[Pages H4679-H4694]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1638
BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN INTEGRITY ACT OF 1997

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ney). Pursuant to House Resolution 442
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill, H.R. 2183.

{time} 1639

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2183) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971
to reform the financing of campaigns for elections for Federal office,
and for other purposes, with Mr. Pease (Chairman pro tempore) in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). When the Committee of the Whole
House rose on Friday, May 22, 1998, all time for general debate had
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 442, the bill is considered read for
amendment under the 5-minute rule.
The text of H.R. 2183 is as follows:

H.R. 2183

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Bipartisan Campaign
Integrity Act of 1997''.
TITLE I--SOFT MONEY AND CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES OF POLITICAL
PARTIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEC. 201. INDEXING CONTRIBUTION LIMITS.

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

SEC. 301. DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN COMMUNICATIONS.

(a) In General.--Any person who expends an aggregate amount
of funds during a calendar year in excess of $25,000 for
communications described in subsection (b) relating to a
single candidate for election for Federal office (or an
aggregate amount of funds during a calendar year in excess of
$100,000 for all such communications relating to all such
candidates) shall file a report describing the amount
expended for such communications, together with the person's
address and phone number (or, if appropriate, the address and
phone number of the person's principal officer).
(b) Communications Described.--A communication described in
this subsection is any communication which is broadcast to
the general public through radio or television and which
mentions or includes (by name, representation, or likeness)
any candidate for election for Senator or for Representative
in (or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to) the Congress,
other than any communication which would be described in
clause (i), (iii), or (v) of section 301(9)(B) of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 if the payment were an
expenditure under such section.
(c) Deadline for Filing.--A person shall file a report
required under subsection (a) not later than 7 days after the
person first expends the applicable amount of funds described
in such subsection, except that in the

[[Page H4680]]

case of a person who first expends such an amount within 10
days of an election, the report shall be filed not later than
24 hours after the person first expends such amount. For
purposes of the previous sentence, the term ``election''
shall have the meaning given such term in section 301(1) of
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
(d) Place of Submission.--Reports required under subsection
(a) shall be submitted--
(1) to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, in the
case of a communication involving a candidate for election
for Representative in (or Delegate or Resident Commissioner
to) the Congress; and
(2) to the Secretary of the Senate, in the case of a
communication involving a candidate for election for Senator.
(e) Penalties.--Whoever knowingly fails to--
(1) remedy a defective filing within 60 days after notice
of such a defect by the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk
of the House of Representatives; or
(2) comply with any other provision of this section,

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

SEC. 302. REQUIRING MONTHLY FILING OF REPORTS.

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

SEC. 303. MANDATORY ELECTRONIC FILING FOR CERTAIN REPORTS.

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

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

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

SEC. 401. EFFECTIVE DATE.

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

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Before consideration of any other
amendment, it shall be in order to consider the amendments in the
nature of a substitute specified in House Report 105-545. Each
amendment shall be considered in the order specified, may be offered
only by the Member who caused it to be printed in the Congressional
Record or his designee, shall be considered read, and shall not be
subject to a substitute amendment or to a perfecting amendment carrying
a tax or tariff measure.
Consideration of each amendment specified in the report shall begin
with an additional period of general debate, which shall be confined to
the subject of the amendment and shall not exceed 1 hour, equally
divided and controlled by the Member causing the amendment to be
printed in the Congressional Record or his designee and an opponent.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
If more than one of the amendments specified in the report 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.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
It is now in order to debate the subject matter of the amendment
printed in the Congressional Record as number 16.
Pursuant to House Resolution 442, the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
White) and a Member opposed each will control 30 minutes.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill and
claim the 30 minutes in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut will be
recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
Members will record their presence by electronic device.
The call was taken by electronic device.
The following Members responded to their names:

[Roll No. 240]

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--392

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham

[[Page H4681]]

Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn

{time} 1705

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Three hundred ninety-two
Members have answered to their names, a quorum is present, and the
Committee will resume its business.
It is now in order to debate the subject matter of the amendment
printed in the Congressional Record as Amendment Number 16.
Pursuant to House Resolution 442, the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
White) will control 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Gejdenson) will control 30 minutes.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) control 7 minutes of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Connecticut?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) will be
recognized for 7 minutes, and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Gejdenson) will be recognized for 23 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White).
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I waited for this day for a long time, and I think many
of us in this Chamber have waited for a long time for the day where we
would have a full, fair and open debate on campaign finance reform. I
feel like I have waited a particularly long time though because the
bill that we are considering now, my substitute to the base bill, was
the first bill I introduced as a Member of Congress.
Mr. Chairman, it was about 3 years ago that a group of citizens from
my district came into my office and said, ``You know, you guys just
don't get it back in Washington, D.C. There is so much disgust at the
way this process develops. We need to take a better approach to
campaign finance reform, and you need to introduce a bill.''
So we did something that probably was unusual at the time. I was a
new Member of Congress; I really did not know any better; so we went
out and tried to find all the people we could who knew something about
campaign finance reform, and we talked to a bunch of academics, we
talked to people at the Federal Election Commission, talked to lots of
different people, and at the end of the day we came up to a conclusion
that has guided everything I have done since that time and guides this
bill.
Mr. Chairman, that is the fact that the last people we can trust to
reform our campaign laws are the Members of this body, the Members of
the Senate, the people who got elected under the very laws we are
trying to change.
Mr. Chairman, when we made that discovery, one that was not really a
surprise to any of us, we drafted a bill that would take the power away
from this Chamber to a bipartisan-nonpartisan group to recommend to us
how we should reform our campaign finance laws. That was the commission
bill. I introduced it with great pride and fanfare in 1995, and at the
end of the 104th Congress, about a year later, I had two cosponsors of
that bill. It was not really a very good effort in the last Congress.
So when we came back in this Congress, in the 105th Congress, we
decided to take a different approach. We talked to everybody who had
any sort of commission bill of any kind that they had ever introduced
or ever cosponsored, we got together with lots of Democrats and lots of
Republicans, and we put together one joint commission bill among
Republicans and Democrats that all of us could support. That process
took us a while.
Once we got the bill that we could agree on, we went out and started
getting cosponsors, and I am proud to say, Mr. Chairman, that as of
today we have 119 cosponsors of our bill, more bipartisan cosponsors
than any other bill in the House.
That is a record of progress.
But, Mr. Chairman, a funny thing happened on the way to this floor
because a bill that was designed to take politics out of this process,
to give it to a neutral body, all of a sudden started to become perhaps
a victim of politics, and there are lots of editorial boards, lots of
special interest groups who said,

You know what? We don't like the commission bill. We've got
a bill that we like better. In fact, we know how to write the
campaign finance laws better than a commission would, we
don't want to give up that control, and so we think that not
only do we want to change our mind about voting for the
commission bill, we want to oppose any bill except our
particular way of doing it.

And we heard from a number of our cosponsors that they decided not
only not to speak for our bill, not only not to vote for our bill, but
that they are going to vote present for our bill, kind of as a matter
of protest, and we will have some more discussion about that later.
Let us talk for a moment about what this bill would do. As I said,
the entire premise of this bill is that we cannot let Members of this
House or of Congress write the rules that govern their own election. It
is a fairly simple concept. The personal self-interest of every single
Member of Congress is at stake, and it is frankly asking a lot of
anyone, especially a Member of Congress, to write the rules in a way
that would make it easier for them to lose their jobs.
So it is a recognition of reality. Let us set up a commission of
independent people to make this choice.
Now who would be on this commission? Well, we have four Republicans,

[[Page H4682]]

four Democrats and four independents composing the commission of 12
people who would have 180 days to sit down and write a bill with their
recommendations for what our campaign finance bills would be like. We
have a procedure for picking the members of this commission that is
very similar to the Base Closure Commission process designed to be as
neutral as we can be in this town. We have some Republicans making some
decisions, some Democrats making some decisions, the President making
some decisions, but each one of them has to at least name one
independent to the commission so we really do come up with an
independent body.
As I said, once that happens, the commission has 180 days after the
adjournment of this Congress to come back with recommendations to this
House, and at that time this House and the Senate both have to vote up
or down on the commission's recommendations. No amendments are allowed.

{time} 1715

And I have to tell my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that of all of the
proposals that are out there, this is the only one that is going to
give us real reform.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
(Mr. GEJDENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, we are in a process, trying to avoid a
straightforward discussion of campaign finance reform. I know there are
some people that believe in a commission, and commissions are not the
worst things in the world, but we all get paid a salary and we are
elected here to make decisions about legislation, and if we believe in
representative government, we are here to represent our constituents to
try to address one of the fundamental issues gnawing at the confidence
of how their government operates by the American people.
Now, 157 weeks ago the Speaker of the House shook hands with the
President of the United States and says, we are going to do campaign
finance reform. Mr. Chairman, 157 weeks of dodging and weaving to try
to avoid a vote. And then we had one day where we had this sham set up
that all the papers basically wrote off as a sham, and then we came up
with as convoluted a process as we could possibly come up with, and
here we are today. We are passing rule upon rule, we are doing a
section of debate today and a section tomorrow. Some people may validly
believe in a commission, but a vote on a commission today is a vote to
end the process of stepping forward with campaign finance reform.
I think Shays-Meehan, or McCain-Feingold is wholly inadequate. It
does not have spending limits; it does not address some of the
fundamental issues that I think are important. But in a legislative
process, we either go forward or we kill the process and stop dead in
our tracks.
The Republican leadership is intent on stopping the campaign finance
reform process. It is astounding that they could go to such lengths,
because we have to remember, they have been able to filibuster the bill
to death in the Senate. So even if by some miracle we are able to get
through this Congress, we are confronted with a continuing filibuster
in the other body.
Mr. Chairman, 157 weeks, and what we want here is a straight up-and-
down vote to at least address some of the fundamentals; the
fundamentals on soft money, on independent expenditures. I think we
ought to be doing more on all of these. I think the Democratic record
here is one we can be proud of. We established the FEC. The Federal
Elections Commission, as inadequate as that body is, there was no real
review until we overrode Richard Nixon's veto.
Democrats put forth and passed the 1974 Campaign Act. Was it not for
a wrong-headed Supreme Court decision, we would have better law on the
books today.
In the 102nd and 103rd Congress I had the privilege of passing bills
that limited PACs, that limited the amount of contributions wealthy
people could give, and that limited campaign spending, one vetoed by
President Bush, one filibustered to death by the Republicans in the
Senate. The American people want campaigns to go back to a debate of
what we believe in, of what we stand for, of what we have done, and not
a race for dollars.
I had a candidate tell me a couple of days ago that he was informed
by a member of the Republican Party in a race that they actually spent
3 times the money that was published in the FEC by using independent
expenditures and issue advocacy. The American people want an honest
accounting. They want to know where the money comes from, and they want
to hear us talk about what we believe in, and not have Members of
Congress spending inordinate amounts of time trying to raise money.
Defeat this proposal. Go forward with the only thing that keeps the
process going.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself just 1 minute to respond to
the gentleman from Connecticut.
I would simply make 2 points. The gentleman said that we are paid a
salary to make decisions and that is absolutely right, so why in the
world would anyone vote present on this bill? I ask that question.
Number 2.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer that
question.
Mr. WHITE. Regular order, Mr. Chairman. Regular order.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I thought the gentleman asked me a
question and wanted an answer. I am sorry.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman can respond on his own time.
I actually agree with the gentleman from Connecticut, there actually
was a handshake between the President and the Speaker, but it was a
handshake on setting up a commission. If we want to do what the
President and the Speaker agreed to, we have to vote for this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Franks).
(Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope that the
process that we have begun this week will result in us delivering to
the American people a campaign finance system that they can trust. The
public is tired of talk and is demanding action.
Since the first day that I entered this House some 6 years ago, there
is no other issue that has been the subject of more discussion off this
floor than the need to change the rules under which congressional
campaigns are financed. My colleagues have regularly told me they spend
too much of their time raising money. They say they do not like relying
so heavily on PAC contributions, and most importantly, they hate going
back home and having constituents question whose agenda is at work in
the Nation's capital, theirs or the special interests.
Our failure over some 20 years to meaningfully address this issue
hurts all of us. It undermines public confidence in this institution
and casts a cloud over every action that we take.
We now have an opportunity to put this issue behind us and begin
restoring public confidence. But first, we all need to face a harsh
reality. When it comes to an issue like this one, one in which all of
us as Members have a vested interest in the outcome, the traditional
legislative process just will not work.

Let us take a look at the long and sorry history of congressional
efforts at campaign finance reform. Between 1987 and 1996, there have
been 6,742 pages of hearings on campaign finance reform. There have
been 3,361 floor speeches, and 29 sets of hearings have been held by 8
different congressional committees. Yet, after all of this, we find
ourselves today back where we first began, talking about the need to
change the system of financing campaigns.
Even on those rare occasions when this House has gone so far as to
actually pass a campaign reform bill, we often acted knowing full well
that it would never see the light of day in the other body.
Mr. Chairman, today we find ourselves at a crossroads. We can once
again follow the failed path of relying on the traditional legislative
process and hope that in contrast to all past history, this time we
will be successful, or, we can bravely follow a new path.
Our independent commission would develop a legislative package of
reforms that must be voted upon by both

[[Page H4683]]

Houses, up or down, no amendments, no tricks, no procedural barriers.
There could be no delay, no stalling tactics. Our bill establishes a
strict time frame for the commission to deliver its recommendations and
for both Houses to actually vote on it. The commission would have 180
days from the adjournment of this Congress to deliver a legislative
proposal to the floor of this House.
Some have called the commission approach a cop-out, an effort to
thwart what some call real reform. Nothing could be further from the
truth. In fact, the Reform Party led by Ross Perot, the man who more
than any other American brought this issue to the forefront of the
public's agenda, has endorsed our bill creating an independent
commission.
Let me read from a letter we recently received, and I quote:

The Reform Party agrees that true reform can only come when
an outside body is convened to draft meaningful,
comprehensive legislation to fix a system that is frequently
abused. Current Members of Congress are too often unwilling
or unable to fix this system and form the consensus needed to
reform it, this system that they alone benefit from.

Our commission bill would force both Houses to act on precisely the
same measure. It holds out the only real hope that we can achieve
comprehensive campaign reform. For this House to pass only a proposal
that has already been rejected by the Senate does not qualify us as
reformers. Under that scenario, Members would go back home and take
credit for addressing the issue, but in reality, they will have voted
merely to place campaign finance reform in eternal limbo between 2
legislative bodies.
If we are really serious, let us stop playing the same old game,
which only serves to fuel cynicism and contempt among those who are
concerned about the integrity of our electoral process.
This Congress has answered a similar call in a similar situation a
number of years ago when we faced another politically sensitive issue:
the need to close military bases. While we all agreed with the goal of
eliminating surplus military bases, no Member wanted to be in the
position of voting to close down a facility in his or her district. By
creating an independent base realignment and closure commission,
Congress successfully completed that important mission.
The independent commission approach works. It is the best hope of
restoring sanity to our campaign finance system and rebuilding public
trust in this institution.
With more bipartisan cosponsors than any other campaign finance bill,
the independent commission is the last, best chance for real reform in
this Congress.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege and pleasure to yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority
leader of the House.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to state that this is a good idea.
The commission has much to be said for it. I have been for this
proposal in the past, and I would hope that we could add this to the
Shays-Meehan bill, which I believe we will be able to do. But I also
rise to say that the way this procedure as written, if this bill gets
the most votes, it would in effect defeat the Shays-Meehan proposal.
So I rise tonight to ask Members on both sides of the aisle to vote
``no'' on this proposal, because we will get a chance to add it, if we
get that far, to the Shays-Meehan proposal, so it rightly could be
added to that proposal. All of us know that while Shays-Meehan is good
reform and has a lot of the elements that we think is the first big
step of reform, there is a lot more that needs to be done, and this
commission could start as we pass Shays-Meehan and could look at other
reforms that we could do in the future.
I want to especially commend the Members in the Republican Party who
have worked so hard with Members in our party to try to get Shays-
Meehan to be the bill that comes out of this process. As the last
speaker said, campaign reform is hard to do. It is complicated.
Everybody is an expert here because we all run in our own campaigns,
and we all have a little bit different idea of what the right reforms
are.
But in my mind, I believe that Shays-Meehan is the best bill that we
can do at this point in time. It is supported by many, many outside
organizations. It does attack both soft money and independent
expenditures which I think most Members and observers believe are the
major areas that have been abused.
We can do it now. We can do it this month. We can get it off to the
Senate and try to get a bill out of the Senate that would be similar.
By voting ``no'' on the commission or voting ``present,'' we are not
really voting ``no'' for it on the last chance we will have. We can put
it onto the Shays-Meehan bill and have the best of both worlds.
So in the spirit of bipartisanship, in the spirit of reform, in the
spirit of getting something meaningful done, which I think the American
people desperately want us to do in this Congress, I urge Members to
vote ``no'' or ``present'' on this very good commission proposal; I
urge Members to add it to the Shays-Meehan bill when we get the chance,
and I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote for Shays-Meehan
to give it the greatest vote so that under this process, it is the bill
we vote on last and it is the bill that we send to the Senate.

{time} 1730

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, it was very interesting to listen to the previous
speaker, and I recognize his sincere desire to try to reform the
campaign finance laws. But I would say to the gentleman, and I would
say to the Members on the other side, it is a perfect example of the
reason we will not have campaign finance reform because the reason he
wants to vote ``present'' on this bill, or even against it, is because
he wants to do it his way. He cannot bear to give up the ability to
write the rules himself, to write the rules in this House so that we
get to control the process by which we get elected.
Mr. Chairman, we have been down that path so many times before. The
list of failed efforts at campaign finance reform that we have had
since 1974 fills a whole column in the Washington Post.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following list:

Failed Efforts--Summary of Attempts at Campaign Finance Reform

1974.--Reacting to Watergate abuses, Congress passed bill
that set contribution and spending limits for candidates in
federal elections and provided for public financing of
presidential elections. Signed by President Gerald R. Ford.
1976.--The Supreme Court ruled that the 1974 law's spending
limits violated the First Amendment.
1977.--President Jimmy Carter's proposal for spending
limits and public matching funds for congressional elections
was blocked by a Senate filibuster and House committee
opposition.
1979.--Legislation to limit contributions from political
action committees (PACs) was passed by the House but stalled
in the Senate, threatened by a Republican filibuster. Public
funding legislation died in the House.
1985.--Sens. David L. Boren (D-Okla.) and Barry Goldwater
(R-Ariz) proposed legislation to limit PAC contributions; the
Senate delayed action on it.
1986.--The Senate approved the Boren-Goldwater proposal as
part of legislation that failed to pass.
1987.--A broader bill was introduced by Boren and Majority
Leader Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va), calling for voluntary
spending limits, some public funding and restrictions on PAC
contributions. Republicans filibustered, and Democrats failed
in seven attempts to end the stalling tactics.
1988.--The bill was shelved after Democrats failed in an
eighth attempt to end the GOP filibuster.
1990.--The House and Senate passed separate bills with
voluntary spending limits, public funding and limits on
contributions from special interests, including PACs. House-
Senate conferees never met.
1991.--Both houses again approved separate bills, and
President George Bush promised a veto, saying the legislation
would favor Democrats.
1992.--The House and Senate agreed to a compromise on the
1991 bill and passed it, but it was vetoed by Bush. The veto
was sustained.
1993.--President Clinton supported reform efforts but did
not give them high priority. Both houses once again passed
different bills, with the Senate favoring stronger PAC curbs
than the House did.
1994.--House Democrats delayed an agreement with the Senate
on the 1993 bill until fall, and Senate Republicans
filibustered it to death.
1996.--A bipartisan group of senators introduced a scaled-
back bill, including voluntary spending limits, a ban on PAC
contributions and other curbs on special-interest giving

[[Page H4684]]

but without any provision for public funding. It was killed
by a Republican filibuster June 25. House action on an even
more limited bill is possible later this month, but chances
of reconsideration by the Senate are dim.

Mr. Chairman, I would implore this House not to miss the opportunity
to at least try to do the right thing. The fact is, we are going to
have lots of debate on lots of different campaign finance bills. Lots
of them are going to be designed simply to hurt the other party or to
hurt challengers so that incumbents' positions are safer.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friends, go ahead and have those
fights. Go ahead and try to do it their way. Go ahead and try to get
218 votes to do it their way to make sure incumbents stay in and that
we get to write the rules. If it turns out their position wins, that is
fine.
But, I would tell them, do not miss the opportunity to actually do it
the real way. Do not miss the opportunity to actually have a fair bill.
The opportunity, for once, to have somebody who does not have an axe to
grind, who is not part of the inside-the-Beltway circle to write some
rules that will be fair to everyone.
Mr. Chairman, I would implore all Members on both sides of the aisle
not to miss the one opportunity we have today for real campaign finance
reform.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Ney) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to state that I rise in opposition to the
commission bill, but I want to express my deep appreciation to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. White), my friend, for his leadership on
this issue. I believe that he has been unfairly attacked by people who
say that he is not genuine about reform. I do not believe there is
anyone more genuine in this body about campaign finance reform than the
gentleman from Washington. I want to thank him for his commitment to
this issue, his dedication, and his hard work.
Mr. Chairman, under any other circumstances, I would be supporting
the gentleman's bill. But they used to call Reggie Jackson ``Mr.
October,'' because he hit home runs in October. This is an October
bill, and yet this is June and we still have time to accomplish reform
in this Congress. For that reason, I do not want to give up a present
opportunity for a promise down the road.
I do believe that the commission bill is a recipe for reform, but it
is a very slow-cooking recipe. And so let us not make excuses for
inaction today by saying that we are going to work on it in the future
or we are going to give this responsibility to a commission.
If we look at what can happen down the road if we enact the
commission bill, the Senate might not pass it, which is a danger in any
legislation. But whenever the commission is created, the commission
members may not agree. But, most significantly, when the result is
finished by the commission, it comes back to this body which could once
again reject the reform which is offered by the commission.
So here at the present time, at this moment in history, we have a
present alternative, an alternative we can vote on. It is on this floor
for a vote. And so when we have reform on this floor for a vote, you do
not take it off and indicate we are going to give it all to a
commission.
Mr. Chairman, the American public expects us, this body, the elected
representatives in this country, to take action. And the present
alternative is the base bill, the Hutchinson-Allen freshman bill. It
does a number of good things. It bans soft money. It strengthens the
role of the individual in our political process. It provides for more
disclosure, more information to the public. But, very importantly, it
is constitutional. It respects free speech. It does not federalize
State elections, and it is bipartisan.
For that reason, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) indicated
that he wanted everybody to vote for Shays-Meehan. I think it is
important to remember that there are going to be a couple of
significant reform votes as we go along in this process. And it might
not be tomorrow, but the end game of this reform process is the
freshman bill which will be voted on in the final vote.
Mr. Chairman, we hope that people who are committed to reform will
respect the Constitution, will respect the role that we have in the
Federal elections process and vote for the Hutchinson-Allen freshman
bill.
Let me say a word about the process. I hope that we have an open
debate. I think we are going to have that. I do not believe we ought to
complain about this open debate. But I hope that we who are interested
in reform will withdraw the amendments that we have offered to the
various bills so that we can move this process through a little bit
quicker and save some floor time. This is true for the Republicans and
the Democrats.
Mr. Chairman, I noted that the Democrats requested before the
Committee on Rules 74 amendments to the different substitutes that have
been offered. I think that we ought to calm down. We ought to pull the
requests down. Let us speed up the process. Let us work together to get
a vote on the main substitutes that are being proposed.
I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White), compliment
him and respectfully ask my colleagues to vote against the commission
bill and support the freshman bill, the Hutchinson-Allen bill, which
represents constitutional but real reform.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my
own bill. As one of the principal sponsors of the commission bill, I
really am asking all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
vote against the bill, or to vote ``present,'' because it is now in
competition with the Shays-Meehan bill, a real reform bill that will
accomplish many of the things that many of us wanted to accomplish
through a commission bill.
First of all, I would like to thank all of my colleagues who worked
very hard on this legislation, particularly the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Dingell), who is a leader not only on campaign finance, but so
many important issues before this body. He has often said that the best
legislation is bipartisan, and we had a sincere bipartisan effort.
I also thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White), the gentleman
from California (Mr. Horn), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Franks) for all their hard work and commitment.
But what has happened with the way the rule is in place, the
prospects for passage of Shays-Meehan is weakened with each competing
vote. And now the commission bill is in competition with Shays-Meehan.
I have always called the commission bill a fall-back position, one
that we would go to if we could not achieve a vote in this Congress on
meaningful reform.
But Shays-Meehan is a strong vehicle for change. It addresses two of
the greatest abuses. It bans soft money and brings into accountability
the so-called independent expenditure groups. And so now is not the
time to vote for a fall-back position, but to vote for real reform.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot let the commission bill be used as a trump or
a way to kill Shays-Meehan. We have an historic opportunity to pass
real reform. That is Shays-Meehan. I call upon my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to vote ``present.''
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I got this sheet from my colleague here.
It is interesting. In 1974, it starts, the Democrats passed campaign
finance reform. In 1979, it is a Republican filibuster. In 1988, it is
a GOP filibuster. In 1991, Bush promises a veto. In 1992, Bush vetoes.
In 1993, Senate Republicans filibuster. In 1996, Republicans
filibuster.
There is a difference in the two parties. Democrats have generally
been for this. Not perfect, but for this. And the very sheet my
colleague brought up

[[Page H4685]]

here time and time again talks about Republicans filibustering and
killing the process, and I would say the gentleman's bill would kill
the process again.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what I am talking about. This is not a
political issue. Why do we always make it a political issue? It is not
about Republicans and Democrats. It is not about who killed it last
time. It is not about who brought up the bill and passed it, when they
knew that the President would veto it.
It is about trying, for once, to get a real fair bill done, not
pointing fingers at other side, simply voting for a bill that is
designed to take politics out of this system.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, all of us have been clamoring for debate
on campaign finance for some time. In fact, that has been the issue
that most people have been talking about, particularly on that side of
the aisle, since the beginning of this Congress, and rightfully so.
But I find it interesting that every time they talk about we need
full and open debate on all these issues, so we have time to talk about
every issue, and yet in a minute we may vote on a rule that would allow
us also to address some nongermane amendments to Shays-Meehan. And that
is really where the problem began in the first place because, for
example, the way the presidential elections are financed, that is where
all of this problem started.
If my colleagues will remember, the Clinton-Gore campaign came close
to violating about every Federal election law there is to violate. I am
reading from the Washington Post, the Federal page, and it talks about
campaign finance probe, 94 witnesses who will not talk, 94 witnesses
who take the Fifth Amendment. Many of them, it has been verified, have
broken campaign finance laws. Yet this rule is going to be coming up,
and I bet everyone on that side of the aisle will vote against the
rule, even though we need also, if we are going to have full disclosure
and full debate, we need to look at nongermane amendments as well as
germane amendments.
So, Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of the way my Democrat colleagues
were talking and asking for full and open debate, I would urge them to
vote for this rule that we will be considering a little bit later.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), a leader of this House and a
leader on this issue.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Gejdenson) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the amendment before us is a
good one. And I want to commend the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
White) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) for their efforts
on behalf of this, as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn)
and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). They had the vision
to understand that this is a good approach. It is one which affords us
an opportunity for doing something.
Unfortunately, the way the situation has been crafted, we now find
that we have another very important opportunity, and that is one which,
in my view, is a better opportunity to address quickly the real
problems we confront in terms of campaign financing.
For that reason, I am going to vote ``present'' on the amendment that
is offered by my good friends, and I do it with a great deal of regret.
I have never done this in all the years that I have had the privilege
of serving in this body, and it is with profound regret that do I that.
But it is my view that Shays-Meehan is the best and most immediate tool
that we have that is possible for us to use to correct the serious
problems that we confront with regard to campaign financing.
A little history: When I first ran for Congress some 40 years ago for
$19,000, I beat 23 candidates, one of whom was former mayor of Detroit,
and a sitting city councilman, a past Commander of the American Legion,
and a large number of other influential citizens. Ten years later I
beat an incumbent in his own district with $35,000.
There is no way on God's green Earth, unless we reform this
intolerable situation of campaign financing, that anybody will ever
have that opportunity to do those kinds of things again. One of the
most disgusting and degrading events that takes place in our life is
the tremendous amount of money that we have to raise to hold this job.

{time} 1745

That is not something which I applaud.
I think all my colleagues find this same thing equally distressing. I
would tell my colleagues I intend to vote for the rule when it comes
up, and I intend to support the idea that we should be able, at that
time, to offer the commission bill to Shays-Meehan.
Shays-Meehan offers us, with that amendment and without it, a superb
opportunity to do something immediate about cleaning up the mess that
is campaign financing in the United States.
I want to commend my colleagues who worked with me on the commission
bill. It was a bipartisan effort. Shays-Meehan is a bipartisan effort.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in a bipartisan effort to clean
up the campaign situation in this country at the earliest possible
moment and to do so through the device of supporting Shays-Meehan and
then later to also support the rule and to support the bill with an
amendment which we will offer, which will be supported by its sponsors,
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) to add the commission to it so that we can
expand further what needs to be done in terms of cleaning up the
campaign situation in this country.
I do not want any of my colleagues to feel that in any way they are
demeaned by this. This is one of the unfortunate choices that Members
of Congress have to make because of the way the rules work in a
situation where we have a large body, where the process is disorderly,
and where, unfortunately, constraints and time are necessary in order
for us to serve the public good.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Washington, for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, let me relate an incident in Louisiana where I once
asked a local politician why he thought we spent so much money in
political campaigns. His answer was, well, you know, Billy, the other
candidate always goes on television before you are ready to go on
television. They start telling lies about you, and then you have got to
go on television to answer those lies much sooner than you wanted to go
on television or you probably could afford to go on television.
Then as the campaign draws closer to election day, they go back on
television, and they start telling the truth about you, and then you
have really got to spend a lot of money to answer those ads.
The bottom line is, whether that is true or not, we spend an
extraordinary amount of money in campaigns across America for State,
local, and Federal elections. The rules by which we raise that money
and spend it inevitably get written by whom, by the incumbents, by
those of us who have been fortunate enough to win an election and to
serve in public office.
Inevitably, the campaign practice rules we write in the State
legislatures and here on the floor of the House and in the Senate,
inevitably, those rules are suspect. People always believe those rules
must have been written to favor incumbents.
Inevitably, when Democrats propose a campaign practice reform or when
Republicans propose a campaign practice reform, those reforms are
suspect, because people believe, quite naturally, that one party must
have written the rule to gain a fair or perhaps even an unfair
advantage over the other party in the coming election.

[[Page H4686]]

So the question we should be thinking about as we once again debate
another round of campaign practice reform laws is whether we should be
the ones proposing those reforms or whether, in fact, an independent
commission on which no incumbent Members of Congress can serve should
be proposing those reforms while we in the end endorse those reforms by
a single up or down vote. That is the concept between a single
commission approach.
I want to commend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) and
others who have worked on it for the thought here. The thought is that
if you want a credible campaign practice law that has in it no
suspicion that it favors incumbents, no suspicion that it was drafted
to make the Democratic Party more advantageous in the election than the
Republican Party or some independent third party.
To give any one a better chance than the other in raising the funds
and spending the funds in the campaigns of America, then why not this
commission approach? It makes an awful lot of sense.
It preserves to the Congress the ultimate authority to vote up or
down on the recommended reforms, but it leaves the meticulous
fashioning of those reforms to an independent commission composed of
nonincumbents. It leaves literally to nonincumbents the duty of
fashioning the intricate details of campaign practice reform law.
Let me tell you where I come down quickly. I would hope, whatever we
do in the context of this debate, that we remember in the end it is the
citizens of this country that are most benefited if we do two simple
things: that we make sure that there are reasonable limits to donations
in all cases, and secondly, there is full disclosure to the American
public.
If the American public knows how campaign money is raised and knows
how it is spent, all under reasonable limits, I think it will have
provided the best reforms we can provide with the least amount of
suspicion that we did it simply to favor ourselves or to favor one
party or the other.
How do we get there from here? I recommend the commission form.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I say, where are these commissioners coming from? They
are being nominated by the Republican and Democratic leaders of the two
Houses. Mother Teresa has passed away. These are going to be political
people on this commission.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Adam Smith).
Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, confusion has been as big
an opponent of campaign finance reform as outright opposition. There
seem to be 100 different plans, 100 different ideas out there, and that
confusion has stopped us from getting the consensus we need to pass a
bill until now; the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), through a number of years of
hard work, brought us that consensus with the Shays-Meehan bill that we
now have the option of voting on.
I think we should seize on that consensus and pass that bill. It was
crafted in a bipartisan way. Unfortunately, the way the rules were set
up, a vote for the commission bill is a vote against Shays-Meehan. So
we need to vote against the commission bill and give our full support
to Shays-Meehan, a bill with meaningful reforms.
I have listened to the opposition to Shays-Meehan and support for the
commission bill, but what I have not heard are any specific complaints
about Shays-Meehan. It makes perfect sense to do as the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) suggested, to pass Shays-Meehan and add the
commission bill to it. That gives us the best of both worlds.
Basically, if there is something more that needs to be done, great,
we can do the commission. But what in Shays-Meehan is so bad? I have
not heard that from the proponents of the commission bill because there
is nothing bad about it.
It bans soft money. It limits independent expenditures. I think
perhaps as important as anything else, it gives the Federal Elections
Commission more enforcement authority to actually enforce the rules
that exist. Those are good things.
Somebody has got to say why they are in opposition to Shays-Meehan.
We have got a great opportunity here to pass a bill that has
consensus and makes meaningful reform. We are arguing against it
without even saying why. What is wrong with Shays-Meehan?
One final point, we have heard that the Senate may not pass Shays-
Meehan. If that is the criterion, we should go ahead and stop right
now, because the Senate is not going to pass the commission bill
either.
We have an opportunity to lead here in the House with Shays-Meehan,
with meaningful reform, that does things that we all claim to support.
Why do we not support them with our vote as well as with our rhetoric?
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to my
colleague from the Puget Sound area and to others who have spoken to it
before. We have heard a lot of complaints blaming it on the rule,
blaming the need to vote ``present'' on the rule.
The fact is, we cannot blame the rule for how you are going to vote
on this bill. This is about the most open process we could possibly
decide. We have got to take blame ourselves. That is what this House is
about. We have got to vote for or against this bill. If we are not
voting for it, we have got to be prepared to take the heat.
I think it is a mistake to suggest that it is the fault of the rule
that these people have to vote ``present.'' The fact is they either
want a bill that does it their way, and many of them think that is the
Shays-Meehan bill, or they want a bill that does it the fair way, which
is what the commission bill does.
I would also say to my friend from Washington who asked what is wrong
with the Shays-Meehan bill, I will tell you what is wrong with it. It
is not comprehensive. It kind of nudges around the edges of campaign
finance reform.
We have already got a system like that. The system we adopted now was
ruled partially unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, so we have
already got half a system. We do not need another half a system to make
the process even worse. That is what is wrong with the bill. Only the
commission gives you a comprehensive package.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Doolittle).
(Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, there is so much that is wrong with the
present system, but the Democrats gave us this system. We had a
Republican President who, unfortunately, signed it into law. It is a
disastrous system. Before this system came into being, most people had
never heard of PACs or of soft money or hard money or issue advocacy or
all of these wonderful permutations that come as a direct result of the
big government regulation that you Democrats gave us, that you love,
that is so unconstitutional, so undesirable, and so unworkable.
By the way, that is what is wrong with Shays-Meehan. It is more of
the same old rehash, more rules, more regulations, more bureaucratic
czars, more of everything that is ruining our political system. It is
terrible.
Here, this is like having a patient that has been misdiagnosed by the
physician. The sicker the patient gets, the heavier the dosage of
medicine. What is the medicine? Government regulation. Obviously, we do
not have enough, let us have some more.
Let us take Shays-Meehan. Let us have the Allen-Hutchinson freshman
bill. Let us have more of these awful proposals that are so contrary to
the whole history of America that have produced this mess that
frustrates people, that makes them wonder what is going on in
Washington, D.C.
What we need to do is step back, get a new diagnosis, and find out
what the problem really is.
The problem is government regulation of political speech. What could
be more clear than the First Amendment, which says Congress shall make
no law abridging the freedom of speech? Yet, Shays-Meehan, Allen-
Hutchinson or Hutchinson-Allen, and many of these proposals that are
coming before us are precisely that, abridgements of the

[[Page H4687]]

freedom of speech, all in the name of some greater good, fairer
campaigns or whatever it is.
I think that we have a real problem here. At least the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. White) is giving us a bill that has the potential of
producing some improvement. I do not think it is perfect, but few bills
are perfect that come before this House. At least it offers the
opportunity to do something.
To the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), we hear all this
talk about big money. The last campaign, I see the gentleman raised
$1,177,000 according to the official FEC records. So the gentleman has
got some big money in there himself.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, what preceded this system that is bad
and needs fixing was a ``cashocracy''. People came to Members of
Congress and presidential candidates with bundles full of cash. I think
that was a worse system. We are not perfect today, but we are better
than a system where people used to come in to Members of Congress
offices with envelopes of $100 bills.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, the system we have now is not better
than the one we had. One wrong does not make a second wrong. All we
would need to do is have full disclosure in a very timely fashion like
one of the proposals before us will do, and you would let the
electorate judge. Then you would not have the heavy hand of regulation.
Let the electorate do it. The Founders did not want a government czar
regulating our freedom of speech.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, only those with enough money to buy the
megaphone would get to speak. Yes, the rich would be heard. But the
average person, he might be able to read about which rich person is
being heard, but he could not express himself if the almighty dollar is
how you buy access to television and radio and speech.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me respond. I respectfully submit
that is utter nonsense. The Supreme Court itself observed in the
Buckley case that there is no obligation for the government to fund
people in making their speech, but we all have the right to make the
speech we want to make.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have 5 more minutes.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The rule on this bill limits
debate. Unanimous consent is out of order at this time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. GEJDENSON. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, there would be nothing to preclude the
gentleman and I continuing our discussion following the allotted time
in making a statement at that point. So the gentleman could get
additional time at the end.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the 5-minute rule, the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) or the gentleman from California (Mr.
Doolittle) could request additional time.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, we will carry on at that point.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I am now privileged to yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), the author of the
legislation that should be before us and is the most significant reform
bill before the Congress today.
(Mr. MEEHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I take the floor today certainly not to
defend the status quo or the present system we have, but rather to rise
and thank my colleagues, especially the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), and all of the
other sponsors, my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks),
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn), who have been fighting for the commission bill.

{time} 1800

And I also want to suggest that by voting ``present'' rather than
``yes'' on their own amendment, both the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn Maloney) will
help us shore up the necessary majority to pass the Shays-Meehan bill.
Three years ago Frank MacConnell stood up at a town meeting in
Claremont, New Hampshire and asked Speaker Gingrich and President
Clinton to commit to passing a campaign finance reform bill. The
Speaker and the President shook hands on that. One year later, after no
commission, Frank MacConnell came to Washington to ask Speaker Gingrich
and President Clinton to commit to passing the McCain-Feingold, Shays-
Meehan bill rather than establishing a commission.
The bottom line is that voting to solely establish a commission
rather than a commission as part of the Shays-Meehan bill will further
delay action on campaign finance reform until next year, despite the
fact that we have an historic opportunity to pass real campaign finance
reform now. By incorporating the commission bill into the Shays-Meehan
bill, we really have the best of both worlds: Number one, we have
campaign finance reform this year, plus a mechanism through which we
can look for bipartisan routes to achieve additional reforms down the
road.
If my colleagues support campaign finance reform, I am asking them to
join with the lead Democratic sponsors to vote ``present'' or ``no'' on
the commission bill as a stand-alone substitute. I believe that we have
a majority of the Members of this House who are ready to pass real
campaign finance reform. I believe that that majority is ready to make
the commission bill part of the Shays-Meehan bill. The only way that we
can do that under the present rules is if we join together.
And I am delighted at the way reformers from all parts of the
country, who have been working over the last several years, are coming
together to form a critical mass at a critical point in time to
establish the majority we need to pass real campaign finance reform.
Let us not miss this opportunity. Let us join together. Vote
``present'' or ``no'' on this particular stand-alone bill and then let
us amend the Shays-Meehan bill and get real campaign finance reform.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining on each side?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The gentleman from Washington
(Mr. White) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Ney) has 3 minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Gejdenson) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, do I understand correctly that the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) has the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Gejdenson) is speaking in opposition. On general debate, the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. White) has the right to close.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, this should be a time that I really feel
great, and I do not, and I have only myself to blame. What I do not
feel great about is the sense that somehow this is going to be a brutal
fight and we are going to make lots of enemies in the process.
For me, I believe with a passion in the Meehan-Shays bill. I believe
passionately for this bill because it bans soft money, both at the
Federal and State level, for Federal elections; that it, for once,
recognizes that the sham issue ads are truly campaign ads and treats
them as campaign ads and comes under the campaign laws; that we finally
codify Beck, which makes it clear that a nonunion member does not have
to pay money in his or her agency fee for political activity; that we
improve the FEC disclosure and enforcement; that we deal with franking
and ban it 6 months to an election district wide; and that we make it
clear that foreign money and raising money on government property is
illegal, which it is not right now, if it happens to be soft money.
I believe passionately in this bill. I believe it is bipartisan and I
believe it

[[Page H4688]]

should pass. I also believe that the commission bill has a role to play
but it does not have a role to play if it replaces the Meehan-Shays
bill.
I heard my colleague, who is a very outstanding Member of Congress
and has tried to elevate the debate, talk about blame yourself and take
responsibility. I think when we take responsibility, we take action.
And action is to ban soft money; to recognize that the sham issue ads
are campaign ads and treat them that way. I believe that that is taking
responsibility. I think it is not taking responsibility to say that our
leaders will appoint members who will supposedly come out with a bill
that my colleague believes we can all support. I do not know what they
will do.
I wish my Speaker had lived up to his word and moved forward with a
commission bill 3 years ago, because we would now have a commission
before us and we could vote it up or down. But that was 3 years ago. I
do not intend to wait another year to take action, because I want to
take responsibility for my vote. So I encourage my colleagues to vote
``present'' on the commission bill. I encourage them to vote ``yes'' on
the rule. I encourage them to vote ``yes'' on Meehan-Shays and oppose
all amendments except one, attach the commission bill to the Meehan-
Shays proposal.
Attach the commission bill and we can frankly have the best of both
worlds: We can take action now on soft money and on these sham issue
ads and we can deal with all the host of other issues that my colleague
feels we have not addressed. If my colleague, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. White), feels we have not addressed it, then he too
should support an amendment to Meehan-Shays that puts the commission
bill into the Meehan-Shays bill.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Maine (Mr. Allen), who has played such a major role in campaign
finance reform since he entered this Chamber.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in opposition to this bill, but not because I do not think it
has merit. And I commend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White), the
gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Maloney), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for their
efforts on behalf of campaign finance reform. But we need reform now,
not later.
As a co-chair of the freshman bipartisan task force, I want to say
that one of the appealing things about this bill is that it reflects
very much the process that we went through as freshmen. There were six
Republicans and six Democrats. We sat down, we learned together, we all
shared the experience of the 1996 campaign when the airwaves were
flooded with the results of more soft money than had ever been raised
or spent in any cycle and with more issue advocacy money than had ever
been raised or spent in any cycle. So I understand the importance of
this bipartisan process. But the way the commission bill is coming up
now is this: It will, if passed, if it gets enough votes, block a
chance to ban soft money now. It is reform later, not reform now. It
will block a chance to get real control over issue advocacy now, not
later.
Both the Shays-Meehan bill and the Hutchinson-Allen freshman bill
deserve to come up for a debate and deserve to have a real vote. They
represent real reform. They represent reform now; the kind of bill we
could send to the Senate and expect them to act on during this session.
So I want to urge everyone who may support the commission bill to vote
``no'' or ``present'' and to give real reform a chance.
Finally, I would say this. An earlier speaker, the gentleman from
California, said the problem is government regulation. I disagree. The
problem is big money in politics. And whenever we hear the words ``free
speech'', we have to be careful, because sometimes they mean ``big
money''. The gentleman from California is a sponsor of a provision that
would take all the limits off, hard money limits off, so that
individuals could give $50,000, $100,000, $500,000, $1,000,000 to an
individual candidate. That is not the law now and it is simply wrong to
drag the red herring of free speech across this debate when what we are
really talking about is big money.
We need to contain the influence of big money in politics and we do
that by banning soft money and by banning it now.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from the great State of Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand), my
neighbor, to close for our side.
(Mr. WEYGAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my neighbor from
Connecticut for allowing me to close on this very important issue.
I have to compliment the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) in the
great effort that they have put forward. When I look and listen to what
the gentleman has said, it really strikes home.
But I look at this picture here that was taken 3 years and 1 week ago
tomorrow, and that was the commitment we had back then. Let us put
together a commission to truly study the things that the gentleman has
talked about today. Because when we talk about soft money and all the
other things that run into this, the people back home, their eyes glaze
over. They wonder what we are really talking about here in Washington.
They want true reform.
And the reason for it is that the average American today can no
longer run for Congress. What we have done with the system that we have
today is divorced all Americans, the majority of Americans, from
running for this Congress. The gentleman's bill today would just
further extend that divorce. It would further extend it to 4 years or 5
years by the time we had true reform.
When we first started this great assembly here, our founding fathers
said this chamber should have its pulse on the feeling of America, not
in the pocketbooks of the special interests, which is exactly where it
is right now. For the average American, they cannot afford $1 million.
The average American wants a voice in this chamber and they want it
now. Unfortunately, the great effort that the gentleman has put
forward, which I believe is wonderful in its intent, will just further
exacerbate and procrastinate our decision to move forward on true
campaign finance reform.
I urge my colleagues and the Members in the House to vote ``no'' or
simply ``present''. Let us move on with real reform. Let us not
relinquish our responsibility to do this now. Let us not delay any
further. Campaign finance reform today, not tomorrow.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Doolittle).
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Weygand) if he would tell us what is a special interest?
What does he understand that term to be? I hear that term used a lot.
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. WEYGAND. I am sorry, would the gentleman repeat the question?
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Yes. Can the gentleman tell us what he
means by special interest?
Mr. WEYGAND. Well, let me ask the gentleman this. When a person has
to spend a million dollars or $2 million of special interest, including
the various organizations that have helped them----
Mr. DOOLITTLE. No, no, I want the gentleman to define--it is my time
and I reclaim it. What is the definition of special interest? Is all
the labor PAC money the gentleman got special interest?
Mr. WEYGAND. The special interest is what controls the Chamber here,
and the gentleman knows that. And what I am asking the gentleman----
Mr. DOOLEY of California. So the answer then is yes, it is a special
interest. The gentleman is receiving money, gobs of it, from special
interests and he honestly sits here and pretends that does not happen.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I
think we have had a good example of why we need campaign finance reform
here.
I admire the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), I admire a lot
of

[[Page H4689]]

the people on the other side, and I appreciate the efforts of many of
the Democrats who worked with us on our bill. And, frankly, I agree
with the gentleman from Connecticut. I think we need to take personal
responsibility for this vote. But what all the arguments we have heard
today really boil down to is, we do not want to do the commission
because we want to do it our way.
Now, doing it my way was fine for Frank Sinatra, but when we are
talking about elected Members of this House, whose personal self-
interest depends on what these rules are, I think it is a little bit of
a stretch to say we have to do it our way.
Banning soft money? That would be fine, but are we going to lose the
opportunity to have real comprehensive, long-term reform, simply so we
can ban soft money today? It seems to me the balance swings pretty
heavily in the other direction.
So let me just go through a little analysis here. Let us say I was
one of the 94 Democrats who cosponsored my bill and I was now trying to
figure out, gee, how should I vote on this. The first question I would
ask myself is: Why would I vote against this bill? Would I vote against
it because it is fake reform? It is not real reform? No. This is the
only bill that really gives us independent neutral reform.
Would I vote against this because it is a political game? It is one
party trying to stick it to the other party? No. This is the only bill
that is neutral, the only bill where one party cannot try to stick it
to the other party.
Would I vote against this bill because it is only partial reform? It
is the same thing we have right now? No, I would not, because this is
the only bill that guarantees us a full package of reform that is
carefully thought through.
Would I vote against it because it favors incumbents? No. It is
probably the only bill we will ever get, the only way we will ever get
a bill that does not favor incumbents is if it is somebody who is not
an incumbent suggesting it. So I do not think my colleagues should vote
``no'' on the bill unless the real reason they are voting ``no'' is
because they lose the right to write these rules.
Why would I vote ``present'' on this bill? Well, usually we vote
``present'' to show we are here. That is a step in the right direction.
Or maybe someone would vote ``present'' because they cannot decide on
this bill. But, frankly, the real reason people will vote ``present''
on this bill, if they do vote ``present'', is because they are getting
their arm twisted by the leadership of their party because they want to
do it their way. And I would suggest that is a mistake.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that the only way to vote on this
bill is to vote ``yes''. It is the only way we get a fair bill, the
only way we get an impartial bill, the only way we get a bill that does
not have politics at its core, and it is the only way we are really
going to restore some dignity to this House.

{time} 1815

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). All time having expired, it is
now in order to consider Amendment No. 16 printed in the Congressional
Record.

Amendment No. 16 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. White

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

Amendment No. 16 in the nature of a substitute offered by
Mr. White:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Independent Commission on
Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1998''.

SEC. 2. 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 Act 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. 3. 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) 3 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) 3 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) 3 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) 3 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 3 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 4 members of the
Commission may be of the same political party.

SEC. 4. POWERS OF COMMISSION.

(a) Hearings.--The Commission may, for the purpose of
carrying out this Act, 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 9 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. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

(a) Pay and Travel Expenses of Members.--(1) Each member of
the Commission shall be paid at a rate equal to the daily
equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay payable for level
IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5,
United States Code, for each day (including travel time)
during which the member is engaged in the actual performance
of duties vested in the Commission.
(2) Members of the Commission shall receive travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in
accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United
States Code.
(b) Staff Director.--The Commission shall, without regard
to section 5311(b) of title 5, United States Code, appoint a
staff director, who shall be paid at the rate of basic pay
payable for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section
5315 of title 5, United States Code.
(c) Staff of Commission; Services.--
(1) In general.--With the approval of the Commission, the
staff director of the Commission may appoint and fix the pay
of additional personnel. The Director may make such
appointments without regard to the provisions of title 5,
United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive
service, and any personnel so appointed may be paid without
regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of
chapter 53 of that title relating to classification and
General Schedule pay rates, except that an individual so
appointed may not receive pay in excess of the maximum annual
rate of basic pay payable for grade GS-15 of the General
Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Experts and consultants.--The Commission may procure by
contract the temporary or intermittent services of experts or

[[Page H4690]]

consultants pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United
States Code.

SEC. 6. 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 Fifth 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, including any changes in the
rules of the Senate or the House of Representatives, to which
9 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 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. 7. EXPEDITED CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION.

(a) In General.--If any legislation is introduced the
substance of which implements a recommendation of the
Commission submitted under section 6(b) (including a joint
resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution),
subject to subsection (b), the provisions of section 2908
(other than subsection (a)) of the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 shall apply to the consideration of
the legislation in the same manner as such provisions apply
to a joint resolution described in section 2908(a) of such
Act.
(b) Special Rules.--For purposes of applying subsection (a)
with respect to such provisions, the following rules shall
apply:
(1) Any reference to the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives shall be deemed a reference to the
Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives
and any reference to the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate shall be deemed a reference to the Committee on Rules
and Administration of the Senate.
(2) Any reference to the date on which the President
transmits a report shall be deemed a reference to the date on
which the recommendation involved is submitted under section
6(b).
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (d)(2) of section 2908 of
such Act--
(A) debate on the legislation in the House of
Representatives, and on all debatable motions and appeals in
connection with the legislation, shall be limited to not more
than 10 hours, divided equally between those favoring and
those opposing the legislation;
(B) debate on the legislation in the Senate, and on all
debatable motions and appeals in connection with the
legislation, shall be limited to not more than 10 hours,
divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the
legislation; and
(C) debate in the Senate on any single debatable motion and
appeal in connection with the legislation shall be limited to
not more than 1 hour, divided equally between the mover and
the manager of the bill (except that in the event the manager
of the bill is in favor of any such motion or appeal, the
time in opposition thereto shall be controlled by the
minority leader or his designee), and the majority and
minority leader may each allot additional time from time
under such leader's control to any Senator during the
consideration of any debatable motion or appeal.

SEC. 8. TERMINATION.

The Commission shall cease to exist 90 days after the date
of the submission of its report under section 6.

SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Commission
such sums as are necessary to carry out its duties under this
Act.
Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to establish the
Independent Commission on Campaign Finance Reform to
recommend reforms in the laws relating to the financing of
political activity.''.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I think we have had a good debate on this
bill over the last hour. And I hope all our colleagues are listening
from their offices. I would hope that there will not be any amendments.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The author of the legislation says we cannot have it our way because
he wants it his way. He is telling us, unless we do it his way, we are
not for doing it. Well, let us take a look at the history.
I will venture a guess, and I do not believe in prophecy as a general
rule from this Chamber anyway, that when you look at the people who
voted for reform in the past, they will be voting ``no'' or they will
be voting ``present.'' And for the folks back home, the reason they
will vote ``present'' or ``no'' is because they know that this is
simply an attempt at the moment to undercut Shays-Meehan, which will
give us a more comprehensive shot at reform.
If somebody who is an original cosponsor of the bill votes ``no,''
they are afraid of the 30-second ad that says they voted one way and
then they voted the other way. And to make sure that nobody can do that
to anybody on either side of the aisle, we are working to make sure
that we can add to Shays-Meehan the prospects of adding a commission
that can do even more good work if they think a commission adds to the
process.
But the fundamental debate, the real debate, I think, is between the
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) and myself. And I hope the
gentleman is still here. I enjoy debating with him, because I think he
honestly speaks what he believes.
Some of us in this Chamber believe that a society has the right to
guarantee that those without power, those without wealth have a right
to speak. I have said this on the floor before. Democracy is a process
that is evolutionary in its nature.
The great efforts by the British, starting with the Magna Carta, did
not provide for democratic opportunity for all their citizens. It
simply provided rights for the nobility, that the nobility in their
dealings with the king would have a right to have a process so their
property would not be taken away.
With the revolution that occurred on these shores, our great Founding
Fathers took another step forward. They said that we did not have to be
noblemen to have rights in this process; if we simply were men and
owned land, we could vote. And they wrote a Constitution that
guaranteed that white men who owned property would have the right to
vote.
And slowly in this society, we have expanded that right to include
women and minorities. It was a struggle.
Today, the struggle is about whether or not electoral politics will
be about money, that rather than an aristocracy we will be a
``cashocracy,'' whether or not it will simply be the wealthiest
individuals who will reach into their pockets and their friends'
pockets to spend tens of millions of dollars to try to win elective
office, or whether average citizens have an opportunity to feel they
are relevant to the political process.
In California, we saw tens of millions of dollars be the litmus test
for entry into the race. This country prospers because we include all
of our citizens. We make sure that everyone gets an education, that
everybody gets to vote. And if we limit the political process to only
the wealthy, only those who will curry favor with the wealthy, we will
see the demise of this great Nation.
This Nation grows because we expand opportunity and we give everyone
an equal shot and do not just rig it for the rich.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would just remind the gentleman from Connecticut that in Buckley,
which is the ruling case on this whole issue, the Supreme Court case,
it says very clearly in the case, ``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.''
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the
gentleman makes an excellent point. The Supreme Court in this case is
dead wrong.
Remember, we have a Supreme Court that for 50 years said separate and
equal were okay. Well, people who did not believe in segregation did
not lie around wringing their hands that we

[[Page H4691]]

had a Supreme Court that believed we could have black kids in a school
that was falling apart and have a shining, air-conditioned school for
the white kids. We fought segregation.
I think the same thing comes here. I respect the separation of
powers. This Supreme Court thinks rich people have a right not just to
dominate, but to have exclusive domain in the political process. I
think that is wrong. I think a real democracy values its citizens and
their statements even if they have no wealth.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, under the present disastrous system
which this philosophy has given us, the philosophy of my colleague, the
only ones who have unlimited rights are the rich. But somebody who is
not rich, who wishes to go and run for a Federal office, is forced
under these terrible laws that we have to go and raise money in dribs
and drabs. They spend all their time doing that instead of addressing
the issues.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
What I would like to see happen is to deregulate. If you deregulate,
they are not going to have soft money. It will not be needed. Issue
advocacy will dramatically drop.
Look at what went on in the Commonwealth of Virginia in the
gubernatorial elections, where they had men and women of average means
running. I think the current governor is the son of a butcher. They had
the campaigns running. They were able to raise their money. It was all
reported. Nobody claimed that it was an aristocracy or nobility. No,
there was no hint of graft in that election, and they do not have these
regulations.
Where we have had the present scheme of regulation due to inflation
over the years, money has had to come in through other ways because the
hard money has never been adjusted for inflation since 1974. And yet,
we have had two-thirds of those limits eroded by inflation.
If I may ask the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), why do
you folks not agree to adjust those limits at least for inflation?
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. GEJDENSON. I would say two things. One is, I fundamentally
disagree with two of the concepts of my colleague. One is that by
making everything soft money, basically, under the proposal of my
colleague, we could have unlimited contributions to individual
candidates.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Reclaiming my time, let me just say, everything is
hard money, not soft money.
Mr. GEJDENSON. If the gentleman would further yield, fine, it is all
legal in the sense that it is today.
So, for instance, if somebody in my colleague's district came with a
double tractor-trailer full of hundred dollar bills for his campaign,
as long as it was reported, he thinks that is enough?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I think we all stipulate, the present regulation, it
should not be cash, it should be a check. But, yes, that is enough.
That is enough because the American people are the judges, not a
government czar.
Mr. GEJDENSON. So how does a candidate who does appeal to really rich
people, where does he get the resources to get heard?
If the rich people can own the stock in the newspapers, if they can
own the TV stations, and if they can write $10 million checks to the
candidate, if they represent poor people, how do they get their voice
out, how do they get heard, how do they buy TV time unless they also
find some rich sugar daddy?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. The point is, right now, only the people who are
personally rich can spend unlimited amounts of money. At least under
this system, if they are not rich themselves, they can go to those who
have money and they can contribute to them instead of just the limit of
$1,000 they are limited to now.
Mr. GEJDENSON. So my colleague wants to go back to the old system,
which instead of cash will now be checks from a handful of rich people.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. It is not from a handful at all. It would be from a
number of people. It would all be reported. And if people think that is
too much, they would not vote for them in the election.
What is the matter with that? That is freedom. That is disclosure.
That is the American system.
Mr. GEJDENSON. No. The American system has been a system that has
tempered the free market to make sure that none of our citizens--
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Reclaiming my time, that is the system you liberal
Democrats gave us. The Democrats took away the American system and gave
us the government regulation of political speech.
Mr. GEJDENSON. If the gentleman would continue to yield, that system,
which you condemn in public education and all these other forums, has
the highest standard of living in the world, has the biggest economy in
the world, is the idol of every other economy in the world.
The countries that followed the model of my colleagues and let the
wealthy alone control education and the economy and politics have
fallen by the wayside.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Reclaiming my time, it is the people of my colleague
who own the New York Times, the Washington Post, every major newspaper
in this country; and under their system, they can do whatever they
like.
And under a Shays-Meehan/Hutchinson-Allen bill, they are the only
ones who will have the freedom of speech.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Those are Democratic papers?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, they certainly are not Republican papers.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Well, they are not Democratic papers. I read their
editorials every day.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. My colleagues want more regulation, more government
and less freedom.
I might point out that since the 1974 FECA amendments, political
participation has steadily declined in this country. And then I hear
the philosophy of the gentleman and bootstrap that to demonstrate why
we need more government regulation, which would be further reduction.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Members are reminded that they need to
yield and reclaim time so that only one Member is speaking at a time.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) controls an additional
30 seconds.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would just say in 30 seconds that my
colleague talks about giving everyone equal rights; and it is so
interesting that in the Shays-Meehan bill and the bills that ban soft
money, they are allowing politicians and their hard money to spend
more, but they are shutting out other people from speaking on political
elections by banning soft money, because soft money is simply money
spent by groups interested in the political process to express their
views.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PASCRELL. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my friend, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) that, yes, as we have had
increasing amounts of money spent, participation has gone down. We
ought to limit spending in campaigns.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, we are back to the beginning if we
listened to the last two speakers. As in the beginning, we here in this
House are divided into two groups, one group that says there is too
much money in campaigns and another group that says there is never
enough money in campaigns. And the more that you have, the more free
speech that you have.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) explicitly and
implicitly stated just a few moments ago what this debate is all about.
And that is, what he is really after is an unlimited number of dollars
in campaigns. That is the crux of the debate. Regardless of the
amendments, regardless of substitutions, that is the crux of the
debate.
The issue of campaign finance reform is not the same as base
closings. In base closings, we had a need for an

[[Page H4692]]

independent commission that could break the impasse that existed,
because no one wanted to vote to close a base in their own State. There
is no comparison between the subjects that we discuss today and the
subjects that were discussed in past Congresses, none whatsoever.
With campaign finance reform, we are not voting to close a base and
put anyone out of business, no. Passing campaign finance reform is an
entirely different subject. The only reason to pass and create a
commission is to avoid making a hard-choice decision ourselves.
The people did not send us here to put the hard decision on someone
else's shoulders, Mr. Chairman. That is not why I came. They sent us
here to make the decisions in this House. By voting on the freshman
bill or Shays-Meehan, we have the opportunity to vote for real reform.
We should not pass our responsibilities off to others.
Mind you, we are going to select the folks that are serving on this
commission. No sitting Member can be a member of the commission and
that group out there is going to make the decision for us to live by in
our raising dollars so that we can be elected and reelected.
The people of this country created a commission already. It is called
the Congress. And the Congress is up for election every 2 years, Mr.
Chairman.

{time} 1830

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PASCRELL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman indicated we spend too
much money on campaigns. I just wonder if he could tell us what is too
much money or perhaps what is the appropriate amount of money that we
should spend.
Mr. PASCRELL. In the debate that we are having here on this floor,
the two major bills that we are discussing and, according to the
Speaker of this House, the bill that we are discussing as a base bill
deals with soft money. That is money that comes into the campaign in
the last 3 or 4 weeks which if you have not received and collected
enough hard money, you cannot win that election in the last 3 or 4
weeks unless you are way ahead. He knows it and I know it. We are
talking about soft money that we do not know how much is really spent
in a campaign, and that is true with Democrats and Republicans. This is
not a partisan issue.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me just ask the gentleman, setting aside for a
minute soft money, then, since that is somewhat nebulous and it is not
spent by the candidates themselves, how much hard money is enough?
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I for one agree with the gentleman from
Connecticut, that there should be caps on how much is spent. Under the
present Supreme Court decision, that cannot happen. I would say the
average congressional campaign, if that is what we are talking about
here, we can look at how much is being spent in hard money across the
United States of America. I would be willing to discuss that with the
gentleman.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, the main point is that today, tonight, we can pass a
bill that will ban soft money from campaigns. That is an important
achievement.
Many of us in this body have sat through many hearings on alleged
campaign abuses. But what was in common in every alleged campaign abuse
was soft money. So instead of pointing fingers at each other and having
partisan investigations or hearings, let us work together and actually
do something about it. This is a very modest proposal. It would ban the
soft money. It would clean up third-party expenditures. So instead of
delaying tonight, let us pass hopefully Shays-Meehan, send it to the
Senate where a majority has already supported it, and a Democratic
President has come out and said that he will sign it into law.
So we have an historic opportunity to this night pass meaningful, not
all that needs to be done, but very meaningful reform, reform that
other Members, particularly on the other side of the aisle, have been
most critical of. So instead of criticizing, let us do something. Let
us ban the soft money. We do not have to wait to do it.
One of the things that I wanted the commission bill to do was to ban
soft money. But we do not have to wait for the commission bill to do
it. We can do it tonight. We do not have to wait 180 days. Quite
frankly, I did not think that we would be able to get this vote in this
Congress. That is why I worked so hard on the commission bill, to force
something to the floor. But right now we have it before us. We do not
have to wait. We can vote tonight and let our constituents know that we
are serious about changing the system in a very meaningful way.
Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to compliment very much my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays), not only for their hard work and their willingness to
compromise, to really roll back their bill to basically two major
issues, that of banning soft money and cleaning up third-party
expenditures. Now, they have generously indicated that they will accept
an amendment to their bill, Shays-Meehan, which accomplishes a great
deal, of the commission, which, after we enact and sign into law Shays-
Meehan, will allow 180 days for members appointed by legislative
leaders on both sides of the aisle to come forward with other important
proposals. But the main point is we do not have to wait. We can do it
tonight. And we should.
I compliment the leadership on the other side of the aisle for moving
forward, hopefully tonight, with a vote on Shays-Meehan, so that we can
ban soft money, we can take care of these abuses that so many Members,
particularly on the other side of the aisle, have been so critical of,
they have said has been wrong. Let us do something about it. Let us
take it out of the system and show our constituents that we are serious
about something that is far more important than our own reelections,
that of making our campaign system more accountable to the people who
vote for us by taking out of the system this huge, massive amount of
money that flows into our campaigns called soft money.
Mr. Chairman, I can say when I ran for Congress, my opponent outspent
me five to one. I was one of the few Members who ever gets elected when
you are outspent in that type of way. The area where most of this money
flows into campaigns is through the soft money loophole. So even if
that is all we accomplish, we will have accomplished a great deal.
Mr. Chairman, I compliment really all of my friends on both sides of
the aisle for their work on Shays-Meehan. I am hopeful that my leaders
on the commission bill on both sides of the aisle will join me in
voting ``present'' on the commission bill, moving quickly towards
Shays-Meehan so we can send it to the Senate, so they can act on it, so
we can send it to the President and enact it into law. It is important
reform. It is meaningful reform. But due to the nature of the rule, a
vote for the commission bill is a vote against Shays-Meehan. It is in
effect a vote against Shays-Meehan. That is why we have to vote ``no''
or ``present'' on the commission bill. If we pass this amendment, if we
pass the commission bill, it would prevent us from passing legislation
to ban soft money, to clean up third-party expenditures and to
accomplish many very important substantive reforms.
I ask my colleagues who are cosponsors to vote ``no'' or ``present.''
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White).
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana very
much for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take a few moments to respond to
the gentlewoman from New York who, I have to say, has been a wonderful
partner to have in our process of putting together the commission bill.
I understand that she is torn in this situation and the situation that
many of us find ourselves in. But I would say the gentlewoman is
absolutely right to make the point that the Shays-Meehan bill is a
modest proposal. That is exactly what is wrong with it. It is not a
comprehensive reform. And we are losing the chance to have a commission
that

[[Page H4693]]

would develop comprehensive reform simply to do a few modest things
that frankly are more of the same, more of the same regulations that we
have had in the past.
Mr. Chairman, to say that we are going to lose the chance to really
reform the system so that we can do some modest little things right now
does not make sense to me.
I know some people have suggested that we should add the commission
process to the Shays-Meehan approach, and I would respectfully suggest,
just what does that mean? What would it mean to say, we are going to
have a commission that gets to write all the rules, but it is going to
be appended to a bill that writes some other rules, too. The whole
point of the commission bill is that we do not get to write these rules
ourselves. We are too involved. We do not have perspective. We always
want to do it our way. The whole point of the commission is to let a
neutral group write fair rules so that we can then vote on it up or
down and we will still have the right to say ``no'' if we think that is
what we have to do. But any other approach, no matter how we try to
slice it, no matter how we try to explain it away, no matter how we try
to it vote on it under the rule that put us in this difficult position
where we have to vote against a bill that we really like, the fact is
that if Members vote against the commission bill, they are voting
against it because they want to do it their way. I would respectfully
submit that is the problem we have had with every campaign finance bill
passed by this Congress. We always do it our way, it always feathers
our nests, and that is the reason we have gotten ourselves in the
situation we are in right now.

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to respectfully respond to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. White) my colleague and really partner on the
commission bill with whom we went through innumerable hours of work on
this bill. I would really like to point out that Shays-Meehan will
accomplish banning soft money and third-party disclosure now, and that
is very important.
If my colleague recalls that on our negotiations on the commission
bill, and believe it or not, it was difficult to reach that fragile
flower of consensus on the commission bill. One of the things that I
had in my bill was that the commission should address soft money. Some
Members on the other side of the aisle objected to that being included
in the commission bill. So then to argue that Shays-Meehan will not be
comprehensive enough, in all due respect, I do not believe is a very
genuine argument.
I would like to point out to all of my colleagues who are sincere
reformers on both sides of the aisle, is that we can pass Shays-Meehan
tonight, banning soft money and other proposals, and enact it into law.
An amendment that is attached to Shays-Meehan with the commission bill
will not touch the important reforms in Shays-Meehan but will allow all
the other many good ideas from the gentleman from California (Mr.
Doolittle), from the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White), from
everyone here to be considered and reported back in 180 days. But what
we have before us tonight is a vote where we can actually accomplish
something, we can actually pass meaningful reform, banning soft money
tonight.
As I say, many of us have sat through so many hearings where alleged
abuses in campaigns, all of which involved soft money. We now have an
opportunity, in the best of bipartisan spirit, with Shays-Meehan, to
actually do something about the abuses that many of my friends on the
other side of the aisle have been critical of. So by passing Shays-
Meehan, we can ban soft money but we can attach the commission bill and
discuss all of the other options and report back in 180 days.
Ms. KILPATRICK. If I could make just one point, Mr. Chairman, I am
one of those who heard much of the testimony and am looking forward to
the vote. It is unfortunate that we are making a mockery of the
process. We have a vehicle before us. We hope that we will pass and
vote on it soon.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Doolittle).
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to pose a question to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) if I might. She had spoken
against soft money and we are desirous of banning it. I just wanted to
read a quote by Mr. Robert F. Bauer. He is a leading Democrat election
lawyer and counsel for the Ohio Democratic Party in its current suit
against the FEC to have a court strike down the FEC's allocation
formula which deals with soft money because the allocation formula
requires parties, even though they are engaging in issue advocacy, to
spend 60 percent of that from hard money funds as opposed to what
everybody else can do from soft money. What he said was, ``Government
control over money is control over free speech.'' I just wondered how
she felt about that. Is that a statement that she agrees with or
disagrees with?
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I certainly support free
speech. But I think what we need to focus on is what is in front of us,
not some letter to the Federal Election Commission. And what is in
front of us is the opportunity to vote for a good, clean bill, a modest
bill. Many of us would like to have seen much more in it. That is why
attaching a commission to it will allow us to do more in 180 days, but
we do not have to wait 180 days. Tonight we can vote on two very
important reforms. Let us do it. Let us focus on passing Shays-Meehan
and let our constituents know that we came here to do something far
more important than work for our own reelections, that we want to do
something that is important to them, and, that is, reform the campaign
system.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Solomon).
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, let me just recall Members' attention to
the procedure that we are under here now. We had the general debate on
this bill. Now we are on 1 hour of general debate which we have used up
on the commission alternative. We are now on the 5-minute rule. The
intention of the 5-minute rule is to allow Members to offer germane
amendments to this issue.

{time} 1845

We have been on this for some time now. Some of the debate has been
interesting, but we are going too far with this, and there are Members
on their side of the aisle and on ours that say that someone is
stalling, they want to drag this thing out. We have gone past the
intended hour of debate, we are now on the amendment process, and no
amendments are being offered.
My point is that now we ought to move on. If there are not going to
be amendments offered, we ought to have a vote on this, and then we
ought to move on to regular procedure and get this House moving. That
is regular order.
Mr. POMBO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Bilbray).
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to echo the chairman of
the Committee on Rules.
I am one of those dirty dozen that wanted to vote on these issues.
There is proper discussion, there is proper dialogue, but I would ask
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to remember we are here to
vote on this issue eventually, so I think the time has come for us to
be able to do what we say we want to do, and that is vote either for or
against proposed legislation as it comes up.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Doolittle).
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I would just observe I do not think any
of this debate has in any way been improper. I mean this is getting
right to the heart of what these issues are, and frankly I would just
want to say that I

[[Page H4694]]

think we are going to have to have this kind of freewheeling debate to
really bring out the different points of view. I have no desire to
prolong it, and if there is no desire to offer amendments, I have no
objection to going to a vote.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). If there are no further
speakers, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 156,
noes 201, answered ``present'' 68, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 241]

AYES--156

Aderholt
Archer
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Bryant
Burr
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Fossella
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Jones
Kim
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
McCrery
McDade
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Pappas
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)

NOES--201

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Armey
Baesler
Baldacci
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Campbell
Cannon
Capps
Carson
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Coyne
Crapo
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
DeLauro
DeLay
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Evans
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goode
Granger
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lampson
Lazio
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lowey
Luther
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Porter
Poshard
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schaffer, Bob
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snyder
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson
Tierney
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weygand
Whitfield
Wise
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--68

Andrews
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Becerra
Bilbray
Bishop
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Castle
Clement
Cramer
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Deutsch
Dingell
Dooley
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fox
Frost
Gephardt
Gordon
Harman
Hilliard
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kucinich
Lantos
Leach
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
McCarthy (NY)
McHale
Minge
Pallone
Pascrell
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Rivers
Rush
Sanchez
Sandlin
Shays
Sisisky
Slaughter
Spratt
Stabenow
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thurman
Torres
Turner
Wamp
Wexler
Woolsey

NOT VOTING--9

Cooksey
Gonzalez
Greenwood
Hastings (FL)
Johnson (WI)
Kasich
McNulty
Schumer
Sherman

{time} 1913

Mrs. CHENOWETH changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. SNOWBARGER, HEFLEY, SHADEGG, and NETHERCUTT changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
Messrs. CRAMER, BECERRA and RAHALL changed their vote from ``no'' to
``present.''
Mr. BLAGOJEVICH and Mr. BOEHLERT, and Mrs. CLAYTON, Mrs. KENNELLY of
Connecticut and Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri changed their vote from
``present'' to ``no.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

{time} 1915

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Sununu, Chairman pro tempore of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
2183) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reform the
financing of campaigns for elections for Federal office, and for other
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________