shays-Meehan substitute does not prohibit an 
organization, any organization, even like farmers, like the amendment 
before us now, from running any ad; it simply states that ads that 
mention candidates within the last 60 days of an election must be paid 
for with federally regulated hard money?
  Mr. MEEHAN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, that is 
absolutely correct. Organizations may run any ad they wish at any time 
at all if they use hard money.
  Federal PACs, such as those in corporations, labor unions, or groups 
like the Sierra Club or the NRA have set up, are hard-money entities. 
All their fund-raising and spending is governed by Federal law. So PACs 
can run ads that mention candidates during the last 60 days of an 
election cycle.
  Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman for that clarification.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I want to try to put this in layman's terms on what this means. 
Especially after that last colloquy, I think it is easy for people to 
get lost in all the detail. I run these focus groups. I go to a civic 
club, a good government group, and I say, let me just ask all of you: 
Give me a show of hands if you see an ad run in the final 60 days 
before an election and the ad mentions a candidate's name, would you 
consider that a campaign ad? And it does not matter if the group is 
Republican, Democrat, nonpartisan, just about everybody, everybody will 
raise their hand. They think that is a campaign ad if it mentions a 
candidate's name.
  Then I say, okay, do not look at the person next to you, just answer 
the question: Do you think that if that group that runs that ad 
mentions the candidate's name, that they should come under the same 
rules and regulations as the candidates themselves, who also mention 
each other's names? And everybody raises their hands.
  And I say it is sad that that is all that this bill does and 
everybody talks about it being some infringement on your first 
amendment rights. It treats the groups exactly like it treats the 
candidates. Now, if that is unconstitutional, then the way they treat 
us is unconstitutional, and that is not the case. It has been upheld.
  That is the layman's description of what we are doing. We can get 
into all the technical explanations, but it is just that simple. That 
is what this bill does. And most people out there cannot understand why 
they would not come under the same rules. They can run the ads. We are 
not gagging them. We are not telling them they cannot, we are just 
saying they have to come under the same system.
  Now, I am frustrated with this system, but this system has been in 
place since 1974, and it has been upheld. It is a regulated system, and 
I do not think the people are going to let us go back to a totally 
unregulated, unlimited system.
  So why can we not all, if we are going to play in the final 60 days 
before a campaign, why can we not all play by the same rules?
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I got everyone's attention. I do 
not even know how I did that, but there must be a signal out here.
  Let me just say this. In terms of not having different rules and 
saying everybody's going to be treated differently, that is not bad. 
That is the way they did it in the Soviet Union. Everybody was treated 
right. They did not have any first amendment rights. Must have been the 
message. Nobody can speak the last 60 days.
  I hate attack ads. I am the father of four kids. Do my colleagues 
know how humiliating it is to have an attack ad run when you are trying 
to bond with your 13-year-old going through middle school and all she 
hears on the radio is what a creep you are? Of course, she has been 
telling me that for a long time anyhow, but it is embarrassing.
  I do not like attack ads, but doggone it, I cannot think of America 
without that first amendment right to run an attack ad. I think that 
would be far worse. Even though I have been a victim of one, I have to 
say it scares me to think of an America where we cannot run an attack 
ad. I try to turn them around. I say, well, there goes my opponent 
saying these bad things again. I am not going to do that. But he has 
the right to call me a scalawag, if that is what makes him feel good. 
And I have the right to tell the folks I am not a scalawag and vote for 
me anyhow.
  This bill says to my farming population, to my farmers down in Evans 
County, in Tattnall County, in Vidalia, where we get all those great 
Vidalia onions, it says that they cannot participate in the system. Oh, 
the system lets certain people participate. You can give $60 million up 
to a political party if you are a big union or a company and you want 
to contribute. Hey, this bill allows the Democratic National Committee 
to build a building. Hey, this bill is so good, but we do not want to 
put it in effect until after the election. And my colleagues expect me 
to go back and tell my farmers that? My farmers are 2 percent of the 
population and feed 100 percent of the population and a great 
percentage of the world.
  I had the opportunity to go to Afghanistan recently, and I am glad 
that American farmers are so doggone productive that we averted a lot 
of starvation in central Asia this year. Our farmers are up against the 
wall. They have high labor problems, they have environmental problems, 
they have problems with NAFTA and GATT, and they have to compete 
against countries that do not have to play by the same rules that we 
do. Our farmers' backs are against the wall right now with credit, with 
import, with falling markets, yet we are going to tell them, hey, just 
to be on the safe side, you all have to shut up the last 60 days. That 
is not fair.
  It is not fair that all this bill really does in the name of banning 
soft money is reregulate it and refunnel it into preferred special 
interest groups. In my little old Georgia farm bureau, and all the 159 
counties of Georgia, they are not going to be able to compete against 
the big boys because they cannot file all these reports. They do not 
have the big-city lawyers. They do not have the $60 million.
  Let us do not say this is banning soft money. Let us say this is 
banning farmers from full participation. Vote for the Combest 
amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond to my colleague. He says they do not have the money to respond 
to all the big guys, and that is the whole point of this amendment.
  We do not allow corporate treasury money and union dues money 60 days 
before an election; we allow individual contributions and PAC 
contributions to compete. Nobody is shutting up. It is just a level 
playing field. They can run their ads.
  They are not the big guys, but they can do it with a unified effort 
on the part of a whole number of farmers who are fighting for their 
cause.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself \1/2\ minute.
  This amendment seeks to protect workers, farmers, and families, 
because we all know that workers, farmers, and families have these big 
soft money accounts. They raise millions.
  As I sit back and think about it, the workers, the farmers, and the 
families are the reason why we need to pass this bill. The workers, the 
farmers, and the families, without these big multinational soft money 
PACs, soft money operations, are the reason why we have to pass 
campaign finance reform.
  This unlimited soft money is the reason why we do not have a 
patients' bill

[[Page 1391]]

of rights, the reason why we do not have Medicare prescription drug 
coverage for seniors, and the reason why workers are getting the shaft 
day in and day out because of this soft money system.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair give us the time 
accounting?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) has 
4\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 2 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 1\1/
2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) 
has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The supporters of this legislation wonder why the opponents of the 
legislation seem to be wanting to single out groups for special 
protection. I would submit that they ought to know why. It is because 
the legislation actually singles out corporations for special 
treatment.
  If my colleagues wonder why the media, the big media, are so much in 
favor of this bill, it is because they are the only ones left standing 
once it passes. The parent company of MSNBC contributed about $2 
million in soft money last year to the political process here. The 
parent company of CNN contributed $2.5 million last year in soft money. 
Yet they can speak through their media subsidiary. They are treated 
differently. They are given a media exemption.
  Now, if my colleagues are yelling at the other side for offering 
amendments which single out individual groups and saying they should be 
able to speak, and saying that that is wrong, why do my colleagues give 
a media exemption to corporate-owned media? Why do my colleagues treat 
corporations, some corporations, differently than others?
  This is just one example of the blatant inconsistencies of the bill. 
I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the Combest amendment and a ``no'' vote 
on Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What our law seeks to do is enforce the 1907 law banning corporate 
treasury money, the 1947 law that bans union dues money, and enforces 
the 1974 campaign finance reform law. That is what our bill seeks to 
do. It allows people to speak out using the hard money 60 days before 
an election, and, frankly, they can use all that other money 60 days 
before an election.
  That is what your bill seeks to do. We are getting closer and closer 
to seeing that happen.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, how much time did he yield back to me?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. One minute.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I oppose the amendment, and I urge all my colleagues to vote 
against it.
  I oppose all these poison pill amendments because they are simply 
designed to kill the bill. The American people demand campaign finance 
reform. They will not stand for the killing of this bill. This bill 
needs to pass as is so the Senate can pass it and we can avoid a 
conference which will solely be called to kill it.
  The American people are outraged at Enron. That is the impetus for 
many people switching over and supporting the bill. I have been here a 
good number of years now. It is very rare that we have a discharge 
petition, with a majority of Members of the House forcing a bill to 
come to the House floor. I am sorry it had to happen that way, but it 
happened that way because a majority of Members of this House want to 
see campaign finance reform and a majority of the American people want 
to see campaign finance reform.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. Chairman, we know there is too much money involved in these 
elections, and we know that soft money is probably the most egregious 
form. We need to pass this bill, and we need to kill all of the poison 
pill amendments. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this poison pill amendment. It 
would break apart our coalition. It is an amendment designed to destroy 
the sham ``issue ad'' provisions of the Shays-Meehan bill by purporting 
to create a targeted exception, which in fact would exempt any possible 
advertisement paid for with soft money from these provisions.
  It is simply bad public policy offered by opponents of reform, and it 
would blow a hole in the sham issue advocacy provisions in this bill by 
allowing unlimited soft money to be spent on any ad that mentions an 
individual.
  Let me be clear. Nothing in the Shays-Meehan bill would ban an 
outside group or a political party or a wealthy individual from running 
an advertisement on workers or farmers. Simply put, there is no ban on 
ads in this bill, and nothing in this bill would apply to written voter 
guides. This bill simply says if you are a corporation, a 501(c) tax 
exempt or a union and want to broadcast cable, broadcast satellite ads 
60 days before the Federal election, hard money has to be used rather 
than soft money. That is what this bill does.
  This means that if the NRA, the Sierra Club, National Right to Life, 
NARAL, the AFL-CIO wants to fund these ads mentioning Federal 
candidates proximate to Federal elections, they can fund them through 
their PACs.
  In fact, the sham-issue ad provisions that are now in the bill are 
much narrower than ever before. And, previous versions of this bill 
passed the House with 252 votes.
  We narrowed the provision to focus only on broadcast, cable and 
satellite ads proximate to Federal elections to make sure this 
provision stood on stronger constitutional grounds, and to ensure that 
the bill would have no impact on voter guides.
  The provision now is not only narrower in scope but more likely to 
pass constitutional muster--because it supplies the bright-line test 
the Court prefers for distinguishing between campaign advertisements 
and pure issue advocacy. We have found the right balance--as a matter 
of policy, and as a matter of Constitutional law. Indeed, 9 former ACLU 
leaders have said that our approach to sham issue advocacy is 
constitutional.
  We need to put teeth back into laws long on the books preventing 
corporate treasury money or union dues from being used for campaign 
ads.
  It is time for this sham to end. It is time for those who pay for 
campaign ads to play by the rules--and for the American people to know 
exactly who is filling the airwaves with ads attacking candidates every 
second Fall.
  Vote ``no'' on this poison pill amendment. It's a cynical ploy 
designed by opponents of this bill. Don't be fooled by this sham 
amendment.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to have to go with the gentleman from 
Tennessee someday to one of his town hall meetings. I have yet to have 
the luxury of a town hall meeting or sitting around with a group of 
people in a coffee shop in Texas and have them unanimously agree to the 
fact that we ought to bring them under some new Federal regulations.
  It seems to me that the last two opponents of the amendment have 
pretty much brought about the argument that is being brought about 
tonight, that anybody who is concerned about their farmers or their 
workers or their families is bringing a poison pill. I have not quite 
figured out why it is in the legislative process, if Members are trying 
to protect the group of people that they represent, it is a poison 
pill. It may have an impact on a piece of legislation that the 
proponents would love to see put into place without any changes, but I 
am hopeful that the legislative process does not work that way; but it 
blows holes in it, and it is a poison pill. I would say that if there 
is no concern about, as regulations are being changed in regards to 
campaign financing and campaign law, that we could assure those people 
in rural America, to those farmers and workers and families, that in 
fact they would be protected if we adopt this amendment.

[[Page 1392]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It 
is an amendment like the four other amendments. It is an interesting 
proposition that we have before us. We are talking about campaign 
finance reform.
  The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) said that he went and asked 
his people about whether or not they thought that everybody ought to be 
covered by the same rules. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) said 
yes, all of them agreed that everybody ought to be covered by the same 
rules and they ought to know who advertises and tells them things so 
they can figure out for themselves what people are saying.
  I suppose there are some on the other side of the aisle who will go 
home and say yes, I am for campaign finance reform, but I voted to 
exempt everybody from its coverage. That would be an interesting 
campaign finance reform. We have it on the books; but by the way, it 
does not cover anybody. Everybody is exempt.
  Now, this amendment exempts workers and families and farmers and 
individuals. I am trying to figure out who, therefore, would be 
included if we adopted this amendment, seeing as how most of us sort of 
consider ourselves individuals?
  So this is an extraordinarily interesting amendment, but it is also 
an extraordinarily bad amendment; and I do not believe any Member who 
is at all serious about trying to have some meaningful campaign finance 
reform could in good conscience, with any intellectual honesty, and 
with all due respect to the gentleman from Texas whom I have a great 
relationship with and greatly respect, possibly vote for his amendment. 
Therefore, I enthusiastically urge Members to vote against it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). All time for debate on 
this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Combest).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 237, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 27]

                               AYES--191

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--237

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brady (TX)
     Cubin
     Oxley
     Riley
     Roukema
     Traficant

                              {time}  2125

  Mr. PASTOR changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to the order of 
the House of Tuesday, February 12, 2002, it is now in order to consider 
an amendment by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) or the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).


                  Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Wamp

  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee of the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Wamp:
       In section 315(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971, as proposed to be amended by section 308(a)(1) 
     of the bill, strike ``(or, in the case of a candidate for 
     Representative in or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the 
     Congress, $1,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
344, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

[[Page 1393]]

  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply raises the $1,000 limit for 
individual contributions to House candidates to $2,000, which is the 
same as the Senate-passed bill sets for Senators. The Senate-passed 
bill raised their $1,000 contribution limit for the first time since 
1974 to $2,000.
  I believe that all 435 Members of the House should pay close 
attention to what is happening, because I also believe that this 
legislation will succeed through the legislative process and ultimately 
be signed into law, and I do not think it is appropriate for the Senate 
to have a different level on individual contribution limits than House 
candidates.
  I also think we need to look over the last generation at exactly what 
has happened in individual contribution limits to House candidates. In 
1974, this $1,000 was established, and individuals had that much 
influence in the process at that time. The fact is that the value of 
$1,000 in 1974 was a lot greater than the value of $1,000 in 2002. As a 
matter of fact, if it was indexed to inflation, which we index other 
factors of money and value, if it was indexed to inflation, it would be 
well over $3,000. I realize raising it from $1,000 to $3,000 would be 
too much to swallow at one time.

                              {time}  2130

  So this amendment is designed to strike a balance, to raise it to 
$2,000, which was the balance struck that 59 U.S. Senators voted for 
when this legislation cleared that body, because it is a reasonable 
approach. And then it prospectively indexes that level to inflation so 
that you will not have to come back and adjust it later.
  The fact is this: individuals have less influence today in the 
political process than they had then just because the value of their 
participation has been reduced.
  The Senate-passed bill also sets the limit for White House candidates 
and Senators, but it leaves the House at $1,000. So we are the only one 
of the considered that is not raised.
  I think from a quality standpoint we need to raise it to $2,000. From 
a value of individual contributions standpoint we need to raise it to 
$2,000. I think we need to adopt the underlying premise they should be 
indexed into the future.
  I will just say this before I reserve the balance of my time: through 
my 10 years of passionate involvement for campaign finance reform, I 
have never wanted and never desired not only to hurt my party, but to 
hurt the two-party system. I believe we should support the two-party 
system, and I certainly do not want to in any way hurt my party. But I 
never have been able to measure whether reform would help one party or 
hurt the other party, and at different times I felt maybe one had an 
advantage or not an advantage. I do not know how this will end up in 
terms of who gains the advantage, but I truly believe that this measure 
will strengthen the two-party system, and it will strengthen the 
parties at a time where we are removing the unlimited, unregulated soft 
money loophole. And when you remove that from the process, you need to 
increase the hard-dollar, the individual dollar contribution 
participation, so the parties can continue to thrive without looking to 
some new loophole. The parties need individual participation, and this 
will encourage individual participation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to 
speak in opposition to this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment; but let me put it first in 
perspective. Ten years ago President Bush vetoed a campaign finance 
reform bill, a tougher bill than any of the votes we have taken 
tonight. That bill that was on the President's desk banned soft money, 
it limited PAC contributions, it put a limit on individual 
contributions, it eliminated the issue-advocacy ads, it tightened the 
coordinated expenses and independent expenditures, it put stricter 
lowest-unit rate rules on broadcasters, and it allowed some public 
financing.
  That bill was vetoed. We had campaign finance reform in America, and 
it was vetoed by the President. We hope that this President will not 
veto this bill, but he should with this amendment in it. I will tell 
you why. This is a bad amendment. More than 300 Members in this House 
twice have voted against this amendment. The last two times that this 
amendment was on the floor, overwhelmingly they defeated it. I urge 
those Members to do the same tonight.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask support for the Wamp amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that we have been viewing this entire debate 
through the eyes of 435 incumbents. I think we need to take a look at 
what changes are we making to campaign finance laws through the eyes of 
a challenger.
  I have run as a challenger on two occasions, Mr. Chairman, in 1994 
and 1996, and then as a sitting office-holder in 1998 and the year 
2000. I can make a case that soft money actually benefits a challenger. 
Nonetheless, I think we should ban soft money at the Federal level.
  But what do we do to assist that challenger in the meantime? I think 
the gentleman's amendment is right on point. We have to make it easier 
for someone in our respective districts to take us on. Everybody knows 
that there are inherent advantages to an incumbency, whether it is the 
power of the frank, whether it is the ability to stand here and talk 
and be recognized on C-SPAN. There are these built-in advantages to a 
sitting office-holder.
  What do we do for the 435 candidates who may want to seek to serve in 
this body? Based on that issue, I think that this amendment is timely. 
I think it is an issue of parity, as far as this body and the other 
body; and I think with the corresponding ban on soft money, I think we 
should look to an increase in hard dollars and really give those 
challengers the ability to stand for public office.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman before me, 
hard money was outraised by incumbents 3.2 to 1. That is a totally BS 
argument, to say, hey, this is going to help challengers. It is going 
to help incumbents.
  Lobbyists give 92 percent of their money in hard contributions. They 
say oh, this limit is too low, $1,000. Yes, less than 1 percent of the 
people in America contribute $1,000, so for 99 percent of the people, 
this a moot argument. Yes, but for those fat cats, those people who can 
afford the $1,000, this is an argument.
  Come on, guys, let us get real. You say oh, the Senate, the Senate is 
doing $2,000; $2,000 every 6 years. You are talking about $2,000 every 
2 years. That means every 6-year Senate cycle they raise $2,000, you 
raise $6,000.
  So the arguments that are being drug before us are false arguments. 
Many reformers back in 1974 argued for $100. Apply the inflation rate 
to $100. It would be far less than the $1,000 of today. True reform, 
get the money out, stick with the lower limits.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, if this important bipartisan Shays-Meehan 
proposal has any defect, it is that it does too little, not too much, 
as its detractors have claimed tonight.
  With the Shays-Meehan proposal, we take a very important step to 
reform, but it certainly is not the last step that we need to take. 
Only one-ninth of 1 percent of Americans gave $1,000 to a federal 
candidate during the last election cycle. The sole purpose of this 
amendment is to allow that elite group to give even more.
  If we succeed in banning soft money on the one hand, but we increase 
the amount of hard money on the other hand, we will have simply taken 
from one and given to another. We have

[[Page 1394]]

merely traded Tweedle-Dee for Tweedle-Dum.
  The purported inequity that this amendment allegedly corrects is that 
candidates for the Senate can receive $2,000 during a 6 year term. But 
without this amendment, Members of the House can already receive $1,000 
every 2 years or $3,000 during the same 6 year period. There is no 
inequity to correct.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be rejected.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from Oregon who said that 
hard money in the last election was outraised 3.2 to 1, incumbents to 
challengers, ask him what the ratio is of PAC money incumbents to 
challengers. It is a lot higher, because PACs do not give to 
challengers, and at least they can get individual contributions.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Horn).
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago I was against raising the amount we could 
have in our coffers for running for Congress. At that time the two 
Democratic and Republican chairmen came to the Committee on Rules and 
they said, well, we need $3,500. I thought that was too much.
  I have changed my mind. We have had inflation and we need to index 
it, and we ought to move from $1,000 to $2,000.
  Those of us, and there are a number of them here in the Chamber, that 
do not take political action committee money, who can give $5,000 to a 
candidate, the way those of the rest of us look to our constituency and 
our friends and the people that elected us, and those are the ones that 
want to back us, we do not have to then be with the interests that too 
often are in Washington and even in our States. So I hope we would move 
from $1,000 to $2,000.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose this amendment which 
doubles the amount of money an individual can donate to a candidate, 
known as hard money, from $1,000 to $2,000. This amendment really is a 
complete step backwards in trying to get money out of our political 
system.
  As Public Campaign states in its report called ``The Color of 
Money,'' it is an indisputable fact of our political system that those 
candidates and laws favored by wealthy contributors usually prevail 
over those would-be backers who cannot afford to give such large sums 
of money.
  Now, because of wage disparities and lower incomes in minority and 
poor communities, these constituencies just do not have large amounts 
of money to contribute to campaigns. We only further disenfranchise 
them if we raise the amount of hard money that an individual can 
contribute.
  Also this hard-money system makes it much harder for women, people of 
color, and low-income people to run for office. It is really 
undemocratic. Allowing that amount to be doubled will only give wealthy 
people even more influence in our political system.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this very 
discriminatory amendment. We should be reducing the hard-money limits, 
rather than increasing them.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman from Tennessee 
and believe that he is not bringing this amendment for any ill purposes 
and may genuinely believe that he is doing a good thing here. But I 
think logic, if we can talk for a second, argues otherwise.
  The fact of the matter is, as others have mentioned here, the 
underlying bill is trying to get money out of politics. We take target 
on the soft money and move that along.
  The fact of the matter, it seems incongruous and contradictory to 
take a look and say now, on the hard money, we are going to increase 
the amount on that. If you can get access, if you can play in this 
political game at $1,000, you can certainly play at $2,000. For those 
in our American system who have not been able to play at the $1,000 
level, you will be even further excluded and feel even more remote from 
the process.
  There are already too many people participating in this system, too 
few people registering and too few a percentage of those registered 
people voting; and a great part of it is because they think people that 
have money in the system have access. And that does not matter whether 
it is soft money or hard money. If you double the hard-money limits, 
then people that do not have $1,000 to throw in a pie and do not have 
$2,000 think you are just making it more and more difficult for them to 
have a voice.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Wamp amendment. Putting more big 
money into the system is not the solution. We should be trying to 
encourage candidates to raise dollars in smaller amounts, not 
increasing the contribution amount to $2,000.
  This debate reminds me of the discussion between the candidate and 
the contributor. The contributor asked the candidate, what do I get if 
I contribute $500 to your campaign? The candidate says, you get good 
government.
  The contributor says, well, what do I get if I contribute $1,000 to 
your campaign? The candidate says, you get good government.
  Well, how about $2,000? The answer is, you get any kind of government 
you want.
  We do not want to go down that road. Keep the $1,000 maximum 
contribution limit. Vote no on the Wamp amendment.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers).
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. To 
limit the availability of soft money while simultaneously raising 
individual contribution levels will not be seen as campaign finance 
reform by our constituents.

                              {time}  2145

  It will simply look like the old bait and switch, like the old 
Washington where one hand washes the other, where lots of dollars flow 
to officeholders, and where the public interest is not the first 
priority in lawmaking.
  Senator Ev Dirksen once joked, a billion here, a billion there, and 
pretty soon you are talking about some real money. Well, Mr. Chairman, 
to many of our constituents, $1,000 might as well be $1 billion, and a 
thousand here and a thousand there, and pretty soon we are talking 
about the flood of money that saturates this place.
  Our vote on the broadcasting industry tonight demonstrates the last 
thing that we need in this town is more money. Please vote against this 
amendment.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to give my colleagues a real world example under 
today's rules. Now, this is a Republican primary example; it is not 
Republican versus Democrat. There is a new seat down in Texas that my 
son is running in. He is running among six other primary Republicans, 
one of which spent $4 million to run in a primary in Houston 2 years 
ago, $4 million, and got beat by a gentleman who is sitting on this 
floor.
  Now, under today's campaign finance rules, if my son is able to get 
somebody on the telephone, I mean that is pretty good, just get them on 
the phone and talk to them for 15 minutes, he might be able to get them 
to send him a check for $1,000 in a race that he really needs to raise 
$1 million, and that is a

[[Page 1395]]

thousand phone calls that he is just not going to get made.
  Now, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) says, let us at least 
raise this thing for inflation so that if my son can get somebody on 
the phone, he may be able to get $2,000. He is still not going to match 
the $4 million that was spent 2 years ago, but he may be able to double 
the efficiency.
  If we were talking about raising this to $100,000, some of my friends 
might have an argument against it, but going from $1,000 to $2,000, 
there is a real-world example, admittedly in a Republican primary, 
where this, if it were law today, would give a challenger candidate who 
is not a millionaire an opportunity to have a chance to get enough 
funding to at least be competitive.
  So I rise in strong support of the Wamp amendment, and I ask for its 
adoption.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been down this road before. In 1998, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) had this amendment. It was 
debated in the same sense it was debated tonight, and it was soundly 
rejected. Mr. Chairman, 315 Members of this body voted no. We are on 
the recorded record on that.
  In 1999 the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) again offered 
this amendment, the same debate, and 300 of us voted against it. Why? 
Because there is no reform in campaign reform if we are doubling the 
amount of money that we are putting into the bill.
  This is not reform. We are trying to do history tonight. We are 
trying to pass campaign finance reform. We cannot have reform out there 
with a message that says, well, we did reform, but we just doubled the 
amount of money that we can get from individual rich contributors. 
There is only one way to have campaign finance reform, and that is to 
defeat this amendment with the same 300 votes that voted against it in 
1998 and 1999. You are on the record, do not flip flop.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that exciting 
rendition. The points the gentleman made were very succinct, and I 
appreciate the gentleman raising those issues, including the number of 
Members who had voted on this measure the last time, the over 300 
Members that voted against this amendment.
  I want to thank the gentleman on the other side for the hard work 
that he has put forward in bringing about true campaign finance reform, 
but I do disagree with him on this amendment.
  I agree with the premise that we do not need to add more money into 
the process; we should be looking at reducing it. The other thing that 
we need to remember is nobody is forcing anybody to run for office. 
People choose to run for office, and they should have that opportunity, 
and it should not be all about money, and it should be about their 
ideas.
  I think this sends a totally wrong message. I would encourage the 
body to vote down this amendment, as they did vote down this amendment 
before, and say no to this kind of politics and yes to campaign finance 
reform.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 
time.
  Everybody here has been elected under the law that allows a $1,000 
limit. We had no problem getting elected. Many of us have been elected 
many, many times. There is nothing broke out there that needs fixing. 
The law is a good law, and let us keep that good law so that we can 
have good, meaningful campaign finance reform tonight. Do not do it by 
throwing away the message by doubling the amount of contributions that 
one can take if this amendment is passed. This is a bad amendment. 
Defeat it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, in trying to change that law, I yield the 
balance of our time to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This has been a spirited debate. We did not put it in our substitute 
so we would, in fact, have this debate. We are going to live with 
whatever the decision is afterwards, whether this amendment fails or 
succeeds. I hope this amendment succeeds with all that I can urge. It 
is not a question of going from the $1,000 to $2,000, it is a question 
of going from $2 million to $2,000, or a half a million to $2,000, or 
$200,000 to $2,000.
  We have gotten elected in part because of all of this soft money 
which we are going to see disappear. We are going to return it back to 
individual Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, $2,000 is more than $1,000, but it should be $3,500 if 
we were looking at 1974. I urge my colleagues as Democrats and 
Republicans to support this amendment.
  This bill may become law. We are going to have to live with it for 
the next many, many years, and I think my colleagues will agree that 
$2,000 will be better in the years to come than $1,000 and will make it 
equal to the Senate.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Wamp amendment, 
which doubles the amount of money an individual can donate to a 
candidate, known as hard money, from $1000 to $2000. I personally 
believe that we should decrease this maximum amount by 50% to $500 if 
we are really serious about campaign finance reform. The Wamp amendment 
is a complete step backwards in trying to get the money out of our 
political system.
  As Public Campaign states in its report, The Color of Money, ``It is 
an indisputable fact of our political system that those candidates and 
laws favored by wealthy contributors usually prevail over those whose 
backers, or would-be backers, cannot afford to give large sums. As 
American University law professor Jamin Raskin has stated, this system 
is `every bit as exclusionary to poorer candidates and voters as the 
regime of the high filing fee and the poll tax' was in discriminating 
against African Americans and poor people in the South.''
  Because of wage disparities and lower incomes in minority and poor 
communities, these constituencies don't have the resources to 
contribute to campaigns. We only further disenfranchise them if we 
raise the amount of hard money that an individual can contribute. 
Additionally, this hard money system makes it much harder for women, 
people of color, and low-income people to run for office. This is 
undemocratic. Allowing that amount to be doubled will only give wealthy 
people even more influence in our political system.
  We see that influence every day. For example, wealthy Enron and 
Arthur Andersen executives gave almost $800,000 in $1000 contributions 
since the 1990 election cycle according to U.S. Public Interest 
Research Group. Do we want to give these executives even more influence 
over Congress?
  A 2000 poll by the Mellman group found that 81 percent of voters 
either support lowering the $1000 hard money limit or keeping it the 
same. The American people oppose the Wamp amendment and we should, too. 
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this very discriminatory amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218, 
noes 211, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 28]

                               AYES--218

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella

[[Page 1396]]


     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--211

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Walden
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Ballenger
     Brady (TX)
     Cubin
     Riley
     Roukema
     Traficant

                              {time}  2212

  Mrs. KELLY, Mrs. EMERSON, and Messrs. HYDE, LoBIONDO, LUCAS of 
Kentucky, COLLINS and FORD changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye''.
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  2215

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to the order of 
the House of Tuesday, February 12, 2002, it is now in order to consider 
an amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).


                Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mrs. Emerson

  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee of 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 33 offered by Mrs. Emerson:
       Amend section 323(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971, as proposed to be added by section 101(a) of the 
     bill, to read as follows:
       ``(b) State, District, and Local Committees.--An amount 
     that is expended or disbursed for Federal election activity 
     by a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     (including an entity that is directly or indirectly 
     established, financed, maintained, or controlled by a State, 
     district, or local committee of a political party and an 
     officer or agent acting on behalf of such committee or 
     entity), or by an association or similar group of candidates 
     for State or local office or individuals holding State or 
     local office, shall be made from funds subject to the 
     limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this 
     Act.
       Amend section 323(e)(3) of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971, as proposed to be added by section 101(a) of the 
     bill, to read as follows:
       ``(3) Fundraising events.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a 
     candidate or an individual holding Federal office may attend, 
     speak, or be a featured guest at a fundraising event for a 
     State, district, or local committee of a political party.
       Amend section 304(e)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971, as proposed to be added by section 103(a) of the 
     bill, to read as follows:
       ``(2) Other political committees to which section 323 
     applies.--In addition to any other reporting requirements 
     applicable under this Act, a political committee (not 
     described in paragraph (1)) to which section 323(b) applies 
     shall report all receipts and disbursements made for 
     activities described in section 301(20)(A), unless the 
     aggregate amount of such receipts and disbursements during 
     the calendar year is less than $5,000.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
344, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and a Member opposed, 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In November of 2000, on the night of my reelection, I told my 
constituents that I firmly supported meaningful campaign finance 
reform. That position has not changed and it will not change.
  I know how hard the sponsors of this bill have worked, and I want to 
commend them for it; but if our goal is to reduce the influence of soft 
money, this bill does not go far enough. This bill is not true campaign 
finance reform. This bill is campaign finance hide and seek.
  The fact of the matter is soft money will seek a place to hide, and 
there is a place to hide in this bill, dark enough and big enough to 
provide cover for mountains of soft money. This bill provides that 
cover for obscene amounts of money without Federal disclosure, without 
Federal reporting and in total darkness. This is hide and seek at its 
best or its worst.
  In my home State of Missouri, it means for example that 10 
corporations and 10 unions could give over $10 million of soft money to 
each party each year. If creating that loophole were not bad enough, 
Shays-Meehan creates an even bigger loophole by allowing Members of 
Congress, us, to raise unlimited soft money from 501(c) tax-exempt 
organizations. That is an outrage and even Senator McCain did not 
support that loophole.
  Labor unions worry that corporate soft money is killing our political 
system, and business interests worry that unions and union soft money 
is killing our political system. In fact, the fact of the matter is 
that the flood of soft money from both sides, from both sides drowns 
out the only voices which are important. Those are the voices of the 
American people.
  The only way to allow the voices of the American people to be heard 
is to

[[Page 1397]]

totally ban all soft money. Let us support true campaign finance 
reform, reform that closes all the loopholes. Let us get rid of the 
Levin loophole. Let us get rid of the midnight loophole to solicit 
501(c) organizations, and let us ban all soft money.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Anyone who believes in grassroots activities must vote no on this 
amendment. It has been subject, as it has been true of other 
provisions, of grotesque mischaracterization.
  What this does is not open the flood gates. It is make sure there is 
no flood gate. Instead, there is a channel for grassroots activity 
indeed for the people to be heard. The Senate adopted this provision on 
a bipartisan basis to preserve for the States and for the local parties 
an important role in traditional grassroots activities: registration, 
get out the vote, voter identification. Everybody should understand 
these restrictions.
  The non-Federal of the State portion must be raised in accordance 
with State law, and many States prohibit corporate or labor union 
money. There is a limit by any entity of $10,000. There can be no 
mention, and I emphasize this, of a Federal candidate. There can be no 
expenditure of these moneys for broadcast television or for radio ads; 
and the State portion, the non-Federal portion, cannot be raised by a 
Federal office-holder or candidate. They cannot be transferred among 
committees. They cannot be raised in coordination with other political 
parties, and there has to be an allocation according to the FEC rules. 
There has to be a Federal hard-dollar match for these moneys.
  There is no way this opens a flood gate. Instead, what this does is 
create an opportunity for the people to be heard, for grassroots 
activities to continue, for there to be voter identification, 
registration without a single reference to any Federal candidate. That 
is why Senator McCain and Senator Feingold supported this, and it was 
adopted by voice vote in the Senate.
  This amendment is a poison pill, not only for this bill. It is a 
poison pill if adopted for grassroots activities. I have heard so much 
on that side of the aisle about the importance of grassroots activities 
of democratic, with a small D, participation. This amendment runs 
counter to that rhetoric.
  I suggest that in a resounding way we vote no on this terribly 
misguided amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. 
Emerson) for yielding me the time.
  Folks have been here a long time. The real moment of truth has 
arrived. Are my colleagues going to fish or are they going to cut bait? 
I strongly, enthusiastically, heartily support the gentlewoman's 
amendment.
  This is campaign finance reform. It takes care of the problem on page 
79 of the so-called latest and greatest Shays-Meehan bill, that page 
that allows soft money to borrow hard money and pay it back after the 
election. This fixes the problem now. In some precincts in Missouri I 
heard there was over 110 percent turnout. That is the kind of soft-
money results that the other bill that is before us provides. Is that 
campaign finance reform? I do not think so.
  Let us be serious. Here is the real thing. Here is our chance, our 
real chance to reform, to fix; and I submit to my colleagues that it is 
not money that is the problem. It is people who are the problem; but if 
we believe that it is money, fix it, take it out, take it now, let us 
do it. Let us reform campaign finance and support the gentlewoman from 
Missouri's (Mrs. Emerson) amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a very distinguished Member.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) very much for yielding me the time.
  I would ask my colleagues, are we afraid of the committeemen and 
women, the precinct judges, the party Chairs, the people who are really 
on the ground exercising their democratic principles, their principles 
of belief in their parties, be it Republican or Democrat? This language 
has nothing to do with special interest dollars influencing the votes 
of Members of the House or Senate.
  All it has to do is providing resources so that people who live in 
our communities, who work every day in political activities can, in 
fact, exercise the democratic process. These are resources to build 
party structures. These are resources to enable the grassroots, to get 
people involved, to do voter registration, to help young people become 
involved, not in terms of special interest dollars, but providing them 
the resources, maybe the stamps, maybe the literature, that helps 
encourage people to be part of this process. The Levin provision only 
allows what States already do themselves, there is no federal 
intervention.
  I believe this is an asset. This is something that contributes to 
what we are trying to do, get more people involved, say yes you can be 
involved and your voice is very important.
  This deals with a myriad of groups. It does not isolate groups. It 
does not distinguish or suggest that people cannot be involved. These 
are resources that will be given to allow us to organize in our 
communities. I cannot imagine any of us that go home to any of our 
respective communities would ever say to the committeemen who work long 
hard hours, to precinct judges that work with us, to the activists that 
work with us, that their work in encouraging people to vote is not 
important.
  I would ask my colleagues to look at these resources as it is. These 
are not dollars that come to any one of us. These are not dollars that, 
in fact, have direct influence and direct us in any way in making 
decisions on policy. These are dollars that have to do with bringing in 
a whole group of individuals who will have the opportunity to exercise 
their view and viewpoints. This is not a good amendment, and I would 
ask my colleagues to defeat it.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ney), the tremendous chairman of the Committee on House 
Administration.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time.
  This, of course, what my colleague is trying to correct, this is the 
Enron limousine part of Shays-Meehan, $60 million-some with the Levin 
amendment. We call it the Enron limousine. They could have spread 
around $60 million-some.
  I think we have heard it all tonight. I do not know if it is because 
it is getting late or because we have just got to create more on the 
floor of the House. We have heard it all. Now eliminating soft money, 
which is what this amendment does, is a poison pill. We have really 
evolved.
  Somebody said this bill has barely changed. It is not the same 
species. I cannot believe that we are talking about doing something 
good with the elimination of the soft money, it now becomes a poison 
pill; but back-room deals can be cut all the time to evolve this bill. 
We bring up good amendments and all of the sudden they are just not 
good enough.
  In defense, somebody said tonight it can only be used for good 
purposes. It is still influence-peddling when someone is going to throw 
that money around. From our point of view, this is what my colleagues 
have said hundreds of times about this type of soft money. 501(c)(3) 
too is also in here, the 501(c)(3)s, and there is a building fund. This 
is so full of soft money, and my colleagues know it.
  This is a good amendment, makes a good correction. I urge support of 
the amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, how much time is there, please?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. 
Emerson) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin) has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

[[Page 1398]]

  The $50 million figure comes out of thin air, made of whole cloth; 
and the gentleman who just spoke wants to have unlimited soft money 
while this is money under State law, carefully, carefully confined to 
grassroots activity.
  No one should vote for the Emerson amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays), one of the chief cosponsors of this bill.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin) for yielding me the time.
  This is a very interesting debate. We are on different sides. The 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) has a bill that will be coming up that 
has no limits to soft money on the State level and some limits in soft 
money on the Federal level; but on the State level he will allow 
Federal employees to raise that money on the State level.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has an amendment that he is 
trying to keep in the bill that was put in by the Senate. The Senate 
wants this amendment. They believe it is fair because they believe it 
does not involve any Federal employees, any Federal office-holders, any 
Federal party people.

                              {time}  2230

  It is soft money raised by a State, and a State chooses to do it. Any 
State that does not allow soft money, there is no soft money. We are 
allowing States to do what they want to do for their elections, for 
local and State elections.
  Now, I confess to my colleagues that there was an amendment that did 
this before. The gentleman from Arkansas had an amendment where he 
wanted the States to raise soft money, and I opposed it because I knew 
we would eventually send it to the Senate. I wish this amendment were 
not here, as a purest, but I think it is fair. My concern is that it is 
a good amendment now, that it could be changed over time, but it is 
fair now. It works now. And it is absolutely essential if we are to 
pass this bill that this amendment stay in and that the amendment being 
offered not be allowed to pass. I cannot emphasize it enough.
  We have had some easy votes, maybe my colleagues think. They are 
going to be really, really close now. After all this, we are going to 
defeat this bill by accepting an amendment that frankly is pretty 
amazing given that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), in a few moments, 
is going to offer an amendment to allow unlimited soft money at the 
State level.
  So is this a perfect bill? No. It is 85 percent of what I would like 
it to be. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and I have had 
debates about this, because I think this is something that could be 
turned into something later on. But as it is constructed, as it is 
used, it is fair. It makes sense. No Federal employees can raise it, it 
cannot be used by Federal employees, it has limited use, and it cannot 
be used for any advertising.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  We have come full circle. It is 10:30 on a Wednesday night, and I 
think we have heard just about everything. We have heard that soft 
money is evil, yet now it is okay. We have heard from the other side 
that we have to do without it, but now we cannot do without it. We have 
heard that we have to get rid of it, but now we need it to 
collateralize loans for hard money and then to pay off hard money loans 
through an amendment in the middle of the night that nobody seems to 
want to own up to.
  We have heard it all. Let us call this what it is. It is a blatant 
attempt to buy the last couple of votes needed for this bill, and it 
keeps getting worse and worse and worse. I wonder at what point people 
will stand up and say, enough. This is not the bill we started out 
with. It keeps getting worse.
  We have come full circle. Soft money is bad; now it is not only good, 
it is necessary to promote grassroots activity. Which is it? Please 
tell us.
  I urge support of the Emerson amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 2\3/4\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman 
from Missouri has the right to close.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. To the gentleman 
from Arizona, if he wants to defame the Members of the Senate, Mr. 
McCain, Mr. Feingold, and all others who voted in favor of this, it was 
by voice vote, go ahead and do so. Go ahead and do so. The gentleman is 
making a mistake.
  This is to preserve grassroots activity and nothing else.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ose).
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri for 
yielding me this time.
  Let me just say that I do not serve in the Senate. I serve in the 
House. My district goes up and down the center part of California. And 
while I am very respectful of what the fine Senators in the other body 
might have to do or say, maybe two of California's Senators might visit 
my district sometime in the next few months and find out what they are 
saying, with all due respect to the gentleman. They do not speak for my 
district, I speak for my district. And if they want to come to my 
district and visit with my people, I will be happy to have a town hall 
meeting with them.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond to the gentleman from California that I think his Senators will 
take up his invitation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), who has worked so hard on this bill and who 
very much opposes this poison pill amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding me this time.
  It is about 10:35 at night, and the amendments continue. This is an 
amendment, another attempt to destroy the coalition that we have held 
together over a period of the last several years. There have been 
negotiations that have taken place that have been bipartisan and 
bicameral. We have a historic opportunity here in this House to pass a 
bill that will fundamentally change the way elections are held in this 
country. A historic opportunity.
  The only way we are not going to have this opportunity is if the 
opponents of reform are able to pass an amendment that is designed to 
kill the bill. We have faced a series of those amendments, all taken in 
last night at about 12 o'clock and all designed to break up the 
coalition. Sometimes they try to break off Democrats, sometimes they 
try to break off Republicans, sometimes they have amendments that the 
Senate will never go along with. Sometimes it is Senate Republicans 
they are trying to offend. Anything and everything that can be proposed 
to try to defeat McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan has been proposed this 
evening. This is nothing more than the latest attempt.
  But I want to tell my colleagues something. The American people get 
it. The American people are watching this debate tonight waiting to see 
who is for real reform, who is trying to break up the coalitions, who 
wants to pass a bill, and who wants to kill a bill, because every 
person in this House knows that if we pass a bill designed to go to the 
conference committee, it is going to die in conference, just where a 
patient's bill of rights is dying. Just where campaign finance reform 
in the past has died. That is why we have

[[Page 1399]]

preconferenced this bill with the Senate, to design a bill that is 
balanced and fair to both political parties.
  Now, if my colleagues want to defeat campaign finance reform, they 
will have yet another possibility to do that. That is this amendment. 
And after this amendment, we will have other amendments designed to 
kill this bill. But I believe a majority of the Members of this House 
are ready to stand in a bipartisan way, whether it takes until 11 
o'clock, 12 o'clock, 1 a.m., 2 a.m., 3 a.m., or 4 a.m. we are going to 
stand tall, opposed to any amendment that will break up our coalition.
  I ask all Members on both sides of the aisle to defeat this amendment 
and pass campaign finance reform.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I would like to ask my good friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), one question, please.
  If soft money is so corrupting, why then does the gentleman allow any 
soft money to be legal in this bill?
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman thinks soft money is 
okay, why does she oppose the $10,000 limit?
  Mrs. EMERSON. I hate soft money.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Can I answer the question?
  Mrs. EMERSON. Yes.
  Mr. MEEHAN. This is a limited amount, $10,000. It cannot go for 
television ads, it cannot go for radio ads.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Wait, stop, everyone.
  Mr. MEEHAN. It cannot go for radio ads.


                Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  The Chair again requests that Members use the proper procedure in 
yielding back and forth to each other. The gentlewoman from Missouri 
(Mrs. Emerson) controls the time. If the gentlewoman chooses to yield 
further to the gentleman from Massachusetts, she may do so.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just have a very short 
answer from the gentleman.
  Mr. MEEHAN. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, my brief 
answer is we believe that the million-dollar contributions, like the $4 
million to Enron over a period of 10 years, the $2 million in the last 
election cycle, that is what we are fighting; the $2 million ends up in 
television ads.
  This is $10,000 that cannot go on television. It cannot do anything 
but build both parties.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, how much time do I 
have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ney).
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that Shays-Meehan has 
been passed around and changed more than a baby at an all-day baptism 
party in the last 2 weeks and last night.
  And the other thing is, my friends from Michigan and Connecticut do 
not get the point. We have a good bill, the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Wynn) and I. We did not claim it was from the outset completely 
pure. My colleagues all claim to ban soft money, but they do not.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Back a couple of amendments ago, I heard the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) talk about the corruption of soft money and 
how we do not have a prescription drug bill for senior citizens because 
of soft money, and his bill does not ban it. In the gentleman's bill 
there are big huge loopholes for obscene amounts of money from 
pharmaceutical companies, from unions, from whomever to keep us from 
doing good legislation.
  If we are really serious about this, we will ban all soft money now 
and forever.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 244, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 29]

                               AYES--185

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Baker
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--244

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella

[[Page 1400]]


     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Petri
     Phelps
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shows
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brady (TX)
     Cubin
     Pelosi
     Riley
     Roukema
     Traficant

                              {time}  2300

  Mr. TOOMEY and Mr. KERNS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to the order of 
the House of Tuesday, February 12, 2002, it is now in order to consider 
an amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).


                 Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Wicker

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the majority leader, I 
offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 34 offered by Mr. Wicker:
       Add at the end of title III the following new section:

     SEC. 320. BANNING POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS IN FEDERAL 
                   ELECTIONS BY ALL INDIVIDUALS NOT CITIZENS OR 
                   NATIONALS OF THE UNITED STATES.

       Section 319(b)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(2)) is amended by striking the period 
     at the end and inserting the following: ``, or in the case of 
     an election for Federal office, an individual who is not a 
     citizen of the United States or a national of the United 
     States (as defined in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act).''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
344, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment. It closes a loophole in our 
current campaign finance system which allows foreign interests to 
influence United States elections. It requires that contributions to 
Federal candidates be made by either United States citizens or American 
nationals.
  When discussing this amendment with many of my colleagues, Mr. 
Chairman, they have asked me, ``Isn't that already the current law?'' 
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, it is not the current law. And so this 
amendment is being offered and designed to combat foreign influence in 
our elections and in our Federal Government.
  The Shays-Meehan campaign regulations bill permits contributions from 
permanent resident aliens. The problem is this, Mr. Chairman: The 
Federal Election Commission has interpreted this exemption to the point 
where all a foreign citizen, a foreign citizen, needs is an address in 
the United States to be permitted to make a contribution. This alien 
loophole makes it easier for foreign interests to funnel money to 
United States political campaigns.
  Hours ago on this floor of the House, my friend the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) mentioned that it might take more than one 
scandal to bring a bill to the floor. He mentioned several, but one of 
the scandals he mentioned was the contribution of foreign nationals to 
our Federal election in 1996. He mentioned that as one of the scandals 
that we had had in the United States of America, and indeed it was. The 
American people witnessed in the Clinton-Gore campaign a breathtaking 
willingness to solicit campaign money from noncitizens. It is this 
abuse which my amendment is designed to address. The video of Al Gore 
soliciting money from Buddhist monks who had taken a vow of poverty is 
an example of the type of campaign finance abuses this amendment 
addresses.
  This is a serious matter. The fact that it is simple in nature does 
not take away from the seriousness of it. We are talking about 
protecting our process from campaign contributions from China, 
Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, wherever, into our system.
  This amendment, has already passed this House of Representatives on 
three occasions: once under suspension as a freestanding bill and twice 
as amendments to the Shays-Meehan legislation. In the 105th Congress, 
it received a vote of 282-126; in the 106th Congress, a margin of 242-
181.
  On both of those occasions, the amendment was adopted, the Shays-
Meehan bill came to final passage, and the Shays-Meehan bill was 
adopted overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives. So I challenge 
those of my colleagues who have been saying throughout the afternoon 
that this amendment is a poison pill amendment. We have adopted three 
amendments already today which I think have improved this legislation.
  This amendment is one that has widespread bipartisan support. I urge 
my colleagues to adopt it as they have the other three amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds. This amendment 
takes away rights that currently exist.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. 
Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent well over 100,000 individuals in my State 
who are legal residents who have come here to make a life for their 
families.
  The Constitution was written by some very, very wonderful people who 
made no distinction whatsoever in guaranteeing the rights and 
privileges of this country when they wrote the word ``persons.'' They 
did not say ``citizens.'' They said ``persons.'' And the courts time 
and time again have protected the rights of persons within the United 
States. They have not made any discriminations, neither should we, in 
terms of dealing with these people who are legally here.
  Twenty thousand legal residents currently serve in the military. More 
than 20 percent of Americans who have received the Congressional Medal 
of Honor were legal residents. How can we deny legal residents the 
right to care about what is happening in this country? We need to keep 
them in the political process. Do not write them off. They are our 
friends. They are part of our community. We should respect the work 
that they do.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Mississippi for 
yielding me this time, and I thank my friend from Hawaii for her 
impassioned statement.
  You know, the whole purpose of the amendment process is to offer 
perfecting amendments, and indeed, if we followed the gentlewoman's 
logic, then we would allow noncitizens to vote. After all, should they 
not have a voice? Indeed, we have seen evidence of that in recent 
election campaigns, just as we saw in 1996, Bernard Schwartz, the 
leading contributor to the Democratic Party, and his Loral Missile 
Systems give the Communist Chinese guidance systems, and our Commander 
in Chief at that time did absolutely nothing. And that was an outrage. 
But we understand the pop psychology of the left: ``Oh, gee, it's just 
this horrible system. I didn't really mean it. It's just a horrible 
system.''
  Now, my friends, here is your chance to change the system, to say 
lawful citizens can contribute. No more financiers of Red Pagoda 
Communist Chinese cigarettes, no more daughters of the head of the 
Chinese equivalent of

[[Page 1401]]

the CIA who showed up in the Oval Office, no more sham corporations, 
Chinese shell corporations operated by the Red Army of China doing 
their dirty work through soft money to a Clinton-Gore reelection 
campaign.
  If you are serious about reform, stand up for national security, 
stand up for this perfecting amendment, but I know the Orwellian phrase 
will be, somehow this is a poison pill. Yes, I guess it is poisonous to 
disallow enemies of this state access to our political system. That is 
so bizarre.
  Shame on those who advocate this. Support this amendment. Stand up 
for America. Improve the system.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Committee will be in order.
  Mr. HOYER. The House is not in order, and particularly the gentleman 
from Arizona is not in order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. More than one Member is not in order.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, is it appropriate for a Member of the 
House to impugn the motives or the conduct of another Member of the 
House?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would respond that all Members 
should refrain from impugning the personal motives of other Members or 
engaging in personalities.
  The Chair would also respond that the Chair is simply attempting to 
maintain order so that we can work our way through the amendments. If 
the Members would cooperate, that would be helpful.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

                              {time}  2315

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, tarring with a broad brush is not worthy of this House. 
It has happened before, and it has demeaned the Constitution and the 
generosity of the Statue of Liberty that stands at her door.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that xenophobia is alive 
and well in some quarters of this Chamber.
  This is not about foreign influence. Legal permanent residents are 
the sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers of 
United States citizens who obeyed the rules, followed the laws, and now 
are in this country and live a lawful life. They fight for the country, 
they die for the country, they contribute to the Nation's economy, and 
they pay taxes.
  Today there are 20,000 legal permanent residents enlisted in the 
Armed Forces of the United States. They are protecting our airports, 
our seaports, our borders. They risk their lives daily in Afghanistan 
and other places around the world to protect us here at home. And they 
have the right to make contributions to causes and to candidates they 
support now under the law, a right that should not be taken away from 
them.
  If they can die for this country, sir, they certainly have the right 
to choose who is going to send them there by the political process. But 
they can participate by giving contributions, and that should never, 
ever, be taken away.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 25 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a veteran of the United States Air Force. I have 
worn the uniform of my country, and I still serve in the United States 
Air Force Reserve. And I would tell my friend from New Jersey that 
every member of the United States military is prohibited by law from 
making political contributions.
  When I was on active duty, I could not make political contributions. 
I was just as good a citizen then as I am now; but because of the very 
nature of my activity, I could not make such contributions, and I was 
no less of a citizen.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the chairman of the Hispanic Caucus.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, this evening it is a simple situation that we are 
facing here in the House. Each one of you is going to get one of these 
handouts this evening, and let me just read it to you.
  It says, ``He saved the lives of our American soldiers under fire in 
Vietnam. He received the Congressional Medal of Honor. He now heads the 
United States Selective Service System. Now we want to make him, and 
others like him, guilty of an unlawful act if they contribute to your 
campaign.
  ``Alfred Rascon, now director of the United States Selective Service, 
was a legal permanent resident when he served our country in Vietnam 
and earned the Congressional Medal of Honor.''
  That is what it gets down to. It gets down to fairness. It gets down 
to recognizing that legal permanent residents live here, work here, pay 
taxes; they serve in the military, they earn Medals of Honor, and we 
should be ashamed of ourselves if we pass this tonight.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), whose father was a giant in this 
institution on the rights of all people.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition. We really 
thought this was going to be the last amendment, because we thought 
they would save the worst for last; but it is not, and we are here at 
this moment, and I have about 30 seconds.
  Who are you talking about? Who are these legal permanent residents 
that you refer to? Are they faceless members of a crowd? I will tell 
you who they are. They are people that are in this country by choice; 
who have a greater appreciation for the freedoms of our democracy than 
most people that are here today simply by accident of birth. They 
contribute the blood, sweat and tears to this country. They have as 
great a love as anyone that was ever born here.
  If you come to San Antonio, Texas, you will know exactly what I am 
talking about. Do you want to know what we are talking about tonight? I 
will tell you. Look in the mirror. You will see the faces of your 
grandparents and your parents, your brothers and your sisters and your 
neighbors. That is who we are talking about tonight.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, 
which would threaten the rights of minorities to participate in our 
Nation's political process.
  Just as citizens do, legal permanent residents are required to 
register for the draft. Many are veterans. It has already been 
mentioned there are 20,000 legal immigrants serving voluntarily in the 
military, and that 20 percent of the Congressional Medal of Honor 
recipients in U.S. wars have been legal immigrants or naturalized 
Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, in addition to this being a poison pill amendment, it 
is also clearly unconstitutional. Federal courts have held that 
immigrants have the same first amendment rights as citizens. Let us not 
deny them that.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, ``Hundreds of thousands of immigrants take the oath of 
citizenship every year. Each has come not only to take, but to give. 
They come asking for a chance to work hard, support their families, and 
rise in the world. And together they make our Nation more, not less, 
American.''
  Those are not my words. Those are the words of George W. Bush, the 
President of the United States. He said that while he was flanked by 
two individuals who happened to have been former lawful permanent 
residents, his Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao, and his Secretary of 
Housing and Urban Development, Mel Martinez, who are now U.S. citizens.
  You seek to deprive people like Secretary Martinez and Secretary 
Chao,

[[Page 1402]]

and my mother, the opportunity to participate in this process. Today we 
can argue on the floor of this House about the freedoms of this 
country, while people stand in Afghanistan to secure our freedom and 
stand at our airports to secure our freedom. Let us stand with them as 
they stand with us.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise also to convey my anger and disgust 
with what I have seen occur here tonight on this floor. Twenty percent 
of the constituents in my district are legal residents. Twenty-five 
percent of them have just become U.S. citizens.
  The message that they hear every single day on the news is that the 
Republican Party, our friends from the other aisle, want them to be a 
part of America. But tonight you are sending them the wrong signal. You 
are driving a spear through their hearts, through their families, 
because they have worked hard, they have worked lawfully.
  My parents came here as legal immigrants to see their daughter rise 
to become a Member of this House. So many people are waiting for the 
American dream. They pay taxes, they have given their sons and 
daughters, they fight our wars. And they will continue to do that 
because they have a strong belief in our Constitution and the freedom 
that this country represents.
  We cannot allow this amendment to go forward. I hope that Members on 
the other side of the aisle will agree with me.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, what is wrong with the Shays-Meehan picture? If a U.S. 
citizen wishes to contribute voluntarily money for party building, for 
grassroots activity, to get out the vote, to educate voters, they are 
prohibited from seeing their money used for those lawful legitimate 
laudable purposes by a political party at any time during a campaign 
and by a grassroots organization during the final stages of a campaign. 
Yet a noncitizen, somebody not allowed to vote in this country, can, 
under Shays-Meehan, vote and influence political events in this country 
by making a contribution.
  Something is wrong with this picture, when we are taking rights away 
from United States citizens in Shays-Meehan and allowing the right to 
vote to influence the political process to noncitizens. That is what is 
wrong with the picture.
  It is a loophole that must be plugged. Vote for the Wicker amendment. 
The Wicker amendment simply stands for the proposition, very simply, 
that if you cannot vote, you should not be able to contribute and 
influence directly the political process through money, when you do not 
have the right to vote.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, The gentleman is wrong on both points. It does not take 
rights away from American citizens, and this bill neither gives nor 
takes away from rights of people who legally live in this country. That 
is the law today. You seek to take it away.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to give two faces to the 
people that you would deny this right. I had one woman come into my 
office from the former Soviet Union. She was in a country, it was a 
dictatorship at the time, she was Jewish, she could not even exercise 
her right to go to synagogue. She was so proud of the fact she could 
come in my office, she could make phone calls, she could do mailings 
and make a little contribution, I think it was $25.
  She was so proud of that fact. She could not vote yet because she was 
applying to be a citizen, but she wanted to participate in the process.
  I had another woman who was a doctor at the local emergency room, an 
Indian physician. She wanted to do the same thing.
  What is wrong with letting these people exercise their rights? 
Nothing.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic whip.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding me time and for his leadership on this important issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent a district that is so beautiful because it 
is so diverse. Our country is every day invigorated by the arrival of 
newcomers on our shore. They bring with them their courage, their 
commitment to family values, a commitment to the academic ethic, the 
religious ethic, a sense of community, and a strong love of freedom and 
patriotism, yes, to America.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this unfortunately mean-spirited 
amendment because it is a poison pill and because it will deprive 
minorities in our country of a right to participate in the freedom that 
they have so courageously sought.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, where are the smartest people in the world 
going? They are going to America.

                              {time}  2330

  Physicists from Ireland, computer specialists from India, folks from 
all over the world are coming to this country as the mecca of 
democracy, and they are making our economy stronger. If my colleagues 
want to know what it means, come to my district to see what it means 
for Microsoft and real networks to make this economy boom. I will just 
say one thing: The fellow who said Patrick Buchanan says that this is 
hurting America, he is dead wrong, and we ought to reject it to put a 
stake in the heart of that attitude in this country tonight.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the very distinguished 
gentleman from the State of Oregon (Mr. Wu), the only Member of this 
House born in Taiwan.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, enemy of the State. Enemy of the State. I have 
not heard much of this debate since hearing those words. I think that 
the gentleman from Arizona, by labeling legal permanent residents of 
America enemies of the State, by so doing has perpetrated a great evil 
and consigned that perspective, I hope, to the dust heap of history.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to say that I am conflicted by this. I want to say to my 
friends on the Democrat side, they have made a lot of good points. I 
think there are a lot of good points that have been made by the 
Republican side, too. I also want to remind my colleagues, because 
there are a lot of new people here who have been speaking with lots of 
righteous indignation about this, and I think their indignation is 
sincere, but veterans over there and veterans over here may remember 
September 14, 1999, when we had this exact same vote on a bipartisan 
basis. It passed 242 to 181. I have the voting list in my hand. I will 
be glad to share it with anybody. I do not choose to embarrass anybody 
by reading names, but I can tell my colleagues that every third name on 
here is a Democrat. I will say this to my Republican colleagues: Plenty 
of them voted no last time.
  This is not a bipartisan issue. This is not a finger-pointing issue, 
and this is not a racist issue. If it is, we are indicting a lot more 
than the author of this amendment, because plenty of folks voted yes 
last time, and plenty of folks voted no last time in each party. I have 
it right here in my hand.
  So I am just saying this: As many of my colleagues know, I can be 
just as partisan as some of the rest of us, but I am saying in this 
case, this is not a partisan issue, this is not a mean-spirited 
amendment. We have been down this path before. I think we had a much 
better debate last time, but here is a copy of the results of that 
debate, and I will share it with anybody.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?

[[Page 1403]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 1\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the gentleman from 
Maryland as to the amount of speakers he has remaining.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have two, but I will take 15 seconds, and 
I will yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays).
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would go ahead with his 
one speaker, then I will conclude our portion of the debate.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. First of all, let 
me say that the information we currently have is that military 
personnel can, in fact, contribute. They cannot solicit, but they can 
contribute.
  Second, I would say that when we say that I left my lamp beside the 
golden door, it means that you are welcome. And when we say to 
somebody, you are a legal permanent resident and you can pay taxes and 
serve in the service, it means not only are you welcome, but you can 
participate. Let us not shut that golden door tonight.
  Mr. Chairman, I retain the balance of my time.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, who is my friend, 
for the tone of his remarks, and I would assure him that when I was a 
member of the United States Air Force, it may have been by statute, it 
may have been by regulation, but members of the service were prohibited 
from making contributions, and we were still good citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, I regret the tone that this debate has taken tonight. I 
am looking out at the faces of my colleagues. I know them, they know 
me. I would hope they would not impugn a racist motive to an amendment 
that I have offered on several occasions in this body and has been 
adopted overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis.
  This is an issue of foreign campaign influence, and I regret that 
tonight there have been attempts to turn it into a minority issue or a 
racial issue, or an immigration issue, because it most certainly is 
not. It is about the fact that really and truly, abuses have occurred, 
and this legislation has been adopted by this body three times already 
to address those abuses. It simply makes the statement and would make 
the statement in the form of the Shays-Meehan bill that the election of 
Federal officials is the duty of United States citizens, and that is 
all the amendment does.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, for the purposes of closing debate on this 
important amendment, I yield the remaining time to the cosponsor of 
this legislation, the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I had fainted unless I believed to see the goodness of the Lord in 
the land of the living, and I see this goodness in this House, and I 
see a little anger, and I see little charges. My wife and I got to 
serve in the Peace Corps. It was the best 2 years of our lives, serving 
in another country and learning another culture.
  George Bush gets it. He would oppose this amendment. He knows we live 
in a pluralistic society, and he knows our party is not pluralistic. 
Look at us. We are good people, but we do not look like that, and some 
day my hope, some day my hope is that we will look like that, but 
amendments like this make it very difficult for people of other 
cultures to want to be a part of our party.
  This amendment passed in the past because we confused foreign 
nationals and the soft money they gave to legal permanent residents who 
were giving legal contributions, and we got caught up in all of that 
soft money given by foreign nationals. This is not about foreign 
nationals. It is about legal permanent residents being allowed to 
participate in our government.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is more than a poison pill to 
campaign finance reform; it is a poison pill to our Constitution--to 
our civil rights.
  There is nothing in this Constitution that says that the protections 
of the Bill of Rights extend only to United States citizens. Throughout 
it there is reference to people, not just citizens. There have been 
court decisions time and time again that have extended the protections 
of the Constitution to all persons living within the United States.
  We have had a great problem in the Congress making a distinction 
between illegal residents and legal permanent residents. Legal 
permanent residents have gone through all the processes. They have 
spent years to even come to the United States. They have come here with 
the purpose of being lawful, participating people in this great 
democracy. They play important civic roles and pay federal, state and 
local taxes. They serve in the military and are deeply affected by 
political decisions.
  Nearly 20,000 legal permanent residents are now serving voluntarily 
in the military and playing key roles in our nation's defense against 
terrorism. Moreover, more than 20 percent of the Congressional Medal of 
Honor recipients in our nation's wars have been legal immigrants, many 
of whom later became citizens of this country.
  Why are we afraid of these legal residents? We should not be. We 
should be welcoming them as participants in this democracy.
  Let us not make a mockery of our Bill of Rights, of our Constitution, 
and adopt an amendment that says we will let you live in our country, 
but we will not allow you to participate.
  Do not disgrace the Constitution by supporting this kind of 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160, 
noes 268, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 30]

                               AYES--160

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brown (SC)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Everett
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--268

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant

[[Page 1404]]


     Burton
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shows
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brady (TX)
     Cubin
     Riley
     Roukema
     Traficant
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2355

  Mr. BALLENGER and Mr. CUNNINGHAM changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to the order of 
the House of Tuesday, February 12, 2002, it is now in order to consider 
an amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).


                Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Reynolds

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee of 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).
  THE CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 29 offered by Mr. Reynolds:
       Amend section 402 to read as follows:

     SEC. 402. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act, 
     this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect February 14, 2002.
       (b) Transition Rule for Spending of Funds by National 
     Parties.--If a national committee of a political party 
     described in section 323(a)(1) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (as added by section 101(a)), including 
     any person who is subject to such section, has received funds 
     described in such section prior to the effective date 
     described in subsection (a) which remain unexpended as of 
     such date, the committee shall return the funds on a pro rata 
     basis to the persons who provided the funds to the committee.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
334, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds).
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, throughout this day I have listened to many of my 
colleagues rail on the evils of soft money. That is why it is time to 
ensure the rhetoric matches the reality. And I am doing just that by 
introducing an amendment that reverses a slick attempt to manipulate 
existing law and which will end soft money now rather than election 
day. By enacting this amendment, soft money will be banned tomorrow, 
Valentine's Day; and that is fitting because it would put an end to 
sweetheart deals being advanced by many of the supporters of Shays-
Meehan.

                              {time}  0000

  I can certainly see why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
do not want to end soft money now. They want a grace period that will 
allow them to spend tens of millions of dollars in soft money this 
year.
  Just take a look at last year, where nearly 54 percent of all 
contributions to Democrat committees were soft money contributions, 
compared to only 35 percent for Republican committees; and I can see 
why they may not want to close the loophole that would allow them to 
use a $40 million soft money building fund as collateral for hard-money 
dollars they could use in this year's campaigns.
  If we do not approve this amendment, not only will it fail to do what 
Shays-Meehan originally intended to accomplish, we would allow a 
perversion of current law restricting the use of soft money.
  Without this amendment, we would actually weaken current law, think 
about that, weaken current law by allowing national political parties 
to borrow hard money and repay it with soft money.
  That is right, according to the commissioners of the Federal Election 
Commission, and I am reading verbatim, the transition rule allowing 
national party committees to spend soft money between November 6, 2002, 
and January 1, 2003, does not prohibit the use of soft money to pay 
debts related to Federal elections.
  It is clear that this Congress would weaken existing law because, and 
I am again citing FEC officials, the proposed bill effectively 
invalidates the Federal Election Commission's soft-money allocation 
regulations.
  That is just one opinion. So let us hear another.
  According to Common Cause lawyer Trevor Potter, former counsel to 
Senator John McCain, the national parties may spend excess soft money 
to pay off any outstanding debts, noting that the tax provides that 
soft money could be used to retire outstanding debts, incurred solely 
in an election occurring by November 5, 2002. It does not make 
reference to contributions or expenditures or non-Federal, joint or 
allocated activities.
  Yet another opinion from election law expert Benjamin Ginsberg of 
Patton Boggs: The lack of specificity in the language means that a 
portion of hard dollar debt or obligations could be paid with soft 
money. As a practical matter, the plain wording of the proposed 
language would allow national party or committee to borrow hard 
dollars, spend those dollars in the upcoming election, and then use the 
remaining soft dollars to repay that debt.
  With this kind of creative bookkeeping on the part of the Shays-
Meehan supporters, I cannot help but wonder if Arthur Andersen helped 
draft it.
  Mr. Chairman, Webster's defines reform as to amend or improve by 
change of form or removal of faults or abuses. Without this amendment, 
there will not be reform because we do not remove faults or abuses. In 
fact, this bill allows manipulation and subversion and gives 
preferential treatment and sweetheart deals to many of those who claim 
today that the system was fraught with those very vices.
  Frankly, I do not see how making an exception to allow the Democratic 
National Committee to manipulate a $40 million soft-money account to 
help fund campaigns this year is reform by any definition, especially 
when they would be prevented from doing so

[[Page 1405]]

under the current law that we stand under today.
  I do not see how allowing parties to pay back hard-money campaign 
expenditures with millions of dollars in soft money represents a ban by 
any stretch of anyone's imagination.
  A few months ago, the chief sponsor of this measure said, and I 
quote, ``There is no reason to delay the demise of this indefensible 
soft money system,'' end quote. Christopher Shays, May 1, 2001.
  If soft money donations to national parties are as evil and corrosive 
as Shays-Meehan proponents proclaim, then they should be stopped 
immediately. I realize that Shays-Meehan today, in its fourth 
incarnation, is not the Shays-Meehan that was first introduced. In 
fact, these two bills have about as much in common as a Ford Escort and 
a Ford Explorer. It is the same manufacturer, the same brand name, but 
completely different vehicles. Worse, it weakens existing laws that 
Shays-Meehan supporters claim are already too lax.
  To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who support Shays-
Meehan, I ask only that they demonstrate that they believe in what they 
told the American people today, by really, truly banning soft money and 
banning it now.
  To my colleagues on this side of the aisle who support Shays-Meehan, 
I ask only for fairness and that they level the playing field by making 
this an honest soft-money ban rather than creating special exemptions 
and special deals for the other party.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are going to end soft money, then let us end it 
once and for all. Let us end it now, not months from now, when it is 
more politically convenient. If we are going to stop using soft money 
in campaigns, then let us make sure it is stopped in every campaign.
  Without this amendment, the supporters of Shays-Meehan are saying 
that while soft money may be bad, it is not bad enough to ban right 
here, right now. There is a word for that, Mr. Chairman, and it is 
hypocrisy.
  I urge approval of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I was not going to speak on this amendment, 
but the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), my good friend, 
mentioned hypocrisy. It is an interesting word.
  We stand here with an amendment that says we ought to have a ban on 
soft money tomorrow, today. Today is tomorrow, my friend from 
Massachusetts tells me. What a wonderful proposition, from the party 
whose President George Bush, the first, in 1991 vetoed campaign finance 
reform, an amendment that says let us do it today from the party that 
for 10 years has delayed the adoption of campaign finance reform.
  My, my, my. Now with the practicality of implementing an entire new 
program, that cannot possibly be done in the time frame set forth, 
designed, therefore, to kill this bill, is put forward. My, my, my. I 
say yes, hypocrisy is an interesting word.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  It gets down to the bottom line we are not going to hide from this 
vote anymore. We are going to have a vote tonight. The Democratic 
majority had 40 years to bring about true campaign reform. It is going 
to be passed by Republican votes tonight. I only can ask for a level 
playing field. I ask that we ban it right now, right here, February 14, 
reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reynolds) for yielding me the time, and I rise in strong support of 
this amendment, the reason being that this amendment would simply 
correct what is probably the most egregious, perhaps even the most 
cynical flaw in this badly flawed bill. And the flaw is simply this: 
the Shays-Meehan bill allows a party to go out and borrow money now, 
spend it in the upcoming election as though it were hard money, and 
then repay the loan with the soft money that the bill is supposed to 
ban. The fact is the Shays-Meehan bill has a money laundering 
provision, a provision that allows them to convert from soft to hard 
money.
  Soft money is supposed to be this egregious evil. The bill allows the 
parties to go out and raise it and then convert it and use it for a 
broader purpose, basically enhance its value, spend it as though it 
were hard money; and how convenient this is that the party that 
overwhelmingly supports this bill just happens to be the party that is 
relatively low on hard money these days, has an ample reserve of soft 
money. This is a very cynical feature of this bill, and I commend the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for offering the amendment that 
would correct it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Reynolds) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) control 3 minutes of the time 
allocated to me and have the ability to yield time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, first let us talk about the time. Yes, if 
this bill had come up in a timely fashion last year, it would have been 
effective for this cycle. The amendment purports to say let us put it 
into effect right away.
  Seventy House seats will be decided in primary in 3 weeks. The States 
of California and Illinois between them have more than 70 House seats. 
The primaries are in 3 weeks. Members can differ about a lot of this 
bill, but it is simply not logically possible to argue that they are 
for this bill and are going to have it go into effect 3 weeks before 
primary which have been conducted heretofore under the old rule. That 
is just not arguable, and to have someone say I am for the bill but I 
want to make it take effect right away and then call me a hypocrite is 
like being called silly by the Three Stooges. It simply does not make 
any sense.
  One cannot purport to be for this bill and say that they are now 
going to put it into effect 3 weeks before 70-some-odd primaries.
  The other point that the gentleman raised has some validity. There is 
some ambiguity in the bill; and as Members know, it will be corrected 
in a recommit. To the extent that there is an unintentional ambiguity 
that would allow a hard-money, soft-money transfer, the recommit will 
ban that. I understand that there is no worse news to give people who 
have found a flaw in something they hate than to plan to correct a 
flaw. I apologize. Maybe they should have held that they tortured the 
language or did not torture the language, they came up with an 
ambiguity.
  The two sponsors of the bill are going to put an end to that 
ambiguity. I understand why they want to talk about it now. It is about 
to disappear, and they will miss it, I understand, because it will take 
away from them that argument. So the fact is very simple. If my 
colleagues voted for Shays-Meehan, how can they possibly now go to the 
people and say yes I voted for this and I then voted to make it take 
effect immediately 3 weeks before the primaries in which the rules have 
already been under the other way? Then it has got to go to the Senate 
and be signed by the President.
  I hope this amendment is defeated and we will correct that error in 
the recommit.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My colleagues keep getting confused between hard and soft money. Last 
I

[[Page 1406]]

knew a primary was won on hard money, not using soft money. I also 
recollect that basically on some of the ambitions of some of the 
Members of the other side of the aisle they killed the bill the last 
time we had it in July, when we did not pass the rule, which I managed 
on this very floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reynolds) for yielding me the time.
  I spent almost a decade of my life doing campaign finance law before 
being elected to the United States Congress, and in that tenure I never 
advised a Republican Secretary of State, but I did advise two different 
Democrat Secretaries of State, and I want to focus on this language 
because I think it does matter.
  I am glad that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), my 
colleague, has acknowledged that we are going to correct or they claim 
they are going to correct this flaw, but all day long they have been 
saying it was not a flaw. Indeed, this morning, the heat of debate, oh 
no, this language is perfect, we would never do such a thing.
  I want to walk us through the language. I began today by calling the 
lawyer who replaced me as the adviser of the Arizona Secretary of 
State, and I faxed her the language and said does this language allow 
soft money to be used to repay a debt for dollars that were spent as 
hard dollars? She reviewed the language and in a phone conversation 
said to me, clearly, it does, there is no question about that.
  Tonight we hear that in a last minute motion to recommit we are going 
to correct an error that they denied all day. I guess my question is, 
how many other errors are there?
  It is interesting to me. I guess the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank) now says that the two letters that were produced today 
saying this defect is not here, in fact, are wrong themselves. I am 
glad he concedes that. As a matter of fact, the first of those two 
letters says it is clear that under current Federal election law only 
hard money can be used to pay off a loan where the money was used as 
hard money. Well, yes, that is the law now but we changed the law, and 
he says under section 402(b), language that I guess the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) now disagrees with, that soft money can only 
be used to pay off soft-money expenditures.
  Except that is clearly not true, if my colleagues read the language; 
and interestingly, neither of the letters of those who propose this 
language offers a single citation to a single case making the point, 
nor do they point to any sentence in the bill itself; but my colleagues 
do not have to be a lawyer. All they have to do is read the bill. It is 
plain language.

                              {time}  0015

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have three amendments, and that is it, and I cannot predict the 
outcome of any of the three. But we have really two issues that are in 
play right now. One of them is the issue of the delay to the start of 
the next campaign season, November 6, and the other is soft money.
  In regards to the issue of delay, we thought that after 16 months 
already into this, whether we can blame one side or the other, we are 
here now and not in July or January of last year. We are 16 months into 
a 24-month election cycle, and by the time this bill becomes law, if it 
does become law, it is 2 or 3 or 4 months from now, and then we only 
have 4 months.
  So I was asked, and others, does it make sense to have this bill take 
effect now, and the answer was it really does not. And I have spoken to 
some Members here who say the same thing. They know it. People on my 
own side of the aisle know it does not make sense to have it take 
effect today unless we want to kill the bill.
  Now, on the issue of the soft money, I have been in pain all day, 
because the one thing that I do not want is there to be any ambiguity 
for any Member about any question of this bill. And the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) was the final straw. He was the final straw. I 
believe he believes so strongly about this, and I believe he has 
influence over other Members, and so the motion to recommit is going to 
make it clear that there cannot be any soft money used for hard money 
expenses.
  Now, the question my side of the aisle will have to answer is are 
they going to vote for a motion on the other side to take care of a 
problem they want to take care of? And that is going to be real 
curious. Are my colleagues going to do it, or is it all rhetoric? We 
are going to solve the problem about this issue in a motion to 
recommit, and I hope my colleagues will support it because it will take 
care of the problem of the feeling of ambiguity.
  In my sense there is not a problem with it, but we want to make sure 
there is no doubt. And the other reason we want to make sure there is 
no doubt is the President has expressed concern about this, and we need 
to make sure there is no doubt in the mind of the President.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, last week there was discussion as to what 
the effective date should be, and the gentleman from Connecticut 
describes his thought process. It might have been reasonable to have an 
effective date as early as the date of enactment, the date the 
President signs the bill. Maybe it would have been reasonable to have 
it 30 days or 60 days thereafter. The most reasonable outcome is to 
make it effective for the next election. But all of those alternatives 
would be reasonable approaches.
  What is clearly unreasonable is to make this bill effective today, 
before the Senate acts, before the President acts. Not only is that 
impractical, it is clearly unconstitutional. Article 1, section 9, 
clause 3 tells this House not to pass an ex post facto law. Yet this 
bill imposes criminal penalties on acts taken tomorrow, which are legal 
tomorrow, but which would become retroactively illegal when the 
President signs this bill.
  Tomorrow soft money will be used for issue ads naming candidates on 
the March 5 ballot in the primary in California and other early March 
primaries around this country. These ads were legal yesterday. They 
will be legal tomorrow. They will become illegal when the President 
signs this bill. And if they become retroactively illegal, then people 
can be put in jail for doing things which were legal at the time they 
did them. Our Founding Fathers made it clear that this Congress should 
never pass such a criminal statute. We have passed retroactive tax laws 
providing benefits, but never have we Constitutionally passed a 
retroactive bill imposing new criminal penalties. We cannot adopt an ex 
post facto bill, nor should we.
  This amendment is not a good faith effort to insulate the 2002 
elections from soft money. It is, instead, an act designed to kill the 
bill, and in doing so it violates the Constitution. Let us vote ``no'' 
on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Reynolds) has 15 seconds remaining, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 30 seconds remaining, and the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Davis) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining and the right to 
close.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) has 
2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  There has been a steady stream of amendments today intended to kill 
campaign finance reform. This is the latest one, and I am sure voters 
will look at how Members vote on final passage to see if they really 
want this to

[[Page 1407]]

take effect, those who say they want it to take effect immediately.
  I want to make sure that we do not lose perspective, as my colleagues 
talk about everything that is wrong with this. This is a bill that 
creates possibilities. This is a first and necessary step to restore a 
sense of the possibility of self-government to workers, to families, to 
college students, to farmers.
  When I arrived here in Washington, the first day I took the oath of 
office, I sat down with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) to enlist in this effort 
because it was apparent it is necessary to restore trust in government.
  If the people of America do not have the trust in their ability to 
run their government, not special interests, but ordinary people, then 
America's gift to the world, this idea of self-government, will start 
to disintegrate.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I have listened to whether this has constitutional questions. This 
bill is riddled with constitutional questions. Even the sponsors have 
said some of it will be thrown out by the courts.
  But I do know this: Without this amendment the supporters of Shays-
Meehan are saying that while soft money may be bad, it is not bad 
enough to ban right here right now. There is a word for that, Mr. 
Chairman. It is hypocrisy.
  I urge approval of the amendment, and I will ask for a recorded vote.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. It has the 
potential to derail the bill. We have seen through that masquerade all 
night. I think the House deserves a substantive debate on the merits, 
and we have had it, except we have not even had an attempt by the 
sponsor of the amendment to respond to two of the most important points 
made here.
  We all understand when we are passing blatant unconstitutional bills. 
Nobody needs a law degree to recognize that. There was not even an 
attempt to respond to the argument by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Sherman) that we are criminalizing behavior that is currently 
legal. There has been no attempt to respond to the point that it is 
terribly impractical for us to even be thinking about passing a bill 
that is supposed to take effect today when we all know rules have to be 
developed and that the President has not even weighed in on this bill.
  This has been a very good debate. It has exposed this amendment for 
what it is. It is a thinly veiled attempt to sabotage a bill that is 
demonstrating a lot of courage on the Republican side of the aisle for 
true reform, matching the efforts of the Democrats have been leading 
for years. Let us defeat this amendment and pass this bill tonight.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190, 
noes 238, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 31]

                               AYES--190

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--238

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shows
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Brady (TX)
     Burr
     Cubin
     Hefley
     Riley
     Roukema
     Traficant

                              {time}  0042

  Ms. WOOLSEY changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to the order of 
the House of Tuesday, February 12, 2002, it is now in order to consider 
an amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).

[[Page 1408]]

                Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Kingston

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee of 
the majority leader.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Kingston:
       Amend section 301(20) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971, as proposed to be added by section 101(a) of the 
     bill, to read as follows:
       ``(20) Federal election activity.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `Federal election activity' 
     means--
       ``(i) voter registration activity during the period that 
     begins on the date that is 120 days before the date a 
     regularly scheduled Federal election is held and ends on the 
     date of the election;
       ``(ii) voter identification, get-out-the-vote activity, or 
     generic campaign activity conducted in connection with an 
     election in which a candidate for Federal office appears on 
     the ballot (regardless of whether a candidate for State or 
     local office also appears on the ballot);
       ``(iii) a public communication that refers to a clearly 
     identified candidate for Federal office (regardless of 
     whether a candidate for State or local office is also 
     mentioned or identified) and that promotes or supports a 
     candidate for that office, or attacks or opposes a candidate 
     for that office (regardless of whether the communication 
     expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate); or
       ``(iv) services provided during any month by an employee of 
     a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     who spends more than 25 percent of that individual's 
     compensated time during that month on activities in 
     connection with a Federal election.
       ``(B) Excluded activity.--The term `Federal election 
     activity' does not include an amount expended or disbursed by 
     a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     for--
       ``(i) a public communication that refers solely to a 
     clearly identified candidate for State or local office, if 
     the communication is not a Federal election activity 
     described in subparagraph (A)(i) or (ii);
       ``(ii) a contribution to a candidate for State or local 
     office, provided the contribution is not designated to pay 
     for a Federal election activity described in subparagraph 
     (A);
       ``(iii) the costs of a State, district, or local political 
     convention; and
       ``(iv) the costs of grassroots campaign materials, 
     including buttons, bumper stickers, and yard signs, that name 
     or depict only a candidate for State or local office.
       In section 402(b), strike ``At any time after such 
     effective date, the committee may spend such funds for 
     activities which are solely to defray the costs of the 
     construction or purchase of any office building or 
     facility.'' and insert the following: ``At no time after such 
     effective date may the committee spend any such funds for 
     activities to defray the costs of the construction or 
     purchase of any office building or facility.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
344, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and a Member opposed 
each will control 10 minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I assert my right to claim the time in 
opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a real easy amendment. This is a fun amendment 
at this time of night. Not much brain power is required on this one. 
Just a fair amendment.
  If you think about it for a minute, if you listen to the rhetorical 
montage we have had today, you get real confused on who are the good 
guys and who are the bad guys, a lot of finger pointing. But one thing 
you conclude is soft money is bad; whether it is effective this 
election or after it or before, today or tomorrow, soft money is bad.
  Therefore, my good friends, I would not want to see anybody build a 
building with this bad soft money. It would mean the building would be 
bad. It would mean the building would be corrupted. It would mean from 
the very beginning all the phone calls that were made from that 
building would be tainted.
  Let me just say this: I want to say there are a lot of folks over 
there on that side of the aisle that think we do not like Democrats; 
and I want you to know, I like Democrats. I admire Democrats. I love 
the audacity of some of the Democrat Party.
  There was a story of a young man who graduated from the University of 
Georgia, went to work for Sun Trust Bank, one of the great Georgia 
institutions. At the end of the first day of 8 hours, he went to the 
boss and said, Boss, there is an opening over at the Coca-Cola Company. 
I would like you to write me a letter of recommendation.
  The boss looked at him and said, You are out of your mind. You just 
started here. This is your first day. You have barely completed 8 
hours. You want me to write you a letter of recommendation?
  He said, Yes. Coca-Cola doesn't have opportunities that often, and I 
want to go work for them. Can't you think of something good to say 
about me?
  And the boss got a piece of paper and said, To whom it may concern: I 
like his nerve.
  I want to say this, I like your nerve.
  Let me tell my friends what is in this bill. This says you have got 
to get rid of all your soft money 30 days after the ban is completed or 
the new regulations are completed, so you have until December, except 
any time after the effective date the committee may spend such funds 
for activities which are solely to defray the cost of construction or 
purchase any office building.
  Well, I am sure most of you do not know that is in there. As much 
nerve as you have, I am sure that would embarrass some of you, so we 
are going to take that out with this amendment. And that is all it 
does, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and have him have the 
ability to yield that time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me rise in opposition to this amendment. For I 
guess 10 times tonight or today we have been confronted with any manner 
of amendment seeking to derail the opportunity for this House to join 
our colleagues in the Senate and to give this President, who committed 
himself to be a reformer with results, an opportunity to put his 
signature on a campaign finance reform bill.

                              {time}  0050

  We have had people come at this issue from every different 
conceivable direction. Now we have this final attempt. I am sure my 
colleague and my friend would not be willing to amend his amendment to 
have both parties accede ownership of any properties ever built with 
soft money, any television stations, any other facilities. This notion 
that somehow during this transition period the majority would prefer 
that this money be spent on campaigns attacking its members rather than 
to be put towards refurbishing a party headquarters; this bill allows 
either party to take the extra soft money, not spend it on campaigns, 
but to invest it in infrastructure as we move to ban it completely. It 
is not dissimilar to other transitions and other reform measures that 
we have dealt with in the past. So, Mr. Chairman, let us enjoy another 
what will be failed attempt to derail this House from meeting its date 
with destiny, and that is we will pass Shays-Meehan, and we will do it 
tonight.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished deputy whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, of course I rise in support of the 
amendment. I do not know why this amendment would derail the bill. The 
Senate I do not think had it in their bill; it was not in the original 
Shays-Meehan bill. In fact, under the original bill, the parties had to 
get rid of all soft money in their accounts beginning 30 days after 
enactment. This was added, I think, at a

[[Page 1409]]

later time to really put a big loophole in this bill so that the 
parties could retain soft money.
  Now, this does not really affect both parties the same way, because 
only one party has the money in the account right now to build a 
building. It has already been pointed out that if this money is, in 
fact, corrupting, it would seem it would be corrupting for all 
purposes. Money that was bad to use for voter registration, money that 
was bad to use for party-building, money that was bad to use to turn 
out the vote, one would think that same money would be bad to use to 
build a building for one of the parties.
  Now, I hope that the plan, and we have talked about this a lot today, 
but I hope the plan is not to take this building fund and use it to pay 
off hard money that might be borrowed during the campaign, the campaign 
we are in right now. Certainly it would be nice collateral for a loan 
that then one could turn around and pay off that loan. That is what at 
least two Commissioners of the FEC say that could be done with this 
building fund. Why not eliminate this building fund controversy?
  This is an area where if the parties are not going to be negatively 
impacted by soft money, let us be aboveboard on that; let us do the 
same thing for all party-building, including the parties building an 
actual building. Let us ban soft money, let us take this out of the 
bill. It was not in the Senate bill. It was not in the Senate bill, and 
we have talked so much today about how we need to have things that are 
compatible. We cannot amend the bill, we cannot go to conference, we 
cannot do anything with this bill because the Senate needs to accept 
it. This is a wholly grown idea on this side of the building.
  I think it ought to be eliminated from the bill. I encourage my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this amendment and 
get rid of this soft money to be used only for this one purpose, only 
to benefit one party.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), one of the prime sponsors.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, here we have another amendment, it is about 
10 minutes of 1:00, another attempt to try to break the fragile 
coalition, but let us be clear. Soft money has always been available 
for party-building. It has always been available for physical 
buildings.
  Now, would not the Republicans be so lucky if we are going to enact 
this bill the day after the next election. Does anyone really think the 
parties are going to commit soft money not for television ads, but to 
build parties? The reality is this was put into the bill in July so 
that either party who had expenses relative to buildings could pay 
them.
  Now, if this bill does not go into effect until after this election, 
I hardly think that it will be an advantage to either party if one of 
the parties keeps soft money and, rather than put them into 30-second 
spots, pays off a building with it.
  The reality is the soft money influence has ballooned by 100 percent 
every 4 years because of television ads. The reason why soft money is 
an issue is because of television ads, 30-second spots. That is what we 
attempt to eliminate, and we do.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I think there is a 
misunderstanding on this side of the aisle over how this money could be 
used if it were not utilized for building money. The bulk of this money 
in both parties' campaign funds come from contributions from Freddie 
Mac and Fannie Mae. These are federally chartered organizations, and 
the only contributions they give parties has to be used for building 
funds. It could never be used under existing law for campaign ads.
  So when we say it could be or better be used, I do not think we 
understand the nature of this money and the nature of the limitations 
that it has under the law. I just wanted to clarify that. This money 
has to be used for building under current law. Unless we change this on 
motion to recommit, we would be allowing it to pay off a soft dollar 
debt.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am glad that the gentleman seeks to clarify, because much of what 
has happened by those who are opponents to this bill today has been an 
attempt to misinform; all the way from the White House press room to 
the floor of the House, an attempt to misinform people about the intent 
of this bill.
  But a bipartisan majority has found its way through every single one 
of these amendments, and we are going to continue to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Kingston) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 3 minutes remaining; the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am getting a little concerned because some people are getting a 
little cocky here, and we have two amendments to go, and I cannot tell 
my colleagues the outcome. But I can tell my colleagues this: In 1974, 
the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1974 provided an exemption to 
allow political parties to raise soft money to purchase or construct a 
building. It has existed since 1974. In fact, that was the way soft 
money kind of entered its way in. It was to build buildings; it was not 
really for campaigns, it was ultimately to get out the vote. It was not 
for races.
  What this provision does in our bill is say that if a party has any 
soft money left on November 6, they can only use it to build or 
purchase a building.
  Our bill makes it very clear that they cannot raise any more soft 
money for this or any purpose after November 6.
  Now, my logic was, if Terry McAuliffe and the Democratic side of the 
aisle wants to use soft money to build a building and not use it to run 
against candidates, I am happy to have them do it. That was my simple 
logic. I am curious as to why our side of the aisle wants him to use 
this money only to run against us.
  So that is the way my simple mind is working, I guess, at 1 o'clock 
in the morning. I am hoping this amendment is defeated. I hope Terry 
McAuliffe and anybody else he can convince will build buildings instead 
of running races.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, just to understand, building 
fund dollars are dollars that come for the most part from two 
organizations. Those monies cannot be used for ads. They can only be 
used for buildings. If this money does not fail, before November 5, 
both party committees would have to use that money to buy buildings or 
equipment. That is the way it would work. But they could not be used in 
ads; I just wanted to clarify that.

                              {time}  0100

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have looked at the latest FEC report and what we have down in the 
building fund for the RNC is $1.8 million and the DNC is $3.2 million.
  Now, I will acknowledge to my colleague, again, the gentleman from 
Arizona, he has asked, well, there is this talk of $40 million. I am 
trying to nail down where $40 million comes from, but I look at the FEC 
report and this is what I see. So then what they would have to be doing 
is they would have to be raising money right now for soft money for a 
building instead of spending it on a campaign.
  Now, I do not know if there is some $40 million that does not show up 
in the FEC. I stand ready to comment on it, but that is what we have 
got.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

[[Page 1410]]

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the 
chairman of the Republican Campaign Committee, raised the issue, I went 
to find out because I do not know much about this issue.
  First of all, let me tell him that most of the funds, at least on our 
side, I do not know what is in your accounts, are non-Freddie Mac, 
Fannie Mae funds, soft dollars. The overwhelming majority of them, 
number one. Number two, clearly what this is is under the present 
system we have, I presume from time to time my colleagues have, they 
may not be doing so now, raised money for the purposes of either 
rehabing or constructing headquarters. My colleagues have a major 
headquarters. We have a headquarters. What the provision obviously 
says, if my colleagues have done that, as we have and I presume my 
colleagues have, and we have that money in the account for the purposes 
of building a building, we will be allowed to do that. We cannot raise 
more soft money, but you will be allowed to spend that money for the 
purposes of completing that project. It seems to me that we do that in 
almost all legislation that we pass. It is fair for both sides; and 
while it may seem to be a politically advantageous argument to make, as 
if it is some special deal, in fact, it is a transition provision that 
not only applies to our parties when we change the rules, but applies 
to almost every facet of business, and we do it in Ways and Means tax 
bills all the time.
  So I suggest that we defeat this amendment and move on with the 
substance of this legislation.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Kingston) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) has 2\3/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
yielding me time.
  I am confused and I am troubled. I have supported Shays-Meehan, and I 
have opposed almost all of the amendments because I have been told this 
is a very carefully crafted compromise. Now I find out late last night 
we have put this provision in at somebody's request that was not in the 
Senate bill. Unless somebody can tell me that is wrong, I would ask my 
colleagues to say. My side says it was added in and it was not in the 
Senate bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I do not know a whole lot about this, but 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and maybe the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), this was added in July.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) told me last night.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, this amendment 
was part of our July amendment and it is a part of the record.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. But it was not in the Senate bill?
  Mr. SHAYS. It was not in the Senate bill; that is correct.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I can tell you what I am 
going to do, I will vote in favor of it and I encourage other people 
who have been supportive of Shays-Meehan to do the same thing because 
this is not what we were led to believe. I am voting ``yes.''
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Let me point out two factors about this provision that I think 
require us to pass this amendment. The first is that the provision 
allows not only the keeping of this soft money for the building of a 
building, but the keeping of it so long as you never build that 
building. There is no time limits on how long this money can be kept. 
So if one decides just not to use it, one can simply put it in a CD and 
just keep it around.
  Now, why would one do that? Well, there are no provisions against 
using this money as collateral for other loans. So, therefore, this 
money could be kept in a CD, this soft money, this money that is 
supposed to be bad and corrupting, in a CD, collateralize loans. And 
then because the loans are made to the committee, the committee can use 
that loan money as hard money and spend it on ads or whatever other 
purposes for campaign money you want in effect. Because soft money like 
all money is fungible, it can be cleverly, and there are some 
accountants around to help you, and I assure you from the hearings we 
conducted, there are accountants around that can help one do it if one 
wants to do it, keep this soft money indefinitely. Use it as 
collateral. Every time one runs into trouble, just borrow against it, 
spend it for campaigns, spend it for ads. Do all the things my 
colleagues say they want to make outlawed.
  If Members believe soft money is so corrupting, why would they want 
to keep it around and perhaps use it for that purpose, simply not build 
the building, constantly borrow against it? Pay off the loan when one 
could, but constantly borrow against it as collateral whenever extra 
money was needed for a campaign? In effect, converting soft money into 
hard money through the process of using as collateral.
  That is what this bill currently allows to be done. Now, why would 
either party want to allow that to happen if, in fact, Members want to 
get rid of soft money as a corrupting feature in future campaigns? This 
amendment is necessary to correct this defect in the bill that the 
Senate was clever enough not to include in their legislation, and we 
ought to adopt the amendment.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I know at least for myself I would rather be home with 
my wife on Valentine's Day, but we are here and in order to clean out 
the creek, we have to get the hogs out of the water first. What we need 
to focus in on here, we have heard from the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays). He is against this amendment. We have heard from the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan). He is against it.
  The people who are the promoters of campaign finance here in the 
House are against this amendment and those people who have spent every 
amount of energy and intellect on trying to stop and derail this bill, 
they are for this amendment. So, now we should not need, as the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) said when he opened this debate, 
to bring a great deal of intellectual curiosity of this. The co-
sponsors of the bill are against the amendment. They said it did not 
show up last night. It was in in July. Either when that information was 
offered, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) who was arguing 
that point, still said, well, I am going to vote for it anyway. Do not 
let the facts get in your way. Let us try nonetheless if we can to 
honor our two colleagues who have worked so hard to bring us to this 
moment, and let us take their word for what it is they are trying to 
accomplish. Those of us who support Shays-Meehan, let us vote against 
this amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) 
has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Fattah) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays) has 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I just want to say if we are going to clean out the water, we cannot 
just get

[[Page 1411]]

the hogs out. We have to get the little piglets out as well. I think 
this amendment helps get one of the piglets out, a defect that may have 
been overlooked by my good friend from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, my colleague and friend 
mentioned me but mischaracterized what I said. I did not say that this 
was added in last night. I said this was not in the Senate bill. That 
is what I said. And that has, in fact, been said by both sides.
  I was told that this bill was identical to what the Senate passed and 
that is in fact not the case. So I have been misled. But I do not like 
the fact that the gentleman misrepresented what I said. I urge my 
colleagues who voted for Shays-Meehan to support this amendment because 
this was stuck in because obviously someone sees a financial advantage 
that the Senate did not see. It is wrong and it is not in the spirit of 
what campaign finance reform is all about.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to say honestly to this Chamber that I believe that the 
comments made by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) were 
correct. I am going to be voting against this amendment, but I do 
believe his point that my colleagues can raise them from the FHA and 
others is an accurate point and makes it easier to raise that soft 
money for those purposes.

                              {time}  0110

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me understand the 
accounting. I know this as chairman of our committee, and my 
colleague's committee operates separately. We have several different 
funds that we keep at both committees. There are hard-dollar funds, 
Federal-dollar funds. Then there are three soft-money accounts. There 
is a corporate soft-dollar account, a personal soft-dollar account that 
could be spent differently in different States.
  Then there is a building-fund soft-dollar account. Those moneys are, 
for the most part, I mean, 90-plus percent, moneys that are earmarked 
from corporations, particularly Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae, who have 
restrictions on the dollars they can give. They have given millions of 
dollars through the years, and I think we ought to just get to spend 
it.
  This is not a poison pill amendment. This amendment I think is a free 
vote for Members, but it is a special carve out; and I just call that 
to Members' attention.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Let me just urge Members to support this amendment. The situation 
with this entire bill is we hear soft money is bad but not this soft 
money, not that soft money. It is a confusing bill. That is why it is a 
long bill, and what this amendment simply says is that the money cannot 
be used for any time to set in an account to build a building after 
soft money is banned by it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the time remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure why we are debating this 
amendment in the first place; but the fact that we are, I think there 
is one flawed argument that has been made. If one cannot use the money 
for hard purposes in the first place, I do not think one can pledge it 
as a collateral for hard purposes because if they had a default, the 
money would be illegal at that point. I think the argument that was 
made was wrong in the first place, but I think it is sort of a 
meaningless amendment as it is.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  I feel almost in the role of Joshua, but I want to choose to be with 
Shays and Meehan this day, and I would hope that my colleagues would 
follow.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232, 
noes 196, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 32]

                               AYES--232

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Miller, Jeff
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--196

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre

[[Page 1412]]


     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Brady (TX)
     Burr
     Cubin
     Hefley
     Riley
     Roukema
     Traficant

                              {time}  0132

  Messrs. MATHESON, MOORE, SANDERS, ABERCROMBIE, GEORGE MILLER of 
California, DeFAZIO, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Messrs. SNYDER, 
ROEMER, KIND, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, and Mr. CONDIT changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to the order of 
the House of Tuesday, February 12, 2002, it is now in order to consider 
an amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).


   Amendment In The Nature of a Substitute No. 26 Offered by Mr. Ney

  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Armey), I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 26 offered by 
     Mr. Ney:
       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 Citizen Participation Act of 2002''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                TITLE I--SOFT MONEY OF NATIONAL PARTIES

Sec. 101. Restrictions on soft money of national political parties.

             TITLE II--MODIFICATION OF CONTRIBUTION LIMITS

Sec. 201. Increase in limits on certain contributions.
Sec. 202. Increase in limits on contributions to State parties.
Sec. 203. Treatment of contributions to national party under aggregate 
              annual limit on individual contributions.
Sec. 204. Exemption of costs of volunteer campaign materials produced 
              and distributed by parties from treatment as 
              contributions and expenditures.
Sec. 205. Indexing.
Sec. 206. Permitting national parties to establish accounts for making 
              expenditures in excess of limits on behalf of candidates 
              facing wealthy opponents.

        TITLE III--DISCLOSURE OF ELECTION-RELATED COMMUNICATIONS

Sec. 301. Disclosure of information on communications broadcast prior 
              to election.
Sec. 302. Disclosure of information on targeted mass communications.

                        TITLE IV--EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 401. Effective date.

                TITLE I--SOFT MONEY OF NATIONAL PARTIES

     SEC. 101. RESTRICTIONS ON SOFT MONEY OF NATIONAL POLITICAL 
                   PARTIES.

       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:


               ``soft money of national political parties

       ``Sec. 323. (a) Prohibiting Use of Soft Money for Federal 
     Election Activity.--A national committee of a political party 
     (including a national congressional campaign committee of a 
     political party) may not solicit, receive, or direct to 
     another person a contribution, donation, or transfer of funds 
     or any other thing of value for Federal election activity, or 
     spend any funds for Federal election activity, that are not 
     subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 
     requirements of this Act.
       ``(b) Limit on Amount of Nonfederal Funds Provided to Party 
     by Any Person for Any Purpose.--
       ``(1) Limit on amount.--No person shall make contributions, 
     donations, or transfers of funds which are not subject to the 
     limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this 
     Act to a political committee established and maintained by a 
     national political party in any calendar year in an aggregate 
     amount equal to or greater than $20,000.
       ``(2) Prohibiting provision of nonfederal funds by 
     individuals.--No individual may make any contribution, 
     donation, or transfer of funds which are not subject to the 
     limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this 
     Act to a political committee established and maintained by a 
     national political party.
       ``(c) Applicability.-- This subsection shall apply to any 
     political committee established and maintained by a national 
     political party, any officer or agent of such a committee 
     acting on behalf of the committee, and any entity that is 
     directly or indirectly established, maintained, or controlled 
     by such a national committee.
       ``(d) Definitions.--
       ``(1) Federal election activity.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `Federal election activity' 
     means--
       ``(i) voter registration activity during the period that 
     begins on the date that is 120 days before the date a 
     regularly scheduled Federal election is held and ends on the 
     date of the election, unless the activity constitutes generic 
     campaign activity;
       ``(ii) voter identification or get-out-the-vote activity 
     conducted in connection with an election in which a candidate 
     for Federal office appears on the ballot (regardless of 
     whether a candidate for State or local office also appears on 
     the ballot), unless the activity constitutes generic campaign 
     activity;
       ``(iii) any public communication that refers to or depicts 
     a clearly identified candidate for Federal office (regardless 
     of whether a candidate for State or local office is also 
     mentioned or identified) and that promotes or supports a 
     candidate for that office, or attacks or opposes a candidate 
     for that office (regardless of whether the communication 
     expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate); or
       ``(iv) any public communication made by means of any 
     broadcast, cable, or satellite communication.
       ``(B) Exception for certain administrative activities.--The 
     term `Federal election activity' does not include any 
     activity relating to establishment, administration, or 
     solicitation costs of a political committee established and 
     maintained by a national political party, so long as the 
     funds used to carry out the activity are derived from funds 
     or payments made to the committee which are segregated and 
     used exclusively to defray the costs of such activities.
       ``(2) Generic campaign activity.--The term `generic 
     campaign activity' means any activity that does not mention, 
     depict, or otherwise promote a clearly identified Federal 
     candidate.
       ``(3) Public communication.--The term `public 
     communication' means a communication by means of any 
     broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, newspaper, 
     magazine, outdoor advertising facility, or direct mail.
       ``(4) Direct mail.--The term `direct mail' means a mailing 
     by a commercial vendor or any mailing made from a commercial 
     list.''.

             TITLE II--MODIFICATION OF CONTRIBUTION LIMITS

     SEC. 201. INCREASE IN LIMITS ON CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS.

       (a) Contributions by Committees to National Parties.--
     Section 315(a)(2)(B) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(2)(B)) is 
     amended by striking ``$15,000'' and inserting ``$30,000''.
       (b) Aggregate Annual Limit on Contributions by 
     Individuals.--Section 315(a)(3) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     441a(a)(3)) is amended by striking ``$25,000'' and inserting 
     ``$37,500''.

     SEC. 202. INCREASE IN LIMITS ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO STATE 
                   PARTIES.

       (a) Contributions by Individuals.--Section 315(a)(1) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (C)--
       (A) by inserting ``(other than a committee described in 
     subparagraph (D))'' after ``committee''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) to a political committee established and maintained 
     by a State committee of a political party in any calendar 
     year which, in the aggregate, exceed $10,000.''.
       (b) Contributions by Committees.--Section 315(a)(2) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(2)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (C)--

[[Page 1413]]

       (A) by inserting ``(other than a committee described in 
     subparagraph (D))'' after ``committee''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) to a political committee established and maintained 
     by a State committee of a political party in any calendar 
     year which, in the aggregate, exceed $10,000.''.

     SEC. 203. TREATMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATIONAL PARTY UNDER 
                   AGGREGATE ANNUAL LIMIT ON INDIVIDUAL 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 315(a)(3) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 441(a)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(3)'' and inserting ``(3)(A)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with respect to any 
     contribution made to any political committee established and 
     maintained by a national political party which is not the 
     authorized political committee of any candidate.''.

     SEC. 204. EXEMPTION OF COSTS OF VOLUNTEER CAMPAIGN MATERIALS 
                   PRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED BY PARTIES FROM 
                   TREATMENT AS CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES.

       (a) Treatment as Contributions.--Section 301(8)(B)(x) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     431(8)(B)(x)) is amended by striking ``a State or local 
     committee of a political party of the costs of'' and 
     inserting ``a national, State, or local committee of a 
     political party of the costs of producing and distributing''.
       (b) Treatment as Expenditures.--Section 301(9)(B)(viii) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     431(9)(B)(viii)) is amended by striking ``a State or local 
     committee of a political party of the costs of'' and 
     inserting ``a national, State, or local committee of a 
     political party of the costs of producing and distributing''.

     SEC. 205. INDEXING.

       Section 315(c) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 441a(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking the second and third sentences;
       (B) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``At the beginning''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), in any 
     calendar year after 2002--
       ``(i) a limitation established by subsections (a), (b), 
     (d), or (h) shall be increased by the percent difference 
     determined under subparagraph (A);
       ``(ii) each amount so increased shall remain in effect for 
     the calendar year; and
       ``(iii) if any amount after adjustment under clause (i) is 
     not a multiple of $100, such amount shall be rounded to the 
     nearest multiple of $100.
       ``(C) In the case of limitations under subsections (a) and 
     (h), increases shall only be made in odd-numbered years and 
     such increases shall remain in effect for the 2-year period 
     beginning on the first day following the date of the last 
     general election in the year preceding the year in which the 
     amount is increased and ending on the date of the next 
     general election.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``means the calendar 
     year 1974'' and inserting ``means--
       ``(i) for purposes of subsections (b) and (d), calendar 
     year 1974; and
       ``(ii) for purposes of subsections (a) and (h), calendar 
     year 2001''.

     SEC. 206. PERMITTING NATIONAL PARTIES TO ESTABLISH ACCOUNTS 
                   FOR MAKING EXPENDITURES IN EXCESS OF LIMITS ON 
                   BEHALF OF CANDIDATES FACING WEALTHY OPPONENTS.

       (a) Establishment of Accounts.--Section 315(d) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(d)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the national 
     committee of a political party may make expenditures in 
     connection with the general election campaign of a candidate 
     for Federal office (other than a candidate for President) who 
     is affiliated with such party in an amount in excess of the 
     limit established under paragraph (3) if--
       ``(i) the candidate's opponent in the general election 
     campaign makes expenditures of personal funds in connection 
     with the campaign in an amount in excess of $100,000 (as 
     provided in the notifications submitted under section 
     304(a)(6)(B)); and
       ``(ii) the expenditures are made from a separate account of 
     the party used exclusively for making expenditures pursuant 
     to this paragraph.
       ``(B) The amount of expenditures made in accordance with 
     subparagraph (A) by the national committee of a political 
     party in connection with the general election campaign of a 
     candidate may not exceed the amount of expenditures of 
     personal funds made by the candidate's opponent in connection 
     with the campaign (as provided in the notifications submitted 
     under section 304(a)(6)(B)).''.
       (b) Waiver of Limits on Contributions to Accounts.--Section 
     315(a) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(9) The limitations imposed by paragraphs (1)(B), (2)(B), 
     and (3) shall not apply with respect to contributions made to 
     the national committee of a political party which are 
     designated by the donor to be deposited solely into the 
     account established by the party under subsection (d)(4).''.
       (c) Notification of Expenditures of Personal Funds.--
     Section 304(a)(6) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(6)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(B)(i) The principal campaign committee of a candidate 
     (other than a candidate for President) shall submit the 
     following notifications relating to expenditures of personal 
     funds by such candidate (including contributions by the 
     candidate or the candidate's spouse to such committee and 
     funds derived from loans made by the candidate or the 
     candidate's spouse to such committee):
       ``(I) A notification of the first such expenditure (or 
     contribution) by which the aggregate amount of personal funds 
     expended (or contributed) with respect to an election exceeds 
     $100,000.
       ``(II) After the notification is made under subclause (I), 
     a notification of each such subsequent expenditure (or 
     contribution) which, taken together with all such subsequent 
     expenditures (and contributions) in any amount not included 
     in the most recent report under this subparagraph, totals 
     $5,000 or more.
       ``(ii) Each of the notifications submitted under clause 
     (i)--
       ``(I) shall be submitted not later than 24 hours after the 
     expenditure or contribution which is the subject of the 
     notification is made;
       ``(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; and
       ``(III) shall include the total amount of all such 
     expenditures and contributions made with respect to the same 
     election as of the date of expenditure or contribution which 
     is the subject of the notification.''.

        TITLE III--DISCLOSURE OF ELECTION-RELATED COMMUNICATIONS

     SEC. 301. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION ON COMMUNICATIONS 
                   BROADCAST PRIOR TO ELECTION.

       Section 304 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 434) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e) Disclosure of Information on Certain Communications 
     Broadcast Prior to Elections.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any person who makes a disbursement for 
     a communication described in paragraph (3) shall, not later 
     than 24 hours after making the disbursement, file with the 
     Commission a statement containing the information required 
     under paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Contents of statement.--Each statement required to be 
     filed under this subsection shall be made under penalty of 
     perjury and shall contain the following information:
       ``(A) The identification of the person making the 
     disbursement, of any individual or entity sharing or 
     exercising direction or control over the activities of such 
     person, and of the custodian of the books and accounts of the 
     person making the disbursement.
       ``(B) The principal place of business and phone number of 
     the person making the disbursement, if not an individual.
       ``(C) The amount of the disbursement.
       ``(D) The clearly identified candidate or candidates to 
     which the communication pertains and the names (if known) of 
     the candidates identified or to be identified in the 
     communication.
       ``(E) The text of the communication involved.
       ``(3) Communications described.--
       ``(A) In general.--A communication described in this 
     paragraph is any communication--
       ``(i) which is disseminated to the public by means of any 
     broadcast, cable, or satellite communication during the 120-
     day period ending on the date of a Federal election; and
       ``(ii) which mentions a clearly identified candidate for 
     such election (by name, image, or likeness).
       ``(B) Exception.--A communication is not described in this 
     paragraph if--
       ``(i) the communication appears in a news story, 
     commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities 
     of any broadcasting station, unless such facilities are owned 
     or controlled by any political party, political committee, or 
     candidate; or
       ``(ii) the communication constitutes an expenditure under 
     this Act.
       ``(4) Coordination with other requirements.--Any 
     requirement to file a statement under this subsection shall 
     be in addition to any other reporting requirement under this 
     Act.
       ``(5) Clarification of treatment of vendors.--A person 
     shall not be considered to have made a disbursement for a 
     communication under this subsection if the person made the 
     disbursement solely as a vendor acting pursuant to a 
     contractual agreement with the person responsible for 
     sponsoring the communication.''.

     SEC. 302. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION ON TARGETED MASS 
                   COMMUNICATIONS.

       Section 304 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 434), as amended

[[Page 1414]]

     by section 301, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(f) Disclosure of Information on Targeted Mass 
     Communications.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any person who makes a disbursement for 
     targeted mass communications in an aggregate amount in excess 
     of $50,000 during any calendar year shall, within 24 hours of 
     each disclosure date, file with the Commission a statement 
     containing the information described in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Contents of statement.--Each statement required to be 
     filed under this subsection shall be made under penalty of 
     perjury and shall contain the following information:
       ``(A) The identification of the person making the 
     disbursement, of any individual or entity sharing or 
     exercising direction or control over the activities of such 
     person, and of the custodian of the books and accounts of the 
     person making the disbursement.
       ``(B) The principal place of business and phone number of 
     the person making the disbursement, if not an individual.
       ``(C) The amount of each such disbursement of more than 
     $200 made by the person during the period covered by the 
     statement and the identification of the person to whom the 
     disbursement was made.
       ``(D) The clearly identified candidate or candidates to 
     which the communication pertains and the names (if known) of 
     the candidates identified or to be identified in the 
     communication.
       ``(E) The text of the communication involved.
       ``(3) Targeted mass communication defined.--
       ``(A) In general.--In this subsection, the term `targeted 
     mass communication' means any communication--
       ``(i) which is disseminated during the 120-day period 
     ending on the date of a Federal election;
       ``(ii) which refers to or depicts a clearly identified 
     candidate for such election (by name, image, or likeness); 
     and
       ``(iii) which is targeted to the relevant electorate.
       ``(B) Targeting to relevant electorate.--
       ``(i) Broadcast communications.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, a communication disseminated to the public by 
     means of any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication 
     which refers to or depicts a clearly identified candidate for 
     Federal office is `targeted to the relevant electorate' if 
     the communication is disseminated by a broadcaster whose 
     audience includes--

       ``(I) a substantial number of residents of the district the 
     candidate seeks to represent (as determined in accordance 
     with regulations of the Commission), in the case of a 
     candidate for Representative in, or Delegate or Resident 
     Commissioner to, the Congress; or
       ``(II) a substantial number of residents of the State the 
     candidate seeks to represent (as determined in accordance 
     with regulations of the Commission), in the case of a 
     candidate for Senator.

       ``(ii) Other communications.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, a communication which is not described in clause 
     (i) which refers to or depicts a clearly identified candidate 
     for Federal office is `targeted to the relevant electorate' 
     if--

       ``(I) more than 10 percent of the total number of intended 
     recipients of the communication are members of the electorate 
     involved with respect to such Federal office; or
       ``(II) more than 10 percent of the total number of members 
     of the electorate involved with respect to such Federal 
     office receive the communication.

       ``(C) Exceptions.--The term `targeted mass communication' 
     does not include--
       ``(i) a communication appearing in a news story, 
     commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities 
     of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other 
     periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or 
     controlled by any political party, political committee, or 
     candidate;
       ``(ii) a communication made by any membership organization 
     (including a labor organization) or corporation solely to its 
     members, stockholders, or executive or administrative 
     personnel, if such membership organization or corporation is 
     not organized primarily for the purpose of influencing the 
     nomination for election, or election, of any individual to 
     Federal office; or
       ``(iii) a communication which constitutes an expenditure 
     under this Act.
       ``(4) Disclosure date.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `disclosure date' means--
       ``(A) the first date during any calendar year by which a 
     person has made disbursements for targeted mass 
     communications aggregating in excess of $50,000; and
       ``(B) any other date during such calendar year by which a 
     person has made disbursements for targeted mass 
     communications aggregating in excess of $50,000 since the 
     most recent disclosure date for such calendar year.
       ``(5) Coordination with other requirements.--Any 
     requirement to report under this subsection shall be in 
     addition to any other reporting requirement under this Act.
       ``(6) Clarification of treatment of vendors.--A person 
     shall not be considered to have made a disbursement for a 
     communication under this subsection if the person made the 
     disbursement solely as a vendor acting pursuant to a 
     contractual agreement with the person responsible for 
     sponsoring the communication.''.

                        TITLE IV--EFFECTIVE DATE

     SEC. 401. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
344, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the Ney-Wynn amendment, and this will be the 
last chance tonight, and this is not a poison pill. This amendment 
embodies campaign finance reform principles that respect our 
Constitution. It does not seek to punish or discourage those citizens 
who exercise their constitutional rights to participate in the 
political process.
  This amendment bans the national parties from raising or using soft 
money for Federal election activities, including broadcast issue 
advertising. However, it would permit the national parties to continue 
to raise and use soft money for generic voter registration, which I 
believe we all know is important, and get-out-the-vote activities. The 
parties would also preserve the right to use such funds for fund-
raising and overhead expenses.
  The principal complaint leveled against so-called soft money is that 
it is unlimited and unregulated. This amendment addresses that 
complaint by limiting it and regulating it. With the passage of this 
amendment, no donor could contribute an amount over $20,000 to any 
political committee. As I previously indicated, the use of the funds 
would be restricted to certain activities.
  Shays-Meehan does absolutely nothing to restrict how unions and 
corporations spend soft money. Under current law, unions and 
corporations can spend unlimited amounts of soft money communicating 
with their members, soliciting those members for contributions and 
engaging in such political activities as registering voters and getting 
out the vote. Shays-Meehan would not stop these groups from using their 
soft dollars in this way. What Shays-Meehan would do is prevent the 
national parties from using so-called soft dollars in a similar 
fashion.
  I really do not think we should restrict the ability of our parties, 
the existing parties and any parties that want to rise up and blossom 
in our country, from registering and getting voters to the polls while 
leaving unions and corporations free to do so without restriction. 
Hamstringing our parties, and thereby enhancing the power of unions and 
corporations, does not accomplish the stated goal of some to reduce the 
power of the special interests. I think we should be making our parties 
stronger, not weaker.
  There is no rationale for denying our national parties access to 
funds that we are willing to allow States to receive. The principal 
difference between this amendment and the bill before us is that this 
amendment would allow the national parties to raise some soft dollars, 
while the Shays bill would allow only the State and local parties to do 
so. The choice is not between one bill that allows soft money and a 
second bill that bans it. I think that is perfectly clear tonight. 
Shays-Meehan, as we know, has soft money. Both the Shays bill and this 
amendment permit limited amounts of soft money. This amendment simply 
says if we are going to allow the State parties to accept soft dollars, 
we ought to allow the national parties to do the same.
  Members need to be aware that the contribution limits in this 
amendment have been significantly reduced in comparison to the previous 
amendment we had in the summer. Inflated claims about the usual amounts 
of money that could be donated under this amendment do not apply to 
this amendment as it is drafted.

                              {time}  0140

  It has to be pointed out there are thousands of State and local 
parties,

[[Page 1415]]

and there are six national parties to which the contributions can be 
given. So if you support the underlying bill, but oppose this 
amendment, you are basically saying it is perfectly acceptable for a 
corporation to give millions of dollars to a multitude of State and 
local parties, but it is somehow corrupt for them to give a limited 
amount to six national party interests. There is no logical reason that 
I can find for this distinction.
  This amendment also provides for increased disclosure, which we all 
want, for targeted mass communications. The person who pays for the 
communication would have to disclose their identity within 24 hours of 
the purchase. That I believe is what the American people want. I would 
note that this disclosure provision is broader than that contained in 
the underlying bill, which applies only to broadcast communications. 
Disclosure provisions in this amendment would apply to all forms of 
communication, including newspaper ads, phone banks, et cetera.
  Having described what is in the amendment, I take a moment to 
describe what is not in it and why. Most importantly, this amendment 
does not seek to ban issue advocacy. Twenty-five years of court 
decisions, from the Supreme Court on down, have made it perfectly clear 
that our Constitution does not permit the Federal Government to 
regulate issue advertisements.
  Our first amendment protects the right of every American to speak out 
on issues of public concern, and it has been that way since the 
creation of this Nation. Politicians may want to use the power of 
government to attempt to silence their critics, which is what Shays-
Meehan does, but I do not believe we should participate in that 
endeavor.
  Real campaign finance reform encourages citizen participation. Real 
campaign finance reform protects our cherished rights to freely speak 
and associate. Real campaign finance reform preserves the important 
role our political parties play in our democracy. This amendment 
accomplishes these goals.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) for drafting 
this and supporting it. I urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) may control 5 minutes of the time 
allocated to me, and that he may yield such time as he determines.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The chairman of 
this committee, as I have said in the past, has been, in my opinion, as 
good a chairman as I could possibly work with on the Committee on House 
Administration. He is open, he is fair, he is a pleasure to work with. 
We have worked very closely on election reform.
  This House overwhelmingly passed election reform. It is now in the 
Senate. Hopefully, they will pass it soon, we will have a conference, 
and we will have a bill that we can all be very proud of. We agreed on 
that legislation. The gentleman made compromises; I made compromises.
  On campaign finance reform, however, we have differed. Essentially it 
has been his position to oppose the Shays-Meehan alternative. In fact, 
the Shays-Meehan alternative could not be favorably reported out of 
committee. In my view, the Ney-Wynn amendment, which was changed last 
night, as I understand it, to reduce the limits, but, nevertheless, 
still has soft-money payments to the national committees, is in effect 
Shays-Meehan extraordinarily light, and in fact does not cover most of 
what Shays-Meehan covers. Furthermore, notwithstanding the reduction in 
the $75,000 to $20,000, it still provides for very, very, very 
substantial payments of soft money to various party committees, 
substantially more than does Shays-Meehan.
  So if you want real campaign finance reform, you need to defeat this 
amendment, pass a motion to recommit, and pass Shays-Meehan finally and 
send that bill to the Senate, and then hopefully soon thereafter to the 
President of the United States for signature.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues, we are coming to the end 
of the evening. We have defeated almost all of the amendments that were 
designed to undermine and defeat Shays-Meehan. We have one more step to 
take. I urge my colleagues to take it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. 
Let me initially say it has been a pleasure working with him. He has 
been very responsive to a wide variety of points of view, and he has 
tried to craft a compromise.
  I have to say tonight that I am always very disturbed when I hear 
people say our way is the only way, whether it comes from some sort of 
fanatic or whether it comes from a so-called reformer. The fact of the 
matter is that politics is the art of compromise, and we, in working 
with the Ney-Wynn amendment, have tried to fashion a serious 
compromise.
  Let us talk first about soft money. Under the current law it is 
reported in today's paper the top 10 contributors have given between 
$1.3 million and $3.6 million. Under Ney-Wynn, we first said $75,000 
per contributor to the national party. In the spirit of compromise, we 
reduced that significantly down to $20,000 per contributor to the 
national party. I do not think anyone can say that this is not a 
significant reduction in soft money or a legitimate attempt to address 
the concerns, nor a legitimate attempt at compromise.
  In addition to that, we limited the use of the money. People said we 
are concerned about national party attack ads. We prohibit national 
party attack ads. But we do say the soft dollars, this limited amount 
of soft dollars, can be used for legitimate party-building activities, 
that political parties ought to be able to do voter registration, voter 
registration and get-out-the-vote activities. Those are the only uses 
for the limited amount of soft money used in this bill, legitimate 
party-building.
  I note particularly that minorities, African Americans, Hispanics and 
others, are increasing their voter participation; and as members of the 
two national parties, we feel it is very important that there be funds 
available for these get-out-the-vote activities, voter outreach 
activities. So, again, we believe the Ney-Wynn approach is a better 
compromise.
  On the subject of the first amendment, we do not restrict advocacy 
groups in terms of broadcast ads during the final 60 days of a 
election. That is when the voters should be paying the most attention, 
should be needing the most information. We want people to be able to 
provide that information. We do not want to infringe upon their first 
amendment rights.
  Now, you will probably hear someone say they can have ads through PAC 
money. Well, what if you do not have a PAC? What if your PAC does not 
have any money? The point is, you should not have to have a PAC in 
order to express your first amendment rights; and we, under Ney-Wynn, 
do not interfere with those rights.
  Finally, we do not interfere with State parties. There has been no 
hearings, no evidence, to suggest that State parties are not competent 
to regulate their own campaign financing. Ney-Wynn says let State 
parties regulate State party activities. There is no reason to 
federalize campaign fund-raising at the State level.
  We believe this is a fair compromise addressing soft money, party 
building, first amendment rights and protecting the interests of the 
States. We do not feel we have to be stampeded into voting for my-way-
or-the-highway legislation just to avoid a conference committee. Every 
other piece of legislation that comes through this body goes through a 
conference committee. This House has the right to work its will

[[Page 1416]]

and send it through a thoughtful compromise. I believe that is Ney-
Wynn, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me first say, Mr. Chairman, you have been an extraordinary person 
at the helm, and I thank you for the graciousness you have shown to 
both sides.
  I would also like to extend my gratitude to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. LaHood) for the way he did it previous to you. It has 
been a long, long, long, long day.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Houghton).
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I will make this brief. I am opposed to 
this amendment. I am for the Shays-Meehan approach, and I will tell you 
for three reasons.
  First of all, we have a financial crisis in this country augmented by 
Enron and Arthur Andersen. Somehow we have got to get the credibility 
in the system back again. Frankly, I think the Shays-Meehan approach 
will help us in a political way, not just in an economic way.
  Secondly, I remember when I first got interested in Republican 
politics, when Ronald Reagan came in. There was no soft money. We did 
not use that then. There was no necessity for it. It worked perfectly 
under the old rules. I think we ought to go back to those rules.

                              {time}  0150

  The third reason is this: When I was in business, we never, never, 
never used soft money, and I know that a lot of people came to us and 
said we were unpatriotic, we were not supporting the different parties. 
Crazy. Wrong.
  What we did is we marshaled our plants and our sales offices and our 
laboratories and got people out, raised the money, got them involved.
  I am for Shays-Meehan.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Ney) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), an extraordinary leader and a very 
courageous person.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank all of the Members of the House for 
their patience and their tolerance. I think throughout history the 
House of Representatives is really no better than its Speaker. I think 
our House today has the highest approval rating in modern history, in 
large part because of the dignity, the humility, and the genuine 
leadership of our Speaker, and I thank him for everything he does for 
the people of the House.
  This issue of soft money is central to this entire debate. Fifteen 
years ago, I was elected as a local Republican Party chairman in 
Chattanooga, Tennessee. I think that the three best national chairmen 
that our party has had in the modern era were Lee Atwater, Haley 
Barbour, and a guy named Bill Brock, who served in the House seat that 
I serve in now, went on to the United States Senate and serve our party 
extremely well when Ronald Reagan was elected President.
  Here is what he says now about soft money. Quote: ``In truth, parties 
were stronger and closer to their roots before the advent of the soft 
money loophole than they are today. Far from invigorating the parties 
themselves, soft money has simply strengthened certain specific 
candidates and the few donors who can make huge contributions, while 
distracting parties from traditional grassroots work.''
  Both of our political parties will be better served by weaning 
ourselves from soft money and returning to the people, returning to the 
foot power, returning to the grassroots. Writing big checks is actually 
the easy way out for people that want to participate in this process. 
The harder way is to involve people. We rarely see ads saying, this is 
what our party stands for. Join our party. Be a part of our platform. 
Get involved. We mostly see ads that are degrading and divisive.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe our parties will be better off with this most 
important step, and I believe there are a lot of people of goodwill in 
this House that agree. We are going to come together tonight. I believe 
we are going to finish this business. I believe the President will sign 
this bill, and I think this will be an important step to restoring the 
public trust. To my friends over here, I may be wrong, but I think we 
will be better off because we will all be better off and our country 
will be better off.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) has 1\1/
2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining and the right to close.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard all day about ``sham issue ads'' that are 
really just attack ads designed to influence the election. It is said 
that these ads have ``undermined the intent'' of the 1974 Federal 
Election Campaign Act which was supposed to regulate campaign-related 
expenditures. I will tell my colleagues something. I am not too 
concerned about what the Democrats who controlled this Congress in 1974 
intended when they wrote the Federal Election Campaign Act. I am 
concerned about what the founders of this country intended when they 
wrote the Bill of Rights in 1791.
  I want my colleagues to consider something. Imagine if King of 
England had written to James Madison and said, ``James, this whole 
revolution thing has been a big misunderstanding. I have seen a draft 
of your proposed Bill of Rights and I think we can resolve our 
differences. I do not have any problem with freedom of speech, and I am 
willing to let you criticize me and my policies any way you want. All I 
ask is that you report to me the names of all people who share your 
opinions. Also, while I am willing to let you say anything you want 
about me, I would ask that you not disseminate your criticism too 
widely. One hundred critical pamphlets is enough; 1,000 is just piling 
on. If you have to send 1,000 I just ask that you raise the money to 
finance the printing costs in small chunks from a broad group of 
donors. I know this may be inconvenient and could hinder your ability 
to get your message out, but I really do not think it is an 
unreasonable request. Please, let us be reasonable and work together on 
this issue.''
  We all know what Madison's reaction would have been: No thank you, 
Your Highness.
  That is why the first amendment to our Constitution begins, 
``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.'' The 
freedom of our citizens to criticize their elected leaders makes us the 
greatest democracy in the world, and that is what makes us different 
from dictators. Yet, now today in the name of ``reform,'' we are asked 
to turn our back on that great legacy.
  Well, I am not going to do it. Like every Member of this body, I took 
an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
States of America. I do not intend to break the oath to satisfy the 
editorial board of the New York Times, and neither should you. Support 
Ney-Wynn.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time to 
close.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been a long day, a long night, and an early 
morning. I think the quality of debate, for the most part, has been 
very good. I think there has been respect on not only both sides of the 
aisle, but there has been a bipartisanship of action. On behalf, I 
think, of all of us, I want to congratulate the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays). Whether we agree or disagree with either one of them, they have 
fought a long and good fight. They have kept the faith with their 
principles and their premises, and I think that they have acted in the 
highest traditions of legislators seeking to put forward policies to 
make their country better. I, on behalf of all of us, want to thank 
both the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for their work.
  We now end this debate. As I said at the beginning, if we adopt this 
amendment, we essentially start over. At

[[Page 1417]]

least eight times we have made a determination not to do this. This is 
the ninth time. Let us once again say that we are prepared to move. We 
are prepared to act. We are prepared to take a step in reforming 
campaign finance reform. We are prepared to take a step to raise the 
confidence of Americans that their representatives, their government, 
their policies that are adopted by all of us are theirs.
  This is an historic night. Rarely do we have the opportunity to vote 
on such significant historical change. I ask my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on Ney-Wynn and to vote ``yes'' for final passage of Shays-
Meehan.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181, 
noes 248, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 33]

                               AYES--181

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frost
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--248

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brady (TX)
     Cubin
     Hefley
     Riley
     Roukema
     Traficant

                              {time}  0218

  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). There being no further 
amendments, under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hastings of Washington) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, 
Chairman pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration the bill (H.R. 2356) to amend the Federal Election 
Campaign Act of 1971 to provide bipartisan campaign reform, pursuant to 
House Resolution 344, he reported the bill, as amended by the final 
adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute numbered 9 
pursuant to that rule, back to the House with sundry further 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.

                              {time}  0220

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). 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.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Meehan

  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. MEEHAN. In its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Meehan moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2356 to the 
     Committee on House Administration with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Amend section 402(b)(1) to read as follows:
       (1) Prior to January 1, 2003, the committee may spend such 
     funds to retire outstanding debts or obligations incurred 
     prior to such effective date, so long as such debts or 
     obligations were incurred solely in connection with an 
     election held on or before November 5, 2002 (or any runoff 
     election or recount resulting from an election in 2002) and 
     so long as such debts or obligations were not incurred for 
     any expenditures (activities required to be paid for with 
     ``hard money'')

[[Page 1418]]

     under such Act. Nothing in this paragraph may allow such 
     funds (commonly known as ``soft money'') to be used to pay 
     for any debts or obligations incurred for any Federal 
     election expenditures under such Act (``hard money'' 
     activities).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit the bill to the 
Committee on House Administration forthwith with instructions to 
clarify language related to the effective date, specifically how 
national parties may spend soft money on hand after November 6.
  It was clearly our intent that such soft money could not be used to 
pay off hard money debt. In fact, I continue to believe our language 
accomplishes that. However, others have argued that the language was 
ambiguous on this issue. Accordingly, this motion to recommit would 
make it crystal clear that the national parties could not use any 
leftover soft money to pay off hard debts. I ask that the Members who 
so kindly pointed this out to us join me in voting for this motion.
  In addition to that, as we end this debate, I want to thank all the 
Members for their cooperation, including the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ney), last night and also this morning. I want to thank all the 
courageous members of our bipartisan coalition. I want to thank the 
minority leader and the minority whip. I want to thank all the Members 
who signed the discharge petition. And, lastly, I want to thank my 
partner in this effort, the leader of our effort on the Republican 
side, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  In addition to that, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) and the others who were so gracious in giving people time 
tonight, and thank all the Members for their cooperation in this most 
difficult but historic occasion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Who seeks time in opposition?
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to agree with the gentleman.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, again, I stand to advise my side that I agree 
with this motion to recommit.
  Let me just say that this has been an energetic give and take of 
public debate for quite a long time through the committee process, and 
we have many people that we can thank for giving of their spirit and 
their energy and their time, whichever side of the issue they were on. 
We all will move on, but I just want to thank everybody involved with 
this on the floor today.
  Our democracy works through debate, and that is what makes us great.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The motion to recommit was agreed to.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House on 
the motion to recommit, and on behalf of the Committee on House 
Administration, I report the bill, H.R. 2356, back to the House with an 
amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment:
       Amend section 402(b)(1) to read as follows:
       (1) Prior to January 1, 2003, the committee may spend such 
     funds to retire outstanding debts or obligations incurred 
     prior to such effective date, so long as such debts or 
     obligations were incurred solely in connection with an 
     election held on or before November 5, 2002 (or any runoff 
     election or recount resulting from an election in 2002) and 
     so long as such debts or obligations were not incurred for 
     any expenditures (activities required to be paid for with 
     ``hard money'') under such Act. Nothing in this paragraph may 
     allow such funds (commonly known as ``soft money'') to be 
     used to pay for any debts or obligations incurred for any 
     Federal election expenditures under such Act (``hard money'' 
     activities).

  Mr. HOYER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was 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. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240, 
noes 189, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 34]

                               AYES--240

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Phelps
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--189

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons

[[Page 1419]]


     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Walden
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brady (TX)
     Cubin
     Hefley
     Riley
     Roukema
     Traficant

                              {time}  0242

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

                          ____________________