[Pages H6790-H6818]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN INTEGRITY ACT OF 1997

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McInnis). 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} 1744

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. Shimkus (Chairman pro tempore) in the
chair.

{time} 1745

The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). When the Committee of the
Whole House rose on Monday, July 20, 1998, the request for a recorded
vote on the amendment by the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Linda
Smith) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) had been postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Salmon to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Salmon to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:
Add at the end the following new title:

TITLE ___--POSTING NAMES OF CERTAIN AIR FORCE ONE PASSENGERS ON
INTERNET

SEC. 01. REQUIREMENT THAT NAMES OF PASSENGERS ON AIR FORCE
ONE AND AIR FORCE TWO BE MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH
THE INTERNET.

(a) In General.--The President shall make available through
the Internet the name of any non-Government person who is a
passenger on an aircraft designated as Air Force One or Air
Force Two not later than 30 days after the date that the
person is a passenger on such aircraft.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply in a case in
which the President determines that compliance with such
subsection would be contrary to the national security
interests of the United States. In any such case, not later
than 30 days after the date that the person whose name will
not be made available through the Internet was a passenger on
the aircraft, the President shall submit to the chairman and
ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence of the House of Representatives and of the
Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate--
(1) the name of the person; and
(2) the justification for not making such name available
through the Internet.
(c) Definition of Person.--As used in this Act, the term
``non-Government person'' means a person who is not an
officer or employee of the United States, a member of the
Armed Forces, or a Member of Congress.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut may state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I just need to know what list we are
following in terms of order. I am not suggesting that the gentleman is
out of order. I just do not know.
I thought we were going from the Smith amendment to the Rohrabacher
amendment, which is the amendment which eliminates the individual
contribution limits. I thought that was the next amendment in order. Is
there an order that we are following?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair believes The Committee is
following the order under the previous order of the House.
Mr. SHAYS. Right. Do we have that order available so that we could
see what that order is?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The order on July 17 was accompanied by a
list of amendments in a prescribed order.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I believe it has the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), which is unanimous consent No. 16 to be
followed by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), which is unanimous
consent No. 17,

[[Page H6791]]

again with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), unanimous consent No.
18. That is what I had down as the order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair understood that the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) was offering Amendment No. 14.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Salmon) is next. I am sorry. I thought that amendment had been
withdrawn. Okay.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Salmon) for 5 minutes.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, Air Force One and related aircraft have a noble
history. These special aircraft were first put into service for
President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944.
In 1961, the designation Air Force One was first used on behalf of
President John F. Kennedy. President Lyndon Johnson took the oath of
office on Air Force One in 1963.
Air Force One also provides all presidents with the security and the
communications equipment they would need in case of an international
crisis, a noble history now sullied.
President Clinton and Vice President Gore created a new use for Air
Force One and Air Force Two, taxpayer-funded boondoggles for fat-cat
contributors and toys for special interests.
According to the Boston Globe, President Clinton flew aboard Air
Force One with 56 major contributors during 1996 and 1997, often with
government picking up the tab. Donors who gave $5,000 or raised at
least $25,000 for the Clinton-Gore campaign accompanied Clinton aboard
the presidential aircraft.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. It requires the
President to make available via the Internet the name of any
nongovernment person who is a passenger on an aircraft designated as
Air Force One or Air Force Two no later than 30 days after that person
is a passenger.
An exception is made if there are national security concerns. In such
cases, the President shall submit to the chairman and ranking member of
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House and Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate the name of the person and the
justification for not making the name available through the Internet.
It is time the American people, our constituents, know which special
interests are flying on taxpayer-funded aircraft. I urge my colleagues
to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Meehan) rising in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am rising in opposition. I would like to
reserve the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for 5 minutes.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, just by way of explanation, what is the intent of the
amendment? Because perhaps we can work out an agreement on it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, the intent of the amendment is simply
disclosure. It is not just for this administration, for any
administration in the future. I have a concern that there are possibly
people who are contributors to either of the parties or to candidates
who may be rewarded by flying on Air Force One.
I am simply wanting to make sure that any nongovernmental person that
flies aboard Air Force One or Air Force Two, those are the two
specified in the amendment, would be disclosed via the Internet so that
we would have full disclosure of who those people might be.
If there is a national security concern which would preclude them
from disclosing that information, then that would be granted. That
would waive them from that requirement.
Mr. MEEHAN. Reclaiming my time, right now the names of the people who
fly on Air Force One would be of public record; is that correct?
Mr. SALMON. According to my understanding, not necessarily so, and
not necessarily in a timely manner. I am asking that, through my
amendment, that it be done within 30 days, just like we do in our
campaigns. When we get contributions from special interests, we have to
publish that information and fully disclose it to the public. I am
simply asking that the White House live by the same standards when it
comes to possible perks for contributors.
Mr. MEEHAN. Reclaiming my time, what specifically would be the
provisions with regard to something that was in the national security
interest not to disclose a name?
Mr. SALMON. That would be determined by members on the Committee on
National Security. As I mentioned, they would be required to submit in
writing to the chairman of the committee, the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, and the ranking member. If they concur there
is a national security reason for not disclosing that information, then
it is not disclosed.
Mr. MEEHAN. Reclaiming my time, the Pentagon would not be able to
make those determinations, or the State Department would not be able to
make those determinations?
Mr. SALMON. I am sure that they would work in tandem with those
members. If they feel that there is a valid concern, absolutely, their
input would be, I am sure, paramount, as it always is. If they feel
that there is a literal reason that national security might be
compromised by disclosing those names, that would be a compelling
reason enough to not have to disclose that information, and that is
included in the amendment.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, we would accept the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Arizona yield to me?
Mr. SALMON. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to agree that this is an
amendment that we can accept, and I apologize to the gentleman. I
thought he had withdrawn it, but I think this amendment does no harm to
the bill.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I thank both gentlemen.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) to the amendment in the nature
of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was
agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher to the Amendment in the Nature of
a Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:
Add at the end of title V the following new section (and
conform the table of contents accordingly):

SEC. 510. PARTIAL REMOVAL OF LIMITATIONS ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO
CANDIDATES WHOSE OPPONENTS USE LARGE AMOUNTS OF
PERSONAL FUNDS.

(a) In General.--Section 315 of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(i)(1) If a candidate for Federal office makes
contributions or expenditures from the personal funds of the
candidate totaling more than $1,000 with respect to an
election, the candidate shall so notify the Commission and
each other candidate in the election. The notification shall
be made in writing within 48 hours after the contribution or
expenditure involved is made.
``(2) In any case described in paragraph (1), any person
who is otherwise permitted under this Act to make
contributions to such other candidate may make contributions
in excess of any otherwise applicable limitation on such
contributions, to the extent that the total of such excess
contributions accepted by such other candidate does not
exceed the total of contributions or expenditures from
personal funds referred to in paragraph (1).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to elections occurring after January
1999.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Friday,

[[Page H6792]]

July 17, 1998, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and a
Member opposed, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise to introduce a nonpartisan amendment that
will level the campaign playing field. Currently, the campaign playing
field is heavily weighted to the advantage of wealthy Americans. By
lifting the $1,000 limit a candidate may raise when a candidate is
being faced with a wealthy opponent, this cap will be raised, which
will make it possible to match the amount his or her wealthy opponent
contributes to his or her own campaign.
In other words, and I know this sounds a little complicated, if my
amendment passes, if my wealthy competitor writes a $1 million check to
his or her own campaign, I will no longer be faced with the impossible
task of raising the same amount of money that my opponent has donated
to his or her campaign in $1,000 increments. Instead, the cap will be
lifted so that it is possible for me to match the amount that my own
opponent has spent on his or her own campaign.
As current campaign law stands, wealthy candidates can spend an
unlimited amount of their own money, while their unfortunate opponents
are stuck with raising small amounts of money in order to match that
amount that their wealthy opponent has contributed to their own
campaign. This has given the wealthy a tremendous advantage over their
opponents.
It is the most glaring inequity of our current campaign finance
system, and it has resulted in a spectacle that no one would have
predicted. It is the unintended consequence of limiting contributions
to political campaigns.
Instead of opening up our elections to the American people, today
politics is becoming the arena of the rich, rich candidates who have
nonwealthy opponents at a tremendous disadvantage. The rich pour
resources into their own campaigns. This means most of us are in a
position of getting steamrolled by a wealthy opponent.
So I urge my colleagues to level the campaign playing field and to
update our campaign finance laws and give nonwealthy Americans a chance
to be elected to Congress. Rather than having to worry and have the
parties out always recruiting wealthy people, let us level this field
so that if someone is wealthy and pumps $1 million into their campaign,
a nonwealthy opponent can raise an equal amount to have an equal race.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which
was, frankly, one of my amendments. I do think that Congress needs to
deal with how we respond to those who have unlimited wealth, and one
way is to do it the way the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher)
has suggested.
Unfortunately, his amendment, an amendment that I offered on another
bill, would kill the coalition that exists for passing bipartisan
reform.
Let me explain to my colleagues that the Meehan-Shays bill does three
basic things. It bans soft money, the unlimited sums from individuals,
corporations, labor unions, and other interest groups that go to the
political parties and then get rerouted right back down to individual
candidates.
It secondly calls the sham issue ads what they truly are, campaign
ads, which means we cannot use corporate money or dues money from labor
60 days from an election. It means that we have to report our
expenditures.
The third thing we do is we have FEC enforcement, Federal Election
Commission enforcement, and disclosure by way of electronic means in
the Internet.
This amendment seeks to do something beyond the scope of our basic
bill. I will also say that our basic bill includes the commission bill,
the commission bill brought forward on a bipartisan basis. We would
suggest that the very issue that the gentleman is presenting to this
Congress should be dealt with by the commission.
We have 37 amendments, if no more are withdrawn before we deal with
the Meehan-Shays substitute and deal with the various amendments.
Sixteen are poison pills, seven are ``no'' votes in our view, four are
leaning ``no'', seven are neutral, three are ``yes''.
The bottom line to the amendment of the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rohrabacher), he is one of the 16 poison pill amendments that will
kill our coalition. On that basis, I have to encourage defeat of it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1800

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Rohrabacher) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 3 minutes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I hope everyone is listening very closely to this argument.
Supposedly, this will kill the whole purpose of this bill. That is a
lot of baloney. If we are talking about campaign finance reform and we
are going to leave the whole campaign arena to rich people, what good
is that reform?
In fact, without my amendment, the good work of the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) is going to do nothing but further give very
wealthy Americans the leverage to take control of the political process
in America. So what is all this reform about if we are not going to
handle that problem?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, the problem with this amendment is we are
trying to find a way to reduce the influence of money in American
politics; we are not trying to find a way to allow hundreds of
thousands of dollars of additional money into the process.
This amendment would potentially create a huge loophole through which
wealthy individuals could funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars in
contributions to a single candidate through the hard money system. The
reason why the Shays-Meehan bill bans soft money is to put an end to
the notion of these enormous contributions from private individuals.
This amendment would provide a new way for special interests to
influence the legislative process. That is why I would urge my
colleagues to oppose this amendment. Even when we have a wealthy
candidate putting his or her own money into it, that is an excuse for a
private individual to then begin to funnel hundreds of thousands of
dollars into a campaign.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Obviously, if we just listen very closely to what is being said here,
these gentlemen are trying to cut off other avenues for ordinary
Americans to raise money for their campaigns, leaving the political
arena in the control of such wealthy Americans that every Member of
this body who is not rich shudders at the thought of having a wealthy
candidate in their district step forward and pump so much money in that
he or she will be eliminated just because they just cannot raise the
money in small increments.
The Shays-Meehan supposed reform is making this problem worse, and by
not accepting this amendment, I am afraid that they are disclosing
themselves at just how effective they think their own bill is going to
be
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains for both individuals?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays)
has 2 minutes remaining; the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Rivers), our distinguished colleague.
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, there is a very interesting debate going on
here, because the arguments are being put forward as if there is
currently a provision within the system that allows for an offset of
one individual, if a wealthy individual runs against them.

[[Page H6793]]

The law is very clear right now that if someone chooses to fund their
campaign on their own dollars, they are allowed to do that, and a
candidate who is running against them can raise money through a variety
of ways to do it. They are not limited in how much money they can
raise.
Nothing in Shays-Meehan limits the ability of people to raise money.
So the argument that Shays-Meehan has to be amended to deal with a
problem created by that proposal is ludicrous. It leaves the system
exactly as it is now. Someone who is using their own money is free to
use as much of that wealth as they would like to. Individuals who rely
on contributions can raise as much as they wish, but this is not
necessary.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Of course, anyone listening to this debate must wonder what bill we
are really discussing after listening to that last statement.
The purpose of this bill, as we have heard from the authors of this
bill, is to reduce the avenues of money coming into political
campaigns. Let us restrict it.
What I am saying is that today, with an unintended consequence of
similar legislation in the past, we have given a tremendous advantage
to rich people. Both of our parties are going out enlisting very
wealthy Americans, rich people, in order to run for office, and more
and more millionaires are coming here, because we are restricting the
avenues in which ordinary Americans can raise money for political
campaigns. My amendment would correct that unintended consequence of
this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
With the 1 minute I have remaining, I would just like to acknowledge
the fact that the amendment that our colleague wants to offer is
offering an amendment that would allow unlimited contributions from an
individual; he can raise $1 million from one individual. This is
contrary to the reform measure that we are bringing forward.
We ban soft money that goes to the political parties, the unlimited
sums from individuals, corporations, labor unions and other interest
groups. We call the sham issue ads what they truly are, campaign ads,
and we have FEC disclosure and enforcement. We are against allowing
unlimited sums from individuals, and that is why we oppose this, and
that is why it would break apart the coalition that exists between
Republicans and Democrats to pass this bill.
This amendment is offered in good faith by my colleague, but the
bottom line is, it will kill Meehan-Shays.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
First and foremost, this does not permit unlimited contributions, the
gentleman is absolutely wrong, and I hope people are paying attention
to the debate. The unlimited contributions that we are setting is the
limit which a wealthy person puts into his or her own campaign. That is
stated very clearly. There is a limit. Why should we permit wealthy
Americans to buy these seats because we have not given a fair chance
for nonwealthy Americans to have a shot at the election process?
This is not fair, and that is what we are trying to do. I thought
that is what this bill was all about. I guess it is not.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman has 15 seconds remaining.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The bottom line is if a wealthy person spends $1 million under my
colleague's proposal, he could raise $1 million from another wealthy
individual.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher) has 15 seconds remaining.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Obviously we would like to be fair to all Americans, and that is not
what this bill is all about, if we prevent nonwealthy Americans from
raising the funds they need to deter these attacks on wealthy citizens
trying to steal these elections for themselves.
Let us make sure we open up the system, make sure there is more money
available to all candidates, not just to the rich.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time having expired, the question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13
offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 442, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rohrabacher) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13
offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) will be
postponed.
It is now in order to consider the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Paul).

Amendment Offered by Mr. Paul to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Paul to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:
Add at the end the following new title:
TITLE __--BALLOT ACCESS RIGHTS

SEC. __01. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Voting participation in the United States is lower than
in any other advanced industrialized democracy.
(2) The rights of eligible citizens to seek election to
office, vote for candidates of their choice and associate for
the purpose of taking part in elections, including the right
to create and develop new political parties, are fundamental
in a democracy. The rights of citizens to participate in the
election process, provided in and derived from the first and
fourteenth amendments to the Constitution, have consistently
been promoted and protected by the Federal Government. These
rights include the right to cast an effective vote and the
right to associate for the advancement of political beliefs,
which includes the ``constitutional right . . . to create and
develop new political parties.'' Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S.
279, 112 S.Ct. 699 (1992). It is the duty of the Federal
Government to see that these rights are not impaired in
elections for Federal office.
(3) Certain restrictions on access to the ballot impair the
ability of citizens to exercise these rights and have a
direct and damaging effect on citizens' participation in the
electoral process.
(4) Many States unduly restrict access to the ballot by
nonmajor party candidates and nonmajor political parties by
means of such devices as excessive petition signature
requirements, insufficient petitioning periods,
unconstitutionally early petition filing deadlines, petition
signature distribution criteria, and limitations on
eligibility to circulate and sign petitions.
(5) Many States require political parties to poll an unduly
high number of votes or to register an unduly high number of
voters as a precondition for remaining on the ballot.
(6) In 1983, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional an
Ohio law requiring a nonmajor party candidate for President
to qualify for the general election ballot earlier than major
party candidates. This Supreme Court decision, Anderson v.
Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) has been followed by many
lower courts in challenges by nonmajor parties and candidates
to early petition filing deadlines. See, e.g., Stoddard v.
Quinn, 593 F. Supp. 300 (D.Me. 1984); Cripps v. Seneca County
Board of Elections, 629 F. Supp. 1335 (N.D.Oh. 1985);
Libertarian Party of Nevada v. Swackhamer, 638 F. Supp. 565
(D. Nev. 1986); Cromer v. State of South Carolina, 917 F.2d
819 (4th Cir. 1990); New Alliance Party of Alabama v. Hand,
933 F. 2d 1568 (11th Cir. 1991).
(7) In 1996, 34 States required nonmajor party candidates
for President to qualify for the ballot before the second
major party national convention (Arizona, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and
Wyoming). Twenty-six of these States required nonmajor party
candidates

[[Page H6794]]

to qualify before the first major party national convention
(Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and West
Virginia).
(8) Under present law, in 1996, nonmajor party candidates
for President were required to obtain at least 701,089
petition signatures to be listed on the ballots of all 50
States and the District of Columbia--28 times more signatures
than the 25,500 required of Democratic Party candidates and
13 times more signatures than the 54,250 required of
Republican Party candidates. To be listed on the ballot in
all 50 States and the District of Columbia with a party
label, nonmajor party candidates for President were required
to obtain approximately 651,475 petition signatures and
89,186 registrants. Thirty-two of the 41 States that hold
Presidential primaries required no signatures of major party
candidates for President (Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin). Only three States
required no signatures of nonmajor party candidates for
President (Arkansas, Colorado, and Louisiana; Colorado and
Louisiana, however, required a $500 filing fee).
(9) Under present law, the number of petition signatures
required by the States to list a major party candidate for
Senate on the ballot in 1996 ranged from zero to 15,000. The
number of petition signatures required to list a nonmajor
party candidate for Senate ranged from zero to 196,788.
Thirty-one States required no signatures of major party
candidates for Senate (Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,
South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia,
Wyoming). Only one State required no signatures of nonmajor
party candidates for Senate, provided they were willing to be
listed on the ballot without a party label (Louisiana,
although a $600 filing fee was required, and to run with a
party label, a candidate was required to register 111,121
voters into his or her party).
(10) Under present law, the number of petition signatures
required by the States to list a major party candidate for
Congress on the ballot in 1996 ranged from zero to 2,000. The
number of petition signatures required to list a nonmajor
party candidate for Congress ranged from zero to 13,653.
Thirty-one States required no signatures of major party
candidates for Congress (Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina,
Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming). Only one
State required no signatures of nonmajor party candidates for
Congress, provided they are willing to be listed on the
ballot without a party label (Louisiana, although a $600
filing fee was required).
(11) Under present law, in 1996, eight States required
additional signatures to list a nonmajor party candidate for
President on the ballot with a party label (Alabama, Arizona,
Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee).
Thirteen States required additional signatures to list a
nonmajor party candidate for Senate or Congress on the ballot
with a party label (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Idaho, Hawaii, Kansas, Louisiana, North Dakota, Nebraska,
Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee). Two of these States (Ohio and
Tennessee) required 5,000 signatures and 25 signatures,
respectively, to list a nonmajor party candidate for
President or Senate on the ballot in 1996, but required
33,463 signatures and 37,179 signatures, respectively, to
list the candidate on the ballot with her or his party label.
One State (California) required a nonmajor party to have
89,006 registrants in order to have its candidate for
President listed on the ballot with a party label.
(12) Under present law, in 1996 one State (California)
required nonmajor party candidates for President or Senate to
obtain 147,238 signatures in 105 days, but required major
party candidates for Senate to obtain only 65 signatures in
105 days, and required no signatures of major party
candidates for President. Another State (Texas) required
nonmajor party candidates for President or Senate to obtain
43,963 signatures in 75 days, and required no signatures of
major party candidates for President or Senate.
(13) Under present law, in 1996, seven States required
nonmajor party candidates for President or Senate to collect
a certain number or percentage of their petition signatures
in each congressional district or in a specified number of
congressional districts (Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Virginia). Only three of
these States impose a like requirement on major party
candidates for President or Senate (Michigan, New York,
Virginia).
(14) Under present law, in 1996, 20 States restricted the
circulation of petitions for nonmajor party candidates to
residents of those States (California, Colorado, Connecticut,
District of Columbia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan,
Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia,
Wisconsin). Two States restricted the circulation of
petitions for nonmajor party candidates to the county or
congressional district where the circulator lives (Kansas and
Virginia).
(15) Under present law, in 1996, three States prohibited
people who voted in a primary election from signing petitions
for nonmajor party candidates (Nebraska, New York, Texas,
West Virginia). Twelve States restricted the signing of
petitions to people who indicate intent to support or vote
for the candidate or party (California, Delaware, Hawaii,
Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Utah). Five of these 12 States
required no petitions of major party candidates (Delaware,
Maryland, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah), and only one of the
six remaining States restricted the signing of petitions for
major party candidates to people who indicate intent to
support or vote for the candidate or party (New Jersey).
(16) In two States (Louisiana and Maryland), no nonmajor
party candidate for Senate has qualified for the ballot since
those States' ballot access laws have been in effect.
(17) In two States (Georgia and Louisiana), no nonmajor
party candidate for the United States House of
Representatives has qualified for the ballot since those
States' ballot access laws have been in effect.
(18) Restrictions on the ability of citizens to exercise
the rights identified in this subsection have
disproportionately impaired participation in the electoral
process by various groups, including racial minorities.
(19) The establishment of fair and uniform national
standards for access to the ballot in elections for Federal
office would remove barriers to the participation of citizens
in the electoral process and thereby facilitate such
participation and maximize the rights identified in this
subsection.
(20) The Congress has authority, under the provisions of
the Constitution of the United States in sections 4 and 8 of
article I, section 1 of article II, article VI, the
thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments, and other
provisions of the Constitution of the United States, to
protect and promote the exercise of the rights identified in
this subsection.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
(1) to establish fair and uniform standards regulating
access to the ballot by eligible citizens who desire to seek
election to Federal office and political parties, bodies, and
groups which desire to take part in elections for Federal
office; and
(2) to maximize the participation of eligible citizens in
elections for Federal office.

SEC. __02. BALLOT ACCESS RIGHTS.

(a) In General.--An individual shall have the right to be
placed as a candidate on, and to have such individual's
political party, body, or group affiliation in connection
with such candidacy placed on, a ballot or similar voting
materials to be used in a Federal election, if--
(1) such individual presents a petition stating in
substance that its signers desire such individual's name and
political party, body or group affiliation, if any, to be
placed on the ballot or other similar voting materials to be
used in the Federal election with respect to which such
rights are to be exercised;
(2) with respect to a Federal election for the office of
President, Vice President, or Senator, such petition has a
number of signatures of persons qualified to vote for such
office equal to one-tenth of one percent of the number of
persons who voted in the most recent previous Federal
election for such office in the State, or 1,000 signatures,
whichever is greater;
(3) with respect to a Federal election for the office of
Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to,
the Congress, such petition has a number of signatures of
persons qualified to vote for such office equal to one-half
of one percent of the number of persons who voted in the most
recent previous Federal election for such office, or, if
there was no previous Federal election for such office, 1,000
signatures;
(4) with respect to a Federal election the date of which
was fixed 345 or more days in advance, such petition was
circulated during a period beginning on the 345th day and
ending on the 75th day before the date of the election; and
(5) with respect to a Federal election the date of which
was fixed less than 345 days in advance, such petition was
circulated during a period established by the State holding
the election, or, if no such period was established, during a
period beginning on the day after the date the election was
scheduled and ending on the tenth day before the date of the
election, provided, however, that the number of signatures
required under paragraph (2) or (3) shall be reduced by \1/
270\ for each day less than 270 in such period.
(b) Special Rule.--An individual shall have the right to be
placed as a candidate on, and to have such individual's
political party, body, or group affiliation in connection
with such candidacy placed on, a ballot or similar

[[Page H6795]]

voting materials to be used in a Federal election, without
having to satisfy any requirement relating to a petition
under subsection (a), if that or another individual, as a
candidate of that political party, body, or group, received
one percent of the votes cast in the most recent general
Federal election for President or Senator in the State.
(c) Savings Provision.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall not
apply with respect to any State that provides by law for
greater ballot access rights than the ballot access rights
provided for under such subsections.

SEC. __03. RULEMAKING.

The Attorney General shall make rules to carry out this
title.

SEC. __04. GENERAL DEFINITIONS.

As used in this title--
(1) the term ``Federal election'' means a general or
special election for the office of--
(A) President or Vice President;
(B) Senator; or
(C) Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner
to, the Congress;
(2) the term ``State'' means a State of the United States,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
and any other territory or possession of the United States;
(3) the term ``individual'' means an individual who has the
qualifications required by law of a person who holds the
office for which such individual seeks to be a candidate;
(4) the term ``petition'' includes a petition which
conforms to section __02(a)(1) and upon which signers'
addresses and/or printed names are required to be placed;
(5) the term ``signer'' means a person whose signature
appears on a petition and who can be identified as a person
qualified to vote for an individual for whom the petition is
circulated, and includes a person who requests another to
sign a petition on his or her behalf at the time when, and at
the place where, the request is made;
(6) the term ``signature'' includes the incomplete name of
a signer, the name of a signer containing abbreviations such
as first or middle initial, and the name of a signer preceded
or followed by titles such as ``Mr.'', ``Ms.'', ``Dr.'',
``Jr.'', or ``III''; and
(7) the term ``address'' means the address which a signer
uses for purposes of registration and voting.
____

(Participation by presidential candidates in debates with candidates
with broad-based support)

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Friday, July 17, 1998, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.

Point of Order

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
THE CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a perfecting amendment, it
is not in the nature of a substitute, and that has been cleared in the
Committee on Rules.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk designated it as an amendment to
the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, both amendments that I have should be
perfecting amendments, and if permissible, I ask unanimous consent that
they both be accepted as such.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is an amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The gentleman is amending the Shays-Meehan
amendment in the nature of a substitute as permitted by the rules.
Mr. PAUL. I thank the Chair for the clarification.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It is an amendment that
deals with equity and fairness, so I would expect essentially no
opposition to this.
It simply lowers and standardizes the signature requirements and the
time required to get signatures to get a Federal candidate on the
ballot. There are very many unfair rules and regulations by the States
that make it virtually impossible for many candidates to get on the
ballot.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make 4 points about the amendment. First, it
is constitutional to do this. Article I, section 4, explicitly
authorizes the U.S. Congress to, ``At any time by law make or alter
such regulations regarding the manner of holding elections.'' This is
the authority that was used for the Voters Rights Act of 1965.
The second point I would like to make is an issue of fairness.
Because of the excess petition requirements put on by so many States
and the short period of time required, many individuals are excluded
from the ballot, and for this reason, this should be corrected. There
are some States, take, for instance, Georgia, wrote a law in 1943.
There has not been one minor party candidate on the ballot since 1943,
because it cannot meet the requirements. This is unfair. This amendment
would correct this.
Number 3, the third point. In contrast to some who would criticize an
amendment like this by saying that there would be overcrowding on the
ballot, there have been statistical studies made of States where the
number of requirements, of signature requirements are very low, and the
time very generous. Instead of overcrowding, they have an average of
3.3 candidates per ballot.
Now, this is very important also because it increases interest and
increases turnout. Today, turnout has gone down every year in the last
20 or 30 years, there has been a steady decline in interest. This
amendment would increase the interest and increase the turnout.
The fourth point that I would like to make is that the setup and the
situation we have now is so unfair, many are concerned about how money
is influencing the elections. But in this case, rules and regulations
are affecting minor candidates by pushing up the cost of the election,
where they cannot afford the money to even get on the ballot, so it is
very unfair in a negative sense that the major parties penalize any
challengers. And the correction would come here by equalizing this,
making it more fair, and I would expect, I think, just everybody to
agree that this is an amendment of fairness and equity and should be
accepted.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I request the time in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert).
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment,
but the real purpose is to focus my remarks on the need for the Shays-
Meehan substitute rather than the specifics of this particular
amendment, which are not the real issue.
The reason we need Shays-Meehan is quite simple and quite stark. The
legitimacy of the American political process is being undermined.
I do not use these words lightly or as a mere rhetorical flourish. We
can try to convince ourselves that all is well, salving ourselves with
polls showing the approval for Congress is relatively high. Ironically,
some argue that all is well because money is flowing into our campaign
covers. This is like saying that a cancer patient is in better shape
than someone without cancer, because that person might have more cells.
But in any event, a closer look tells a less rosy story. Polls show
that many Americans do not know the first thing about Congress, the
names of their representatives, which party is in control, and so
forth. Discussions with average Americans uncover a deep cynicism about
the political process; and looking at what in other circumstances we
call the only poll that truly counts, Americans are simply abandoning
the election booth.

{time} 1815

Turnout is at an alltime low. Alienation from the political system is
at an historical high. There could be no greater danger in a democracy.
We are in the midst of a silent crisis.
Campaign finance reform does not rank high as a concern in polls
simply because no one believes we can truly do it. They believe we are
hapless and that the situation is hopeless, so they just continue to
turn away. This is as corrosive a disease for the body politic as can
be imagined. It is no less serious because the symptoms do not appear
fully until it is too late to fashion a cure. So I congratulate the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for designing a cure while there is still
time.
Some people have said that the side effects of this cure are so
severe that we should just let the disease take its course, but that is
simply wrong. The cure is as mild as sunshine, ensuring that everyone
can see who is spending money to influence the political system. Shays-
Meehan is, quite literally, the very least we can do.
Let us look at some of the concerns opponents of this bill raise.
They say that, like previous efforts at reform, it

[[Page H6796]]

has many loopholes and unintended consequences. Yet, their solution is
to have no system at all; in short, to get rid of individual loopholes
by having a regime that is one giant void. That hardly seems like a
positive alternative.
Opponents also raise the specter of a system overrun by Federal
bureaucrats, their favored bugaboo, but this is really another way of
saying that they do not want any limits on the flow of money into the
political system.
Mr. Chairman, George Bernard Shaw once said, ``A society's morals are
like its teeth; the more decayed they are, the more it hurts to touch
them.'' It is no accident that it hurts so much to discuss our
political morality. It is time to correct it at its roots. I urge my
colleagues to vote down this amendment and to support the Shays-Meehan
substitute.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment, once again, lowers and standardizes the required
signatures to get Federal candidates on the ballot. There is a great
deal of inequity among the States, and it works against the minor
candidates and prevents many from even participating in the process.
For this reason, many individuals have lost interest in politics.
They are disinterested, and every year it seems that the turnout goes
down. This year is no exception. Forty-two percent of the American
people do not align themselves with a political party. Twenty-nine
percent, approximately, align themselves with Republicans and
Democrats. Yet, the rules and the laws are written by the major party
for the sole purpose of making it very expensive and very difficult,
and sometimes impossible, to get on the ballot.
If we had more competition and more openness, we would get more
people out to vote. It would not clutter the ballot, it would not have
overcrowding, but it would allow discourse, and it would be beneficial
to the process.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my problem with this amendment is that it would
prohibit States from erecting excessive ballot access barriers to
candidates for Federal office. It would set ballot petition signature
limits for the President, the Vice President, United States Senate, and
House candidates. In addition, it would set ballot petition time
limitations.
Protections are important, but individual States should be allowed to
control their campaign laws. Assuring there are no undue barriers to
prevent individuals from running for Federal office is imperative to
keeping our political process fair, but I am concerned with the Federal
Government imposing limitations on the States for how they govern
ballot access.
This deals with an important set of issues, and should be dealt with
not solely with this amendment, but rather, should be fully debated in
the House after the Shays-Meehan substitute has passed.
One of the things that the Shays-Meehan bill does is to provide for
an opportunity for debate and discussion through the Commission. This
is an issue that I think there should be hearings on, I think we should
have a dialogue about. But I just do not think that an amendment to the
Shays-Meehan bill is the appropriate place to deal with this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman suggests we should leave this to the States. I quoted
and cited the constitutional authority for this. It is explicit. We
have the authority to do this. There are many, many unfair laws.
Dealing with the President, for instance, the minor candidates, on
average, to get on the ballot, are required to get 701,000 signatures.
A major candidate gets less than 50,000. To get on an average Senate
seat ballot, 196,000 signatures are required for the Senate, 15,000 for
the major candidates. In the House, on the average for the minor
candidate, it is more than 13,000, where it is 2,000 for a major
candidate.
There is something distinctly unfair about this. This is un-American.
We have the authority to do it. This is the precise time to do it. We
are dealing with campaign reform, and they are forcing these minor
candidates to spend unbelievable amounts of money. They are being
excluded. They are 42 percent of the people in this country. They are
the majority, when we divide the electorate up. They deserve
representation, too.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Paul) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13
offered by Mr. Shays:
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant House Resolution 442, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) will be
postponed.
It is now in order to consider the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Paul).

Amendment offered by Mr. Paul to Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Paul to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:
Add at the end the following new title:

TITLE --DEBATE REQUIREMENTS FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

SEC. --01. REQUIREMENT THAT CANDIDATES WHO RECEIVE CAMPAIGN
FINANCING FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
CAMPAIGN FUND AGREE NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN
MULTICANDIDATE FORUMS THAT EXCLUDE CANDIDATES
WITH BROAD-BASED PUBLIC SUPPORT.

(a) In General.--In addition to the requirements under
subtitle H of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. In order to
be eligible to receive payments from the Presidential
Election Campaign Fund, a candidate shall agree in writing
not to appear in any multicandidate forum with respect to the
election involved unless the following individuals are
invited to participate in the multicandidate forum:
(1) Each other eligible candidate under such subtitle.
(2) Each individual who is qualified in at least 40 States
for the ballot for the office involved.
(b) Enforcement.--If the Federal Election Commission
determines that a candidate--
(1) has received payments from the Presidential Election
Campaign Fund; and
(2) has violated the agreement referred to in subsection
(a); the candidate shall pay to the Treasury an amount equal
to the amount of the payments so made.
(c) Definition.--As used in this title, the term
``multicandidate forum,'' means a meeting--
(1) consisting of a moderated reciprocal discussionnn of
issues among candidates for the same office; and
(2) to which any other person has access in person or
through an electronic medium.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 17,
1998, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. The major candidates
receive a lot, a million dollars, to run their campaigns. Then they
have national debates, and then they can purposely exclude other
candidates. I am not talking about 10 or 20 or 30 very minor
candidates, I am talking about candidates who spend weeks, months,
years, hundreds of thousands of dollars, just to get on the ballot.
Some will not even take the money, but some qualify to be on 40 and 50
ballots, and they are purposely excluded.
This amendment does not dictate to those who hold debates, but it
would require that those major party candidates who take the taxpayers'
money, they take it with the agreement that anybody else who qualifies
for taxpayers' funding, campaign funds, or gets on 40 ballots, would be
allowed in the debate.
I cannot think of anything that could boost the interest in the
debates more. Fewer and fewer people are watching debates. There was
the lowest turnout, the lowest listening audience to the debates in the
last-go around. It was the

[[Page H6797]]

lowest since we have had these debates on television.
Forty-two percent of the people turned out and were interested in the
debates prior to the election in 1992, and we had a major candidate,
Ross Perot. Of course, the only reason he was able to achieve a
significant amount of attention was because he happened to be a
billionaire. That is not fair. In 1996, they did a poll right before
the election to find out who was paying attention. We were getting
ready to pick the President of the United States. It dropped to 24
percent.
If we want people to be civic-minded, interested in what we are
doing, feeling like they have something to say about their government,
we ought to allow them in. We should not exclude this 42 percent that
have been excluded. I think opening up the debates in this way would
only be fair and proper. It would be the American way to do it. I
strongly urge my colleagues to support this fair-minded amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take the 5
minutes in opposition to this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) is
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), who has been a leader in our
efforts to find a way to pass real campaign finance reform.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me. The gentleman is doing a wonderful job on his
bill, along with his colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays).
Mr. Chairman, I rise on this amendment in deep concern and in
opposition to the amendment. I think the sincerity of the author is
true, but I think this is the wrong place. This whole bill is about
congressional campaign finance reform. It is how we regulate the money
that controls our elections, to get elected to this House. It is not
about presidential elections.
There might be a great debate about how to do that, but as the
gentleman knows, the presidential election process is controlled by
each of the 50 States. We have no national primary in the United
States. I think there is room for that kind of debate, whether we ought
to move in that direction, whether the process for qualifying for a
ballot ought to be more uniform, as the gentleman suggests.
But to take the gentleman's ideas about presidential debates and move
them into this bill is, I think, the wrong way to go; the wrong place,
the wrong time, and frankly, the wrong issue. So I strongly oppose this
amendment. I think the gentleman is going to try to confuse what the
underlying bill is all about.
We have to keep that in focus. We have to keep it limited to that
issue. We cannot build the coalition that we need to build if we try to
put everything in this bill, and make it a Christmas tree on all of the
ills about lack of voting in America, lack of enough debate for those
who wish to run for President of the United States from minor parties.
With all due respect for the gentleman's sincerity, I strongly oppose
this amendment, and recommend that all my colleagues oppose the
amendment, because it is probably technically germane, but it is not
politically germane to what we are trying to accomplish.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is always interesting that when we have an appropriate amendment
that seems to catch the attention of the Members, that it is probably
not the appropriate time to bring it up, and that we should hold
hearings and do it some other day.
We have been spending months, and I believe both sides of the aisle
have been very sincere in their efforts to clarify and to improve our
election process. I think this would be a tremendous benefit to the
congressional candidates as well, because there would be more interest.
People are not even listening to the debates. If they are not even
willing to listen to the presidential debates, how can they get
interested in Senate races and in House races?
The rating of the debates in 1996 was the lowest in 36 years. The
Vice-Presidential debate, we cannot even get people to listen to the
Vice-Presidential debates. It had dropped off 50 percent from 1992. In
1992, there was more interest. It is because we happened to have a
billionaire interested, and he was able to stimulate some people in
some debates.
All I am asking for is for us to endorse the notion, and we have the
authority, the money comes from congressional appropriations. We have
written these laws. These are election laws. We have this authority. We
have the authority under the Constitution and we have the authority
under our laws to do this.
So I would strongly suggest if Members are fair-minded and think they
would like more interest, or if they want to continue the way we are
going now, we are going to have less and less people interested. People
are really tired of it. The American people do not understand this
debate, but they do understand they would like to have somebody speak
up for them.
Forty-two percent of the people have been essentially
disenfranchised, and they are important. Hopefully they are important
enough to go to the polls and let us know about it. But they have been
disenfranchised because they have lost interest. They have been pushed
around, either with ballot access rules and regulations, or not being
allowed to appear.
This does not mean those candidates more on the right would happen to
be in the debate, or more on the left. It would open it up. This is
fair-minded, it is proper, it is a good place to do it. It is a chance
to vote on it, and I ask for support on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I will not use all of my time, but in conclusion,
essentially what this does is, a presidential candidate who receives
taxpayer-funded matching funds from participating in debates, they will
not be able to participate in any debates to which equally qualifying
candidates for funds would have participated in.
I agree that there should be more open and free debate, but I am also
concerned that the bill might have the opposite effect. It might
actually stifle debate, if a candidate who takes matching funds cannot
participate in the debate.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the Commission on
Presidential Debates was established in 1987 to ensure debates are a
permanent part of every general election.

{time} 1830

It handles the rules of who participates and how the presidential
debates will take place. I am concerned with the fact that if this
amendment were to pass, Congress would essentially be setting the rules
for who can and who cannot participate in presidential debates. I
believe that that decision should remain with the independent
commission.
Certainly, this is an item that in another forum that we could
discuss, have hearings on, and I think that would be in our interest.
But in any event, I feel, Mr. Chairman, that we should vote ``no'' on
this amendment and take it up at another point in time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) on this. And in a way I have a lot of
sympathy for the amendment, because I am one who feels that everyone
should have a right to participate in these debates and opportunities.
But, Mr. Chairman, there are times in almost any election,
particularly at the presidential level, in which we need to focus on
the candidates who are going to be the major candidates who the
majority of people by far in this country are going to vote on.
I think it should be up to the independent commission to make that
decision so that they can formulate it, come forward with it, and make
absolutely sure that everyone in this country who is going to be voting
for the

[[Page H6798]]

most important person in the United States has the opportunity to focus
on how well those individuals know the issues, can handle themselves
and deal with one another. So, I rise with some reluctance in
opposition to this, but I do feel it should be opposed.
In addition, I would just like to take this moment to thank the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for the extraordinary work which they have done
on this piece of legislation. It really has been an exceptional effort
by them, and I think that they deserve all the credit we can possibly
give them.
Indeed, at some later point perhaps an amendment like this should be
considered, but I think in the context of this particular bill, and
with the language which is in this amendment, we should rise in
opposition to it and I would encourage us all to oppose it.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). All time having expired, the
question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Paul) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceeding on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) will be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendments Nos.
27 and 28 offered by me be withdrawn, and my amendments Nos. 25 and 26
be considered one after another, immediately after amendment No. 19,
and the text of amendment No. 85 as submitted to the desk today be
substituted for amendment No. 29.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot entertain the third element of the
gentleman's request.
Is there objection?
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object. I first did
not understand what the Chair cannot entertain.
The CHAIRMAN. The request had three parts.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully request that we have an
understanding. We are eager to try to comply with the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip, and also to
welcome him back into the Chamber, because he has had some very
difficult things to deal with with the death of our two colleagues who
guard this place. But I would like to take each of those items so we
can see what does not remain.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's questions. What
I am attempting to do is to group three amendments together. The first
amendment would deal with what we call issue alerts, or what I call
issue alerts. The second amendment deals with background music. And the
third amendment deals with coordination.
And in order to do that, in my unanimous-consent request I am
withdrawing completely amendments Nos. 27 and 28. Then I am taking Nos.
25 and 26 and moving them up to this point in time. Mr. Chairman,
amendments 25 and 26 are the background music and the coordination
amendment.
I am taking the text of an amendment way down below, No. 85 as
pointed out in the rules, and submitting that language and substituting
that language for amendment No. 29, which was my limit express advocacy
communications.
So, I would take out the limit advocacy communications amendment
completely and substitute the amendment that deals with issue alerts,
if that makes any sense.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, what is No. 85?
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. MEEHAN. We would need to know----
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. The Committee of the Whole
cannot entertain a request to change the form of one of the amendments.
Mr. SHAYS. Then should there be two unanimous consent motions?
The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman would offer amendment 19, maybe the
staff----
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, if I could withdraw my unanimous consent
request and make a new one. That would be that I would ask unanimous
consent that amendments 27 and 28 be withdrawn completely, and 25 and
26 be considered one after another immediately after amendment 19.
To save confusion, I will go on to amendment 19 and we will work it
out with the Parliamentarian.

Amendment Offered by Mr. DeLay to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substiute..
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. DeLay to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:
Add at the end of section 301(20) of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971, as added by section 201(b) of the
substitute, the following:
(C) Exception for legislative alerts: The term ``express
advocacy'' does not include any communication which--
(i) deals solely with an issue or legislation which is or
may be the subject of a vote in the Senate or House of
Representatives; and
(ii) encourages an individual to contact an elected
representative in Congress in order to exercise the right
protected under the first amendment of the Constitution to
inform the representative of the individual's views on such
issue or legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 17,
1998, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I apologize for confusing the Committee. Mr. Chairman,
I am offering this amendment in order to ensure issue-oriented citizens
groups their first amendment right to urge like-minded citizens to
contact their elected representatives about upcoming votes in Congress.
The Shays-Meehan substitute, in my opinion, would restrict
communications that express viewpoints to incumbent lawmakers during
the period of time that this House could be in session. Now, these
communications are intended to encourage like-minded citizens to
express themselves regarding upcoming votes on the floor of the House.
My amendment makes a distinction between communications that address
upcoming votes and communications that endorse candidates for
elections, two very real differences.
Due to the time limit, I will concentrate on just one of these
restrictions. Under section 201 of Shays-Meehan, if a group sends out a
communication at any time of the year, this would include flyers or
newspaper ads or any other printed communications, that explain that
Congressman Doe, for instance, voted incorrectly on a given issue the
last time it came up and the same issue is coming up, say, again the
next week. And if voters are interested in Congressman Doe
reconsidering his vote, they should give him a call.
Under the onerous provisions of Shays-Meehan, Congressman Doe would
regard this as an attack on him and, therefore, an example of
impermissible express advocacy. Congressman Doe's reason would lie in
section 201 of the bill which states a given communication is express
advocacy if it contains words that can have no reasonable meaning other
than to advocate support or defeat, or if it contains words that
express unmistakable and unambiguous opposition. These are the words in
the bill.
Now, maybe the citizens groups' words are like, ``Do you know that
Congresswoman Smith has voted time and again in favor of brutal
partial-

[[Page H6799]]

birth abortion procedures and has repeatedly described partial-birth
abortion as a godsend?''
Maybe the words are, and I quote, ``Congressman Jones voted to strip
women of their constitutional right to choose and call it a great
stride for mankind,'' closed quote.
It does not matter what the issue is. It does not matter what side of
the issue a group is on. These groups have a right, a constitutionally
protected right, to inform like-minded constituents to contact their
representative, to let their representative know how his constituents
may feel.
Simply put, issue-oriented citizens' groups have a first amendment
right to express their opinions. These citizens deserve an unfettered,
unobstructed right, not only to be informed of political issues but
also to enjoy freedom of political speech.
I think that section 201 of Shays-Meehan prohibits any citizen group,
other than, say, a Federal PAC, from even mentioning the name of a
Member of Congress in a broadcast communication for 60 days before a
primary election and again for 60 days before a general election,
easily the most critical periods in the American electoral process.
These are the times during which citizens are frantically seeking to
inform and educate themselves as to what candidates stand for and
against, and this provision undermines and subverts the entire
electoral process.
So my amendment, I think, is a necessary measure to protect and
secure free speech and the integrity of our electoral process and allow
citizens' groups to participate in the legislative process. So I ask
support for my amendment and support for freedom of speech.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is once again an effort to
really undermine and cancel out the so-called issue ads and all of the
express advocacy and issue advocacy provisions in this bill.
If you look at the language of the amendment of the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay), you see that there is an exception, an entire
exception, to the issue advocacy provisions in case of any
communication which deals solely with an issue or legislation which is
or may be subject to a vote in the Senate or House of Representatives.
It does not say when. It could be next year. It could be 3 years from
now. It could be anything. It encourages an individual to contact an
elected representative in Congress in order to exercise the right
protected under the first amendment.
So that once again opens the door to these so-called issue ads that
attack a candidate in a clear campaign manner and does not say
``defeats so and so,'' but says, after attacking him, after vilifying
him or her, after making it clear that that person should be defeated,
does not use the term ``defeat'' but says, contact so and so.
So, the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) goes far
beyond this instance of where we may be in session and where perhaps a
group is truly not trying to campaign against that person but get a
message to that person or to his or her constituents about something
that is immediately pending.
Also I would urge that the protections we have in here are more than
adequate to take care of the problem that the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay) says he is trying to address. This is the effort of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), all over again to take out
of Shays-Meehan the issue advocacy provisions that attempt to get at
ads that proclaim or parade as noncampaign ads but are truly nothing
but that.

{time} 1845

There would be no other reasonable interpretation. So this is bigger
than driving a Mack truck through Shays-Meehan. This is one of these
amendments that has a huge truck with a lot of poison pills in them
which will sink Shays-Meehan. I think it is bad policy in and of
itself. It goes way beyond its pretended purpose.
The momentum is now on the side of campaign finance reform. We should
defeat amendments, the purpose of which is to throw a huge barrier in
front of our reaching the promised land. We can reach it. There are
some in this body who want to destroy it by any means. This is one such
instance. We do not have to be worried about freedom of speech, in our
judgment. We have carefully drafted this.
Defeat the DeLay amendment.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
If I heard the previous speaker correctly, and Shays-Meehan already
allows this in all probability, why do we not just be specific about
it? This really just says that you can contact, you can encourage
others to contact a Member of the House or a Member of the Senate
during this 60-day blockout period, if in fact there is an issue before
the Congress or likely to come before the Congress, and encourage that
they be contacted on how they would vote. When we come back in
September, everything we deal with would be in that 60-day period,
where it is arguable whether you could contact, whether you could
encourage the contact of a Member of Congress.
I think it is probably not arguable that you could call a Member of
Congress and say, we would like you to do this. It is probably not
arguable that you could write your own letter. But Shays-Meehan appears
to say that you cannot encourage others to do that.
We have got appropriations bills that will be coming, that we will
send to the Senate, others that will be coming back in conference from
the Senate. Are we saying that no group could send out a postcard that
says, contact your Member of Congress about this issue that is coming
up next week or a specific Member of Congress and mention their name?
Are we saying that nobody could send out a postcard and say, last time
this issue came up, this Member of Congress voted yes, contact them and
encourage them to vote no on the bill that is coming up this week?
I think really this gets down to the very fundamental point of issues
before the Congress at a time, if the gentleman from Michigan is
correct and it is in there, what does it hurt to make it even more
specific?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. My point is not that the DeLay amendment is in there. The
way it is drafted, it refers to all of these sham ads, whenever they
are produced, whether 60 days in advance or not. If you read section C,
it applies to subsection A and B and all the provisions therein.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would help me here for a
minute, figure this out, if you cannot mention the name of a Member of
Congress on anything you pay for, including a postcard, within 60 days
of the election, how do you alert others who feel the same way you do
about an issue to contact a given Congressman who may be, a given
Member of Congress who may be thinking about which way they want to
vote on that issue?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
first of all, again, I urge that anyone who is thinking of supporting
this amendment read it. It applies to all of the provisions on express
advocacy, whenever an ad would be launched, whether it is 60 days, 90
days, 120 days or whatever. It destroys the entire issue advocacy
provisions. That is number one.
Mr. BLUNT. Reclaiming my time, the amendment says that this deals
solely with an issue or legislation which is or may be the subject of a
vote in the Senate or House of Representatives.
Mr. LEVIN. But, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that could
be 120 days before, it could be any time and something that is subject
to a vote that could be a year away. So I just urge that the gentleman
read the amendment.
Number two, in relation to the 60-day provision, that only relates to
paid advertisements transmitted through radio or television 60 days
preceding an election. And if it is a notification through paid media
that is truly not an effort to influence a vote but influence an
election, then it should come under the same rules and regulations as
all

[[Page H6800]]

other methods of communication relating to elections and candidates.
Mr. BLUNT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just say that if
we begin to say that we cannot, with a radio ad or some other
communication, some instant communication, try to encourage that
specific Members of the Congress be contacted, we are a long way down,
I think, the wrong road.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to maintain the express
advocacy standard championed by the Shays-Meehan legislation, and we
need to do that, we cannot go halfway on this. The distinguished whip,
the distinguished leader from the other side, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay) knows that quite well. This is a complex issue. Folks
listening and watching are trying to still figure out what is the
difference between soft and hard money, maybe like some Members. But
there is a very, very severe distinction here.
We are not saying in Shays-Meehan that the candidate or dollars
cannot be spent on behalf of the candidate by other groups. What we are
saying is it must be hard money or else it is wrong and it is banned.
The whole purpose of this legislation is to ban soft money. We know how
that has grown. We are talking about two political parties that have
raised $67 million between them in the first 3 months of this year.
So we can really boil this down into two very basic things. There are
those of us on both sides of the aisle who believe there is too much
money in politics, too much money in our campaigns.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PASCRELL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, could the gentleman tell me how much money
is enough money in politics? Could the gentleman tell me how much money
is enough? The gentleman said there is too much money in it. How much
money is enough?
Mr. PASCRELL. If the average, Mr. Chairman, if the average campaign
costs $660,000, we know that we cannot put a cap on it due to a Supreme
Court decision, but working together I am sure we can come to specific
advocacy issues of ourselves, such as banning soft money. Because if
you have $10 to spend in your campaign and not $660,000, and third-
party advocacy groups can spend whatever they wish, that is not
controlling expenditures in a campaign. The gentleman knows it, and I
know it.
So I believe this Shays-Meehan is simply attempting to ban soft money
so that all of the hard money that is spent is disclosed. That is a
critical issue, Mr. Chairman.
We want the dollars, we want the names and the addresses of people
who contributed to our campaigns. That is a very underlying argument
within Shays-Meehan, disclosure, the banning of soft money. And the
sooner we do it, the better.
I think that this is what this is all about, what we are going to
open up here, and trying to go in the opposite direction. What we are
going to open up is more advocacy, more issue advocacy, more spending
of money, not only 6 months or 6 weeks but 6 days before a campaign.
I believe Shays-Meehan is on target. I believe we cannot equivocate.
This amendment is a poison pill.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, the discussion that we are having right
now goes to the very crux of this entire issue of campaign finance
reform. Those who have been advocating reform talk about special
interest money. One thing is pretty clear, special interest money is
the money of any group you do not agree with.
Second of all, too much money, no one has been able to define what is
too much money. Third of all, sham ads. What is a sham ad? It is an ad
that you do not like. Then fourth of all, disclosure.
Now, I find it ironic that I am up here this evening speaking in
favor of the majority whip's amendment to allow groups to take out ads
in the newspaper or radio or whatever to express their concern about
issues before the Congress; and you all want to stop that, in essence.
Yet a group called Public Campaign ran ads in every newspaper in my
district 2 days ago saying that Ed Whitfield does not think politicians
are hooked on special interest money so he wants to triple the dose.
Now, I did not like this. It made me feel bad to read this, every
newspaper in my district, but I think this group has a constitutional
right to run this ad if they want to run it.
But in your definition of express advocacy, you expand it so far that
you are going to eliminate and curtail the rights of groups like Public
Campaign to talk about these issues.
In fact, the third way you expand express advocacy, it says, express
advocacy is expressing unmistakable and unambiguous support for or
opposition to one or more clearly identified candidates when taken as a
whole and with limited reference to external events such as proximity
to an election.
This ad meets that definition. And under the Shays-Meehan, this ad
would be illegal. So here I am, up here defending the right of this
third party, independent group to run these ads, and all that the
majority whip's amendment does is to be sure that they have a right to
do that.
I might further say that the third way you expand the definition of
express advocacy, the Supreme Court already, in a case FEC versus Maine
Right to Life, has declared that specific language, not approximate
language, but specific language unconstitutional.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First off, we do not ban anything. This is just totally a
misstatement. The issue is whether it is an issue ad or a campaign ad.
The issue is whether you come under campaign rules or do not come under
campaign rules.
First and foremost, Mr. Chairman, we ban soft money. I do not think
that there is any amendment to try to deal with that, so that is off
the table.
The issue is dealing with sham issue ads that are truly campaign ads.
It is not that they do not have a right to do it, but they are campaign
ads and should come under the campaign rules. Organizations and labor
unions and other interest groups have tried to get around the campaign
laws by simply pretending that they are issue ads, by not saying vote
for or vote against, but mentioning the name of the candidate and
showing a picture. We have the bright line test expanded by the name of
the picture or the name of the candidate. That is for radio and TV.

{time} 1900

This is not radio or TV. This does not ban it based on the issue of
60 days before an election.
Now, there is the issue of unambiguous and unmistakable support for
or opposition to a clearly identified Federal candidate can run at any
time. Telling an individual that he should vote for something or vote
against to me does not meet that test at all. It does not meet the
unambiguous and unmistakable test that would affect this paper.
So the bottom line is radio and TV, yes. Name or the picture of the
candidate 60 days to an election, that is right. We are trying to get
at these campaign ads so people do not get around disclosure of them
and are not able to use corporate and dues money. That is the purpose
of it.
The bottom line to the gentleman's amendment is it is an exemption
that totally swallows the rule. He basically abolishes by this
amendment any attempt to deal with the whole issue of not dealing with
the recognition of sham issue ads. It basically allows for this
loophole because all you have to do is say, ``Contact your
representative,'' and then two days before the election you can then
say, ``Contact your representative and say whatever you want,'' which
is the reason why I have objection to it.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I would just say to the gentleman that I think he has
confirmed my concern and his third method of expanding express advocacy
can be by newspaper, radio, television or whatever. Reasonable minds
can disagree about what is unmistakable and

[[Page H6801]]

what is unambiguous, and that is the reason that the court has adopted
a bright line test. Your expansion of express advocacy is going to end
up right back in the courts.
Mr. SHAYS. The bright line test is emphatically what we do have, and
the name or the picture of the candidate has been what is expanded to
it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms.
Rivers).
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker said that this issue
goes to the crux of what this bill is about and it does.
A couple of weeks ago I very facetiously read a little poem by Dr.
Seuss or in a Dr. Seuss like manner and I said that what this bill was
about was about calling what waddles and quacks a duck, and that is
what this bill is about. It is about ending the ability of some
individuals and some groups to do an end run around the laws that we
have in place for electing candidates.
This seems like a very innocent proposal. But frankly to pass it
would allow some very pernicious political behavior to continue. This
proposal includes a huge loophole, and the gentleman from Michigan did
mention this to some extent. But I want to be very clear. The provision
that the majority whip proposes would include not just issues that are
scheduled to come up in front of a legislative body but issues that
might or may be scheduled in the future. This is a huge issue. This
means that any issue, any issue that conceivably could be put in front
of a legislative body should fall within this particular exemption.
A couple of weeks ago when I spoke on issue advocacy, I read from the
New York Times and other newspapers the express script of a campaign
ad, really a whole series of campaign ads that ran in Staten Island.
But they had similar gists to them. They went like this. Because one of
the candidates was a member of the New York legislature, the ads ran
talking about the number of times that that legislator had raised
taxes, a number of things that he had done as a State legislator, they
finished up by saying, even though there was no vote scheduled in the
New York legislature on taxes, ``Call Representative A and tell him to
stop raising your taxes.''
Would that fit within the exemption that the majority whip is
proposing? Absolutely. Are we dealing with an express attempt to
influence the election or defeat of a particular candidate? Yes. Are we
talking about a legislative issue that just might at some time be in
front of the legislative body that this individual belongs to? Yes. But
this is the sort of behavior we are trying to stop. We are trying to
make the rules clear and we are trying to make sure that everyone
follows them. If you are attempting to elect or defeat a candidate,
there are clear laws with which you must comply. What the majority whip
tries to do is to blur those rules and to continue to provide an end
run opportunity for those people who do not wish to follow the laws.
Please do not accept this. Let us do what I said a couple of weeks
ago. Let us make sure that we call what waddles and quacks a duck.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is exposing Shays-Meehan for what it is. The opposition to my
amendment is trying to confuse the Members. In one section of 202, they
do talk about 60 days before an election. But in other sections in 202,
they talk about other parts of the year. And 60 days it is radio or
television communication. But in other parts of the year it could be
the kind of ad that the gentleman from Kentucky was talking about.
My amendment is very, very simple. It simply states that an exemption
to the express advocacy part of their bill that deals solely with an
issue or legislation. I do not understand why the proponents of Shays-
Meehan are scared to death to have ads run against them dealing with
issues while we are in session or the next week of the session.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, there is one thing that I did want to
clarify. Obviously if you have an ad that is running and under the new
definition of express advocacy of Shays-Meehan that ad is included and,
as I said, I think it is so broad and so ambiguous and subject to so
many interpretations, the Supreme Court has already declared part of
this language unconstitutional. But obviously you can run those ads.
The gentleman was correct. You can run the ads, but the group would
have to form a PAC, the group would have to have an attorney, the group
would have to file all those reports with the FEC and that is precisely
the type of chilling effect that the Supreme Court has repeatedly said
you cannot require.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Meehan) for their extraordinary commitment to this issue and their hard
work on it for many years.
Many of the amendments that come before us tonight collectively serve
only one purpose, and, that is, to sidetrack reform. We have the power
to change that today by passing and voting for Shays-Meehan, voting
down absolutely every single amendment. We have a commission that is
attached to it that can review all of these. The Shays-Meehan as we
have said bans soft money and it also prevents the so-called
independent groups from running sham issue advocacy ads whose true aim
is to elect or defeat a particular candidate. This particular amendment
really would create a sham legislative alert. Whether it is a sham
issue advocacy ad or a sham legislative alert, all we are saying is
disclose who is paying for it. Let the American public know who is
wooing whom and pay for it, not with the huge loophole of soft money
but with hard money.
I think that all of us have been attacked by these so-called
independent groups in our campaigns. What is very troubling, in many
cases I believe these independent groups are spending more money than
the candidates themselves. But I am all for free speech. We all support
free speech. Just let the American public know who is paying for it. Is
that too much to ask? But the real point is that we have before us a
very carefully crafted bill that has what I call the fragile flower of
consensus. We have a majority of Members in this Congress that support
Shays-Meehan. We can pass it and enact it into law. We can consider
other important amendments in the commission bill. That is what we
should be doing tonight.
What I find particularly troubling is that I suspect that many of the
Members who have offered amendments this evening have absolutely no
intention for voting for Shays-Meehan. Their real agenda is to try to
destroy it with poison pills or with amendments that disrupt the
balance that we have created.
Vote for Shays-Meehan. Vote against all amendments.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
I would like to get back to the original intent of the maker of the
amendment which I think is to preserve the right to give legislative
alerts. I do not quarrel with the gentleman's motivation. I think the
motivation is proper. I do think that the bill protects that right,
because there is clearly a voting record or voting guide exception. The
term express advocacy does not include printed communication that
presents information in an educational manner solely about the voting
record or positions on a campaign issue. I think that the gentleman's
concern is well covered in the bill.
Let me tell Members the problem I think we are trying to solve with
this legislation. I think the laws of this land with regard to campaign
finance and campaign communication worked pretty well until the
relatively recent number of years. And the intensity of the fight
across the country for this Congress, for this House in particular, has
been such that it has distorted the laws. It troubles me that whenever
there is a special election in America now, we no longer rely upon the
people of that community to listen to a good debate among the
candidates, to identify who stands for which issue, participate in the
campaign and they go

[[Page H6802]]

vote. Instead, immediately out rushes Planned Parenthood, out rushes
the Family Research Council, out rushes the AFL-CIO, out rushes the
business organizations, term limits, every organization in America
rushes out and starts dumping millions and millions of dollars into
these sham ads which are just sham ads. They are sham ads not because,
as my friend from Kentucky said, we do not agree with them, because
they masquerade as something they are not. They masquerade as
information when in fact they are the most clever and deceptive and
nonproductive and nonsubstantive attacks on character and the record of
the candidates, and they need to be managed as free speech does
throughout our society.
I ask for a negative vote on the DeLay amendment.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Allen), a distinguished freshman Member of Congress.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine
(Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment like others is a poison pill.
It is designed to undermine campaign reform. It is designed to change
the Shays-Meehan bill in a way to reduce its support.
I simply want to raise a couple of things, go back to a couple of
things that have been said here. This is not about denying any group
its right to speak in American politics. This is not about preventing
groups from sending postcards. It is not about preventing people from
communicating about their representatives. What it is about is saying,
if you are going to communicate in a way that pretends to be about an
issue but in fact is meant to influence an election, we need to know
who is paying for the ads. We need to get disclosure. That is what this
is about.
There are those on the other side who preach disclosure, disclosure,
disclosure as one approach to the abuses of this campaign season,
except when it comes to outside groups running ads. And then they say,
``Oh, no, we can't have disclosure.'' We need disclosure when it comes
to issue advocacy. That is why I think this is an amendment that needs
to be defeated.
The second point I will make is just this. It was asked earlier how
much money is too much money in politics. Well, this is not about free
speech. It is about big money. It is not about protecting the free
speech of a constituent. It is about preserving big money in this
system. Too much money is unlimited money flowing to the national
parties to run ads. Too much money in politics is unlimited money with
no disclosure of who it is that is spending that money by outside
groups.
The Shays-Meehan bill is a good approach to campaign reform. I
believe there are other approaches.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. I would just like to ask the gentleman whom I think is
well motivated and well intentioned in this debate, in your sense of an
effort to persuade someone on an issue or to encourage a vote on the
issue but you said that masquerades as that when it is really something
else, who decides that is I think really my concern. Who draws the line
between what masquerades as an ad or what is really clearly encouraging
a result on an issue?

{time} 1915

What we do not want to do here is shut the door on people's ability
to rightly influence the legitimate debate of the Congress. And who
decides where that line is? What is the standard?
Mr. ALLEN. I believe that in this, as in many other areas of law,
that the law, the standard, will be developed. It will be developed by
the FEC, it will be developed by the courts over time until we have a
fairly clear understanding of what that standard is.
And we do this all the time. We write standards into law, and we hope
they are clear enough to be effectively enforced.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Meehan-Shays substitute bans soft money, and then
what we also do is we recognize that the sham issue ads are truly
campaign ads, and that is the key point. They are not sham in the sense
that they do not have a right to speak, but they are not issue ads,
they are campaign ads, and we call them such. One of our provisions is
obviously already in existing law. Vote for or vote against it; it
makes it a campaign ad. And people get around the sham issue ads by not
saying vote for or vote against, but they might as well based on what
they say. When they mention the name or show a picture of a candidate
by radio or TV, we call them campaign ads; that is true. The fact is,
though, that these voter alerts, we do not impact the voter alerts
through that process of the picture or the name.
The bottom line is, this is an amendment that is an exemption that
truly does swallow the rule. It abolishes any attempt whatsoever to
deal with sham issue ads. It is a gigantic loophole that is intending
to deal with something that is not a problem.
Now my colleague used the word ``manage.'' I do not agree it is
managed. I think it is simply saying playing by the same rules. People
have a right to speak out. They can do their legislative alerts. But if
they are on radio or TV 60 days to an election, it is going to be a
campaign ad and they come under the campaign rules with all the voice
that is allowed under that process.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The time of the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has expired.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think the opponents to my amendment are very upset
with this amendment because this amendment may pass, and they are upset
with this amendment and oppose this amendment because it exposes the
biggest part of the Shays-Meehan bill that we object to, and that is
the part that manages free speech.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania used the term we need to ``manage''
free speech. To me, that is an oxymoron. We cannot manage free speech,
particularly in the part of political advocacy and political
participation that my amendment addresses.
My amendment is very simple. It just exempts from the section of the
bill any ads or alerts sent out by groups that deal solely with an
issue or legislation which is or may be subject to a vote in the Senate
or the House of Representatives. Now why would they be afraid of issue
ads that express opposition for or support for a vote in the House of
Representatives or the Senate?
And it also exempts any communication that encourages an individual
to contact an elected representative in Congress in order to exercise
the right protected under the first amendment of the Constitution to
inform the representative of the individual's views on such an issue of
legislation.
Now, if we look at some of the opponents and what they have actually
been saying, I am going to dissect a little of it. Number one, they
confuse the whole issue by talking about bigger issues, smaller issues,
loopholes, sham ads. In fact, the gentlewoman from New York has turned
a new term of art in addition to the term of art ``sham ads'' that has
been started by the Shays-Meehan. Now we have sham issue alerts.
Can my colleagues imagine in this country of free speech, free speech
guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, we are talking
about sham issue alerts in the House of Representatives? We want to
manage the free speech of groups that may want to tell the American
people how we vote? This is what we have been talking about all along.
The proponents of Shays-Meehan are proponents, number one, that are
incumbents, and they are sick and tired of people around America
revealing, using our communication services in this country to reveal
how they vote, and so they want to get rid of these sham ads. Or they
want to manage them in such a way as to discourage them.
The gentleman from New Jersey was talking about capping spending. The
gentleman from Maine was talking about we need to know who these
subversive people are that are writing ads that may tell the American
people how we vote. And we need to know who is we? Who decides? Is we
the big-brother government at the Federal Election Commission? Of
course it is. They want

[[Page H6803]]

big-brother government to manage free speech, if we put all the
opponents' speech together. That is what they have been saying here.
What we are saying is very simple: As the gentleman from Connecticut
has said, we take care of issue alerts in our bill. It is no problem.
Of course, we cannot find it in their bill, but they just arbitrarily
say we take care of it. Well, if they take care of it, why are they
afraid of my amendment? They are afraid of my amendment because they
are afraid for people to gather together, raise some money, send out an
ad, do a radio spot that tells the American people and District 22 of
Texas how the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Tom DeLay) votes.
Mr. Chairman, I am not afraid of how I vote, and I am not afraid to
stand up and stand toe-to-toe and debate those groups that are against
the way that I vote. That is the American process. What Shays-Meehan
does in its limitation of free speech and its now-management of free
speech is wants to shut down organizations' abilities and rights to
freely express themselves in the political process because in their
bill they say communications, radio and TV, that is run 60 days before
an election, which means when we get back from the August recess in
September, if my colleagues run a radio spot that happens to say, ``Tom
DeLay voted to ban partial-birth abortions and he is a bad dude for
doing it,'' that organization could come under attack by the Federal
Election Commission, and they have no defense to say we are just
advocating a vote on the floor of the House during a pre-election
period. But in my amendment that group, whether it be Planned
Parenthood or others, could stand up and say, no, in the law it says
that we are dealing with a vote on the floor of the Senate and the
House of Representatives.
It just amazes me every time I debate this campaign reform why people
want to limit people's freedom of speech to participate in the
political process, and it all comes back to the same reason: They are
afraid for the American people to know what is going on in this town,
to know what is going on on the floor of this House, and they are
uncomfortable sometimes by some of the ads that groups run, and they
want to do away with them once and for all.
So I just ask the Members to look at my amendment, digest it,
understand it and vote for it.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time having expired, the question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 442, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay) will be postponed.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that Amendments 27
and 28 offered by me be withdrawn and my amendments 25 and 26 in the
order of July 17 on H.R. 2183 may be considered in the sequence at this
point and that 26 be modified by the form at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair cannot entertain that request in
the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the unanimous consent, and I have
Amendment No. 25 at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman intend to offer
Amendment No. 20?
Mr. DeLAY. No, Mr. Chairman. No. 25, I ask unanimous consent to take
No. 25 out of order and consider it.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. That being the case, it is now in order to
consider the amendment by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Peterson). The Committee of the Whole may not entertain a request to
consider an amendment that deviates from the previous order of the
House.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania to the Amendment in
the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Shays

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Shays:
Add at the end the following new title:

TITLE __--VOTER ELIGIBILITY CONFIRMATION PROGRAM

SEC. __01. VOTER ELIGIBILITY PILOT CONFIRMATION PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--The Attorney General, in consultation with
the Commissioner of Social Security, shall establish a pilot
program to test a confirmation system through which they--
(1) respond to inquiries, made by State and local officials
(including voting registrars) with responsibility for
determining an individual's qualification to vote in a
Federal, State, or local election, to verify the citizenship
of an individual who has submitted a voter registration
application, and
(2) maintain such records of the inquiries made and
verifications provided as may be necessary for pilot program
evaluation.
In order to make an inquiry through the pilot program with
respect to an individual, an election official shall provide
the name, date of birth, and social security account number
of the individual.
(b) Initial Response.--The pilot program shall provide for
a confirmation or a tentative nonconfirmation of an
individual's citizenship by the Commissioner of Social
Security as soon as practicable after an initial inquiry to
the Commissioner.
(c) Secondary Verification Process in Case of Tentative
Nonconfirmation.--In cases of tentative nonconfirmation, the
Attorney General shall specify, in consultation with the
Commissioner of Social Security and the Commissioner of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, an available
secondary verification process to confirm the validity of
information provided and to provide a final confirmation or
nonconfirmation as soon as practicable after the date of the
tentative nonconfirmation.
(d) Design and Operation of Pilot Program.--
(1) In general.--The pilot program shall be designed and
operated--
(A) to apply in, at a minimum, the States of California,
New York, Texas, Florida, and Illinois;
(B) to be used on a voluntary basis, as a supplementary
information source, by State and local election officials for
the purpose of assessing, through citizenship verification,
the eligibility of an individual to vote in Federal, State,
or local elections;
(C) to respond to an inquiry concerning citizenship only in
a case where determining whether an individual is a citizen
is--
(i) necessary for determining whether the individual is
eligible to vote in an election for Federal, State, or local
office; and
(ii) part of a program or activity to protect the integrity
of the electoral process that is uniform, nondiscriminatory,
and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 1973 et seq.);
(D) to maximize its reliability and ease of use, consistent
with insulating and protecting the privacy and security of
the underlying information;
(E) to permit inquiries to be made to the pilot program
through a toll-free telephone line or other toll-free
electronic media;
(F) subject to subparagraph (I), to respond to all
inquiries made by authorized persons and to register all
times when the pilot program is not responding to inquiries
because of a malfunction;
(G) with appropriate administrative, technical, and
physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure of
personal information, including violations of the
requirements of section 205(c)(2)(C)(viii) of the Social
Security Act;
(H) to have reasonable safeguards against the pilot
program's resulting in unlawful discriminatory practices
based on national origin or citizenship status, including the
selective or unauthorized use of the pilot program.
(2) Use of employment eligibility confirmation system.--To
the extent practicable, in establishing the confirmation
system under this section, the Attorney General, in
consultation with the Commissioner of Social Security, shall
use the employment eligibility confirmation system
established under section 404 of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law
104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-664).
(e) Responsibilities of the Commissioner of Social
Security.--As part of the pilot program, the Commissioner of
Social Security shall establish a reliable, secure method
which compares the name, date of birth, and social security
account number provided in an inquiry against such
information maintained by the Commissioner, in order to
confirm (or not confirm) the correspondence of the name, date
of birth, and number provided and whether the individual is
shown as a citizen of the United States on the records
maintained by the Commissioner (including whether such
records show that the individual was born in the United
States). The Commissioner shall not disclose or release
social security information (other than such confirmation or
nonconfirmation).
(f) Responsibilities of the Commissioner of the Immigration
and Naturalization

[[Page H6804]]

Service.--As part of the pilot program, the Commissioner of
the Immigration and Naturalization Service shall establish a
reliable, secure method which compares the name and date of
birth which are provided in an inquiry against information
maintained by the Commissioner in order to confirm (or not
confirm) the validity of the information provided, the
correspondence of the name and date of birth, and whether the
individual is a citizen of the United States.
(g) Updating Information.--The Commissioner of Social
Security and the Commissioner of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service shall update their information in a
manner that promotes the maximum accuracy and shall provide a
process for the prompt correction of erroneous information,
including instances in which it is brought to their attention
in the secondary verification process described in subsection
(c) or in any action by an individual to use the process
provided under this subsection upon receipt of notification
from an election official under subsection (i).
(h) Limitation on Use of the Pilot Program and Any Related
Systems.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, nothing in this section shall be construed to permit or
allow any department, bureau, or other agency of the United
States Government to utilize any information, data base, or
other records assembled under this section for any other
purpose other than as provided for under this section.
(2) No national identification card.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to authorize, directly or
indirectly, the issuance or use of national identification
cards or the establishment of a national identification card.
(3) No new data bases.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to authorize, directly or indirectly, the Attorney
General and the Commissioner of Social Security to create any
joint computer data base that is not in existence on the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(i) Actions by Election Officials Unable to Confirm
Citizenship.--
(1) In general.--If an election official receives a notice
of final nonconfirmation under subsection (c) with respect to
an individual, the official--
(A) shall notify the individual in writing; and
(B) shall inform the individual in writing of the
individual's right to use--
(i) the process provided under subsection (g) for the
prompt correction of erroneous information in the pilot
program; or
(ii) any other process for establishing eligibility to vote
provided under State or Federal law.
(2) Registration applicants.--In the case of an individual
who is an applicant for voter registration, and who receives
a notice from an official under paragraph (1), the official
may (subject to, and in a manner consistent with, State law)
reject the application (subject to the right to reapply), but
only if the following conditions have been satisfied:
(A) The 30-day period beginning on the date the notice was
mailed or otherwise provided to the individual has elapsed.
(B) During such 30-day period, the official did not receive
adequate confirmation of the citizenship of the individual
from--
(i) a source other than the pilot program established under
this section; or
(ii) such pilot program, pursuant to a new inquiry to the
pilot program made by the official upon receipt of
information (from the individual or through any other
reliable source) that erroneous or incomplete material
information previously in the pilot program has been updated,
supplemented, or corrected.
(3) Ineligible voter removal programs.--In the case of an
individual who is registered to vote, and who receives a
notice from an official under paragraph (1) in connection
with a program to remove the names of ineligible voters from
an official list of eligible voters, the official may
(subject to, and in a manner consistent with, State law)
remove the name of the individual from the list (subject to
the right to submit another voter registration application),
but only if the following conditions have been satisfied:
(A) The 30-day period beginning on the date the notice was
mailed or otherwise provided to the individual has elapsed.
(B) During such 30-day period, the official did not receive
adequate confirmation of the citizenship of the individual
from a source described in clause (i) or (ii) of paragraph
(2)(B).
(j) Authority to Use Social Security Account Numbers.--Any
State (or political subdivision thereof) may, for the purpose
of making inquiries under the pilot program in the
administration of any voter registration law within its
jurisdiction, use the social security account numbers issued
by the Commissioner of Social Security, and may, for such
purpose, require any individual who is or appears to be
affected by a voter registration law of such State (or
political subdivision thereof) to furnish to such State (or
political subdivision thereof) or any agency thereof having
administrative responsibility for such law, the social
security account number (or numbers, if the individual has
more than one such number) issued to the individual by the
Commissioner.
(k) Termination and Report.--The pilot program shall
terminate September 30, 2001. The Attorney General and the
Commissioner of Social Security shall each submit to the
Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Ways and
Means of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on
the Judiciary and the Committee on Finance of the Senate
reports on the pilot program not later than December 31,
2001. Such reports shall--
(1) assess the degree of fraudulent attesting of United
States citizenship in jurisdictions covered by the pilot
program;
(2) assess the appropriate staffing and funding levels
which would be required for full, permanent, and nationwide
implementation of the pilot program, including the estimated
total cost for national implementation per individual record;
(3) include an assessment by the Commissioner of Social
Security of the advisability and ramifications of disclosure
of social security account numbers to the extent provided for
under the pilot program and upon full, permanent, and
nationwide implementation of the pilot program;
(4) assess the degree to which the records maintained by
the Commissioner of Social Security and the Commissioner of
the Immigration and Naturalization Service are able to be
used to reliably determine the citizenship of individuals who
have submitted voter registration applications;
(5) assess the effectiveness of the pilot program's
safeguards against unlawful discriminatory practices;
(6) include recommendations on whether or not the pilot
program should be continued or modified; and
(7) include such other information as the Attorney General
or the Commissioner of Social Security may determine to be
relevant.

SEC. __02. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department
of Justice, for the Immigration and Naturalization Service,
for fiscal years beginning on or after October 1, 1998, such
sums as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this
title.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Friday, July 17, 1998, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson)
and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SHAYS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I just need to know. We have gone from
Amendment 19, and now we are going to Amendment 21. Does that mean
Amendment 20 has been dropped?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas did not offer
Amendment 20.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I seek to take the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offer today is an amendment that
is a pilot program. It would allow the Attorney General, in
consultation with the Commissioner of Social Security and the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, to establish a pilot program to
test a confirmation system through which they respond to inquiries made
by State and local officials, including local voting registrars with
responsibility for determining an individual's qualification to vote in
a Federal or State or local election, to verify the citizenship of an
individual who has submitted a voter registration application and
maintain such record of the inquiries made and verifications provided
as may be necessary for pilot program evaluation.
This is a pilot project that would expire in 2001. It would give
State and local officials the option, only an option if they want to
use it, to verify the citizenship of voters using Social Security and
INS records. It is totally voluntary. It is not a State mandate. It is
a pilot program to be used in five States that already are testing an
employee verification program for noncitizens: California, Florida,
Illinois, New York and Texas. And this expires in the year 2001, and
then a report would be written on how this system worked and if it was
effective.
Currently, the law requires citizenship to vote. The Federal law
requires it. All 50 States require it. I guess the question is, should
we enforce the law? Or should we repeal the law and not require
citizenship if one does not agree

[[Page H6805]]

with this pilot? Currently, I would ask the question: Do we have the
ability to enforce this law? And the answer is no.

{time} 1930

Can local election officials currently stop the fraud that is far too
common? Not often enough. So why do we have the requirement for
citizenship? Elections are the very lifeblood of democracy. Fraud in
election poisons our electorial system and undermines the trust that is
essential to democracy.
Under this amendment we are introducing today, State and local
election officials would be able to make inquiries to the Social
Security Administration, which has a record of citizenship when they
assign a Social Security number, and to the Immigration Naturalization
Service which can also help verify people who have submitted to
naturalization and citizenship. This would be set up by the Attorney
General.
Voting, as I suggested, is the most fundamental act of citizenship.
The people who administer our elections ought to have the access to the
information they need to ensure integrity at the ballot box.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Fazio).
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
this amendment. It is perhaps the most significant poison pill
amendment that has been offered to the underlying Shays-Meehan reform
bill.
The motor voter law which passed this Congress in the early 1990s has
proven to be a helpful way of bringing new people to the political
process. If there is a need in this country, it is to engage people in
the public debate, to bring them on to the voter rolls and to get them
to participate.
People across the country have chronicled the decline in voter
participation in primary elections and general elections. The public
interest is not served when less than a third of the American people
take the opportunity to participate in the elections that keep this
representative form of democracy vibrant.
The motor voter law was established with broad bipartisan support so
that we would remove impediments to becoming registered voters. By all
accounts, it is working. In fact, there are even those who would argue
that it is probably working far more to the benefit of Members of the
other party than many anticipated when Republicans lead the opposition
to this law.
This amendment would take on motor voter by setting up a very
difficult and unworkable voter eligibility system using Social Security
and the INS. The amendment would have, I think, a chilling effect on
the effort to bring more people into the political process and would,
as well, raise serious questions, not only of individual privacy, but
of administrative workability.
All it would take would be a brief recollection of the difficulty we
had in the case of my colleague from California Rep. Loretta Sanchez,
attempting to get information from the INS in any timely fashion to
give Members an impression that this proposal is a recipe for potential
disaster.
There is no need for us at the moment to make any significant change
in the motor voter law. There has been an outpouring of support for it
from the League of Women Voters and many other groups who strive to
introduce new participants to the American political process.
There has been no justification offered for this amendment. To the
degree that we have people voting inappropriately, I know of no reason
why our district attorneys, our State election officials, and others
responsible at the State and local level do not have the authority
today to step in and eliminate whatever minor amount of voter fraud may
exist.
So this is really a solution in search of a problem. But in real
terms, it threatens the passage of reform in this Congress, which we
all know is far more important than tinkering with the motor voter law
that, by all odds, has been implemented successfully.
If we were to take this amendment tonight and put it into this bill,
we would destroy the coalition, the bipartisan coalition that is on the
verge of enacting one of the most significant reforms in the last 25
years and under the guise of doing something to solve a problem that I
believe no one can attest to in terms of the reality of its existence
in any significant way anywhere in the country, including my home State
of California.
It goes far beyond the scope of campaign finance reform. It would
override innumerable anti-discrimination safeguards which must remain
in the law to make sure that all Americans, regardless of birth place
or appearance, ethnicity, race, creed, have equal access to the voter
rolls.
Mr. Chairman, I am in strong opposition to the Peterson amendment. I
would hope Members who care about the enactment of Shays-Meehan, who
want to go right at the heart of the dilemma we face today, and that is
that voters are opting out of the process because they do not believe
that they can impact it. They think it is only for those with money who
control our political system.
The Shays-Meehan campaign reform bill will do more to instill
confidence in the average American that it still matters if they bother
to vote. That is something that we ought to be working on, not this
fictitious problem, which I know some people on the other side of the
aisle are fixated on, that holds that there are somehow illegal voters
determining the outcome of the elections.
If we really want to make sure that elections are fought fair and
square, we ought to be encouraging more people to vote, not suppressing
their interest, as this amendment does.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for
yielding to me.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield 10 seconds to
me?
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to my friend, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I am most grateful. I would simply ask
that, at some point, the author might give me 30 seconds to ask a
question, and that could come after the gentleman's prepared remarks.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to hear the gentleman's
question.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, that is very polite. I just wanted to ask
about the bill's provision of what is called a final confirmation. If
the Social Security or the INS does not have a record of you, as, for
example, if you do not have a Social Security card, or you are born
here so you do not have an INS record, the bill specifies that there
must be what is called a ``secondary verification,'' and it must
provide ``final confirmation.'' I just wonder what that might be. I
appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, let me talk about the bill a little bit
while the gentleman from Pennsylvania is getting that answer for the
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
Let me also say that I think this is essentially the same kind of
campaign reform that the House voted for on February 12, a bill that
the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) introduced, a bill that the
chief election official from California said he thought was an
improvement and an important addition to the ability of States to be
able to, once again, manage the election process.
Until motor voter, with the exception of establishing age
qualifications for voting for Federal office, which almost always,
then, for reasons of practicality required the States to adopt that
same age, we have left election administration to the States. This just
simply allows the States to look at this to see if, in their State,
this would work.
A majority of Members of this body said just a few months ago, on
February 12, that this kind of thing was a good idea. It was a good
addition to campaign reform.
I rise in support of the concept of the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Peterson), that if we are going to reform campaigns, let us reach
campaigns. A number of States already require that citizens give the
Social Security number for registration.
So in Georgia, in Hawaii, in Kentucky, in New Mexico, in South
Carolina, and Tennessee and Virginia, the

[[Page H6806]]

only change in this law would be that we also would have access to INS
records. We would only have access to those records until 2001 to see
if this concept is helpful or harmful.
It allows a pilot project for the States that want to do it. It does
not require a single State to do a single thing. It was approved by a
majority of voters that voted on the floor of this House in February.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) brings it as an
additional element of campaign reform. It is not a mandate. It is a
pilot program. I would suggest it is the kind of thing that we ought to
return back to the States while we are talking about election reform.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Campbell) to answer his question.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I would be so grateful. Of course it is
the gentleman's time. If he would yield to me, I have a follow-up.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I heard the gentleman's
question. It is my understanding that, if the INS records and the
Social Security records did not prove one to be a citizen, then the
body requiring that information could, if they choose, remove one from
the rolls or refuse to enroll one as a voter.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield to me just a
second longer?
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Sure.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, let me say at the start, the gentleman
has been very courteous to me and also my good friend, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
The gentleman says, at least as I read it, that if one is not going
to be picked up by INS, which is going to be the case for those of us
born in the United States, and, for some reason, one is not picked up
by Social Security, which might be the case if one has not worked yet,
it may be true for an 18 year old, then it says the Attorney General
shall specify a secondary verification process to confirm the validity
of information provided and to provide final confirmation or
nonconfirmation.
So my question, if someone does not have a Social Security card
because that person has not started working, and is born in this
country, so there is no INS record, what would the secondary
verification process be?
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Well, I think, one, if one has some
record as a person to prove that one is a citizen, and one should have
if one is, then one would provide that; and that serves the bill. Or
the Attorney General could come forth with other means that he felt was
ample proof.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield just for two
seconds further?
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's answer. I
will not use his time to make a comment about it.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the remainder
of my time.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, 5 years ago, as a new Member of the House
of Representatives, I was so proud to support the motor voter bill, a
bill which made it easier for people to vote. It made it easier by
allowing more convenient access to voter registration for new voters or
for voters who had moved to a new area.
The motor voter bill is a symbol of our country's belief that it is
every citizen's right to have access to the ballot box, every citizen's
right, not just some citizens.
Today, I am ashamed that some in this body would turn the clock back,
back to a time when the Federal Government would make it more
difficult, not less difficult, for every person to vote in this
country, every legitimate person.
For example, the amendment by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Peterson) would unreasonably burden some would-be voters by requiring
them to show proof of citizenship at the polls on election day. Because
of what? Their appearance? The color of their skin? That they have an
accent?
I would ask my colleagues, at a time when voter turnout is
embarrassingly low in this democratic country of ours, do we really
want to make it more difficult for citizens to exercise the right to
vote? Of course the answer is no, which is exactly how we should vote
on this ill-conceived amendment: ``No'' on the Peterson amendment,
``yes'' on the Shays-Meehan bill.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself what time
is needed to respond.
It is interesting. A few moments ago, we were told that this was the
most significant poison that is being attempted to be added to this
bill. That is a pretty significant statement, that it is poison to try
to eliminate fraud. I have a hard time understanding that.
I am going to say it again. It has been said that this is the most
significant poison that will be offered to this bill that only has a
pilot program that allows States, if they choose, to try to eliminate
fraud. I find that hard to understand.
Someone else just said that it was unthinkable to amend motor voter.
Motor voter had some problems and has some problems today because there
is no system of verification. I could register my dog ``Ralph'' by
calling him Ralph Peterson, and he would be registered. I could
register my cat. I do not happen to have one, but I could.
Motor voter has opened the registration process to fraud. That is one
of the weaknesses of motor voter. Just to share with you, a Committee
on House Oversight task force uncovered serious voter fraud in
California during the 1996 election.

{time} 2045

They conducted an exhaustive year-long examination and found 820
individuals who were not citizens at the time of registration that
likely voted. In 1996 the California Secretary of State found over 700
noncitizens on the California voter rolls and invalidated their
registrations, and he would like this legislation to help him do that
more effectively.
Texas Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Tom Harrison reports that
750 resident aliens from Guadalupe, Texas filed applications for
absentee ballots in November of 1994 elections, after campaign workers
told them that their green cards enabled them to vote by mail.
The Los Angeles Times reported in May of 1994 that Jay McKama, an
undocumented immigrant, was sentenced to 16 months in State prison for
registering noncitizens to vote. The bounty hunter worked for Steve
Martinez, a Los Angeles political activist who paid $1 per
registration. The practice of paying bounty hunters to register
individuals to vote has contributed to an increase in noncitizen
voting. In some cases noncitizens have been targeted by those bounty
hunters.
Every time someone votes illegally, they cancel our vote. They cancel
a good vote.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentleman made that point,
because our colleague from California just made the point that every
legitimate voter, that is exactly the statement she made, should be
allowed to register to vote and should be allowed to vote, and that is
certainly right, and they should be allowed to do that with as little
encumbrance as is reasonably possible. The least encumbrance would be
no registration at all.
We tried that for generations in America, and finally we found out
that that did not work, because people voted more than once, they voted
at more than one location. We decided we had to have voter
registration, and every legitimate voter should be allowed to register,
every legitimate voter should be allowed to vote. But every time we let
someone cast a ballot who is not a legitimate voter, who does not meet
the requirements to vote in that election or in this country, we do
just exactly what the sponsor of the amendment said; we cancel out the
vote of voters who had a right to vote. That is every bit as big a
problem as

[[Page H6807]]

any other problem we could have in this process.
If people begin to think that there is no reason to go to the polls
because their vote is going to be canceled by somebody who should not
have been allowed to register because they were not a citizen, they
stop going to the polls for that reason as well. Every legitimate voter
should be able to vote.
This amendment, which the House has already passed in the form of a
bill one other time and needs to be included in this reform package,
merely says to the States, if the States want to try this as a way to
verify that, in fact, the people who are casting ballots at your
election have a right to do that as American citizens, give it a try
until 2001 and we will see if that produces better results.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to convey to the gentleman
that I rise to support the gentleman's idea and to oppose his
amendment, and let me say why and why it is we call it a poison pill.
I think it was in 1995 when we voted for motor voter legislation. I
voted against it and I drafted legislation to change it, not because I
did not want to encourage Americans to register and to vote, but
because I was afraid that we would never be able to purge people who
should not vote, that, in fact, it would become a system too easily
defrauded; and it does need to be changed, and I agree entirely with
the gentleman and his proposal here.
It is a poison pill because the coalition that we need to pass this
legislation consists of a lot of Democrats, and the motor voter bill is
based on relatively party lines. What we do not want to happen, those
of us who are just determined to do away with soft money in these sham
ads, what we do not want to do is let the perfect become the enemy of
the good.
We think that the gentleman's proposal, while it is a good one,
becomes the enemy of the passage of our bill. It is not the idea that
is poison, it is the way that it breaks up our coalition. I am sure
that is not the gentleman's purpose.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding. I have
a warning to libertarians. Libertarians, please be worried, be very
worried about a bill that creates, and I quote, ``. . . the Attorney
General shall specify . . . an available secondary verification process
. . . to provide final confirmation,'' regarding citizenship status.
I do not see how this can be done without a new federal record system
on individuals. ``Secondary'' means if one cannot prove citizenship by
INS records, cannot prove it by Social Security records. I do not see
how this can lead to anything but a national I.D. system. That is in
the gentleman's amendment. Therefore, I oppose it.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for
that warning to all of the libertarians and others. I appreciate that
very articulate presentation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Bilbray), another leader in the bipartisan effort to pass campaign
finance reform.
(Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise regretfully in opposition to this
amendment. I do not rise in opposition to the intention and the spirit
of the amendment.
I think that, quite appropriately, the gentlewoman from California
pointed out that qualified voters should vote. I think that the
gentleman from California who spoke in opposition to this motion
probably made his point clear, by saying that we want people to vote.
We want people to be able to vote. We want people to be able to
register to vote.
In all fairness, I agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania that
citizens should be able to vote. Qualified citizens, not just any
person. I strongly support the intention of the gentleman's amendment.
I think that, sadly, as somebody who was a county supervisor and
supervised the electoral process for over 2.7 million people, that too
often we talk about quantity, and not the quality of the process. The
fact is that the integrity of our electoral process needs to be
defended.
But tonight I must speak in opposition to this special vehicle, which
is asking Shays-Meehan to carry this burden, while trying to keep
enough votes together to be able to pass comprehensive campaign finance
reform. There are people on both sides of the aisle who will use this
as an excuse to oppose our campaign finance reform, Shays-Meenhan, if
we at this point require the system to require people to basically
prove that they are qualified voters, that they are over 18, that they
are a citizen of the United States.
I strongly support the intention that the gentleman is trying to make
with his amendment. It is just that the vehicle, at this time, will
kill campaign finance reform, because there are people in this Congress
who will adamantly kill any piece of campaign finance legislation, no
matter how good it is, if it means that we will address this problem of
unqualified people being able to register and vote.
So I sadly have to oppose this, and I would ask the gentleman to join
with those of us on both sides of the aisle that believe that the
integrity of finance campaign reform and the integrity of our electoral
process needs to be finally addressed one way or the other.
Campaign finance reform. We are trying to do it with this bill. I
hope that, at the appropriate time in the future, Democrats will come
across the aisle and join us in supporting the gentleman's thoughtful
effort to ensure for the integrity of the electoral vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Whitfield). The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining and the
right to close.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, if a national I.D. card is what we are
concerned about, take some of those aspects out in conference. I heard
some Members say this is good, but it is so good, it might hurt the
bill.
Bob Dole cannot write a check in a supermarket without proving his
identity. One cannot get on a plane without proving some identity. One
cannot get a driver's license in America without proving some identity.
What is more important, and I always hear, ``This is good, but not
now, do not do it now.'' This is campaign finance reform. If we do not
do it now, this turkey is dead in the future. If we are going to do it,
do it now, if this thing is going to fly. I support it.
Citizens should vote. Noncitizens should not vote. We insult no one
by ensuring that an illegal vote does not cancel out our legal votes.
In America the people govern. There is nothing more important in this
bill than foreign money influence, attempts to corrupt us for foreign
interests and illegal votes cast in elections.
Mr. Chairman, I took a lot of heat on the Democrat side, the only one
who took a parliamentary stand in the matter of the Dornan-Sanchez
race, and I think the gentlewoman has done a great job. But I think
that should be straightened out, and we should have the facts before we
certify anybody's election, especially when there is a taint of illegal
votes.
So look, if Bob Dole cannot write a check in a supermarket without
proving that check with some identification, if one cannot get a
driver's license, if one cannot get on a plane, then by God, in
America, one should be able to do some reasonable identification to
prove one is a citizen. Citizens govern.
Mr. Campbell's concerns are very important, and Mr. Chairman, let me
say this. We keep making it easy for illegal citizens and illegal votes
in campaigns, and we will have done nothing with campaign finance
reform. All we do is massage the politics of the American theater as
far as politics is concerned.

[[Page H6808]]

Mr. Campbell has a legitimate concern. He is a very astute man. That
could be worked out in conference, but the concept of illegal votes not
in elections must be determined. If we do not do it this way, how the
hell do we do it?
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment has nothing to do with campaign finance
reform, absolutely nothing to do with campaign finance reform. This
bill, as we are on the verge of passing, is not an excuse for anyone
who has any idea about anything to come into this House floor and try
to defeat this bill. This has nothing to do with campaign finance
reform. We are on the verge of making history with the most significant
campaign finance reform bill in 20 years. Let us get on and pass this
bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time. I thank him for all of his hard work on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), my friend,
says that in America people govern, and that is true. All of the people
govern, including those who have surnames such as mine, and who were
born in this country. And they do not deserve the right to be
discriminatorily applied against, which is in essence what this
amendment does.
I heard before the suggestion of the fact that what is wrong with the
pilot program? Well, nothing is wrong with a pilot program, but even
abridging rights in a pilot program does not make it constitutionally
firm, it makes it constitutionally infirm.
I also heard the discussion about cancelling out of a vote, but what
happens to the American citizen who, through your process, is denied
the ability to vote because of some problem with the INS, some problem
with Social Security; is not their cancellation of their vote equal to
the cancellation we are so worried about?
For members of my family who live in Cuba and others throughout the
world who do not have the right to vote for this, basic freedom is only
a cherished dream. Well, what the author of this amendment, however,
forgot about is that in America, voting is not a dream, it is not just
another government benefit or program to be means tested, it is a
constitutional guarantee, what all who came to this Chamber were sworn
to uphold.

{time} 2000

Americans should not be subjected to a government background check
when they register to vote. But that is just what this amendment does,
it turns the ballot box into an interrogation zone, where Americans are
guilty until they have proven themselves innocent.
Imagine going to vote, myself going to vote, having been born in this
country, a member of the United States Congress, and having to be
interrogated at the ballot box to try to prove that I should be able to
vote. Particularly, I would urge some of my colleagues to look at the
history of what has happened in different States where ballot security
squads were created to disenfranchise minority voters. The application
at that table by those election judges will be discriminatorily
applied, if they wish to do so.
What will be the guarantee? How will Members ensure that my vote is
not annulled, as the gentleman is concerned about his being annulled?
And to show they are citizens, Republicans want the Social Security
Administration and the Immigration and Naturalization Service to run
background checks and share private information on American voters.
If it is not to be discriminatorily applied, everyone who seeks to
register would have all of their private information given to electoral
officials. Is that what they want, Big Brother? I have heard so many of
them rail against that.
Now, where is this test going to take place? This test of this
security checkout program will take place in California, Florida,
Texas, New York, and Illinois, States with large minority populations,
especially Americans with Hispanic descent.
We already know the problems with identical names and dates of birth,
especially among minority voters, that caused many legal voters to be
targeted by what is now the discredited Dornan investigation. If this
new program goes forward, many, many other innocent Americans may find
government officials targeting them, too.
Clearly, the right to vote in this Nation should not be subject to
government intrusion, and I say specifically that Hispanic American
voters will not forget Members' continuing persecution of their rights.
Vote against the Peterson amendment and keep Shays-Meehan in order.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), a leader in our bipartisan effort.
(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, as a person who was one of the strong supporters of the
pilot program of the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), and I not
only voted for it, I promoted it back in March, that would deal with
the eligibility of voters and the reforms that the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) was just referring to, and to the essence of the
proposal of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), here, I
have to say that this is only an effort to really sabotage this bill.
We are so close. I am not going to let us take victory from the jaws
of defeat, or defeat from the jaws of victory, either way that you want
to say it. We must stick with Shays-Meehan. This is the golden
opportunity in this Congress to get genuine campaign finance reform.
The other issue is entirely separate, and we can take that up in a
separate matter. I will be strongly supportive of that. But for now, we
cannot sabotage Shays-Meehan. We must defeat the Peterson amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant--yet clear-eyed opposition--to the
amendment offered by my Colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Peterson.
I want my Colleagues to know that I support the substance of this
amendment. The events of the past several years have uncovered a
disturbing trend in elections.
Without referring to a specific election or a specific state or a
specific region, there is more than anecdotal evidence that more than a
few of our elections are being tainted.
Tainted by voters who should not be voters. As Mr. Peterson has
reported--but this is not new. That's why we have had these legal
actions.
Voters who have no right to participate in our electoral process.
My Colleagues, the very foundation of our representative democracy is
``one man-one vote.'' We--in this body--have a solemn responsibility to
preserve that foundation by protecting the integrity of the electoral
process.
In this regard, I think it is a worthwhile exercise that we test new
methods to verify the eligibility of all voters in all elections.
Indeed, I voted for Rep. Horn's pilot program back in March.
And I have never been an enthusiastic supporter of the various motor-
voter programs. I think they present an engraved invitation for fraud
and abuse.
So I would support this legislation. But not here, Not now. Not on
this bill. The clear purpose of this amendment is to undermine and
divide support for this major reform that goes to the heart of abuses.
As you know, I have been an original co-sponsor of the Shays-Meehan
campaign finance reform bill--in all of its various iterations. I think
the lack of comprehensive campaign reform has been one of the most
glaring failures of this Congress . . . the last Congress . . . the
Congress before that . . . and several Congresses before that.
It just reinforces the cynicism of the American people about our
motives and our actions.
We have here in the Shays-Meehan substitute a golden opportunity to
snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. We have a real opportunity to
pass genuine campaign reform.
Unfortunately, the Peterson amendment threatens our efforts here.
I support the goals of the Peterson amendment and would pledge to
work with the gentleman from Pennsylvania to pass this amendment as a
free-standing bill. But I cannot support it as an amendment to Shays-
Meehan.
Defeat the Peterson amendment.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment on two grounds. I
first oppose this amendment on the logic that says, because when you go
to the

[[Page H6809]]

supermarket and pay money, you sometimes have to show your license; and
I oppose it on the logic that says when we go to get an airplane ride
and we pay money, we have to show our license. Good grief, this is a
constitutionally protected right. We do not have to pay money to vote,
and why should we have to show a picture to vote?
On that ground, the logic of comparing this to airline traffic, or
when we go to supermarkets, is beyond me. This is a constitutionally
protected right. We should not have to pay money and we should not have
to show our picture.
But I oppose it on other grounds, as well. The bottom line is, this
is campaign finance reform we are debating. This legislation does not
deal with campaign finance reform, it deals with motor voter. We are in
the majority as Republicans, and we are pushing this proposal, this
amendment. Just bring it out on its own separate merit and vote it up-
or-down. Do not tie it in with campaign finance reform.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to another leader in our
bipartisan effort, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, the operative word is ``finance.'' This is
about campaigns, this amendment. I agree, frankly, with the intent of
the author of this amendment. I agree so many times with my friend, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). But campaign finance is about
raising money and spending money and reelecting Federal candidates.
That is what we have been working on here.
This actually is a legitimate issue. It is like combining school
vouchers with a higher education bill. They are both education, but
they do not belong together. This issue does not belong in this bill.
We need to pass this bill clean, and we need to vote down this
amendment, even though I agree with the intent of the author, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, the people that come before us and say
they are for campaign finance changes say it will protect the integrity
of elections. What about protecting the integrity of elections? Why do
they want to so narrowly define it that they only stick to the subject
areas they want to?
Kentucky is one of the States where we have to have a Social Security
number to register. We did not do that to discriminate, we did that
with a Democratic Party legislature, because we had such fraud in our
voting process. We did it to protect the integrity of the election.
What the people who oppose this today say is that, we would rather
make our bed and pass a law with people who do not want to protect
certain portions of the integrity of the election process in order to
pass our own version. This is exactly what I fear about campaign
finance reform, that we will pass laws that certain people will not
want enforced, they will not pursue, they will not really protect the
election process.
If they are not willing to protect the laws that say only citizens
can vote, I would never want to be on their team to pass any other
laws.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would point out that the gentlewoman has no intentions of
supporting campaign finance reform, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Becerra).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra)
is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes, the balance of time.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me, but more, I thank him for his efforts to get this to the floor and
finally get it passed. I think we are going to get there.
Mr. Chairman, this is truly a poison pill, but it is a poison bill
for a number of different reasons. Perhaps the most important to a
number of people is the fact that it poisons the well to people who
wish to become for the first time ever participants in our democracy,
because they have just become U.S. citizens.
Let us make no mistake, this is not an effort to try to make sure
that only American citizens vote. This is an effort to try to exclude
those who are our newest American citizens from participating. Because
if it were an effort to try to address the issue of all of our
citizens, all of the people who live in this country being eligible to
vote, then it would not target just the States where the most new
citizens happen to reside, States like mine in California.
If we look at page 2 of the bill, there it is, States of California,
New York, Texas, Florida, and Illinois. If I were to name the five
States with the highest Latino population in the Nation, they would be
States like California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois. What a
coincidence that this bill goes after those States where the most
Hispanics happen to reside. That is where there are a lot of new
Hispanic voters.
What else does this bill do? It tells us that somehow, through the
Social Security Administration and the INS, we are going to be able to
determine the citizenship of the 267 some-odd million people who live
in this country.
Wake up. Social Security has never been able to determine citizenship
for anyone. Wake up, the INS cannot determine the citizenship for even
all the folks who have immigrateed into this country. Wake up, they are
targeting only those who were not born in this country, and somehow in
their mind they are not eligible to vote. Wake up, how will someone
determine if this individual should or should not be checked in terms
of citizenship?
Tell me how a county registrar of voters is supposed to determine
which individual to ask, ``Can I get your Social Security number?'' How
will someone at the Motor Vehicle Department, when someone is filling
out an application for registration for voting, say, ``Wait a minute,
you have passed your license test to drive, but can I see your Social
Security number? Because I need to check to find out if you are a
citizen''?
What will determine when someone gets asked whether or not they are
citizens or not? Will it be the way they speak or the way they look, or
will it be by the spelling on the last name? When that official tries
to check with the INS and SSA and finds out that they cannot do this,
what happens to that person's eligibility to vote? This is a targeted
effort, unfortunately, at people who are beginning to participate. It
scares some people. I am sorry that it does. The intentions may be
good, but the mechanics of this amendment are totally wrong.
Someone said, let us protect the integrity of elections. Absolutely,
let us do that. Let us do so. But let us protect the integrity of the
Bill of Rights. Let us protect the integrity of the right to privacy.
Let us protect the integrity of the right to freedom. Let us protect
the integrity of this effort to reform our campaign finance laws.
Let us not get involved in this whole debate about how we tell which
of the 267 million people who reside in this country are or not
citizens through a process that we know cannot work, because the Social
Security Administration and the INS have told us they cannot give us
that information.
Please defeat this amendment. This is not the way to do it, and
certainly we send the wrong message to our newest citizens who are
trying to live in this greatest of democracies.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
I want to respond to two issues first. Someone talked about
safeguards. It says right in the bill, to have reasonable safeguards
against the pilot program resulting in unlawful discriminatory
practices based on national origin or citizenship status, including the
selective or unauthorized use of this pilot program.
Someone else said a national ID card. Nothing in this section shall
be construed to authorize, directly or indirectly, the issuance or use
of national identification cards, or the establishment of a national
identification card. Those are false, bogus arguments against this
bill.
Is Shays-Meehan perfect? We are being told it is perfect. I get mail
every day that says it is not perfect. I get phone calls every day that
say it is not perfect. This is only a pilot program. If it works, we
expand it. If it does not

[[Page H6810]]

work in 2001, we throw it away. Why are we afraid about stopping voter
fraud?
In my view, the two worst problems we face about elections are
illegal foreign money and noncitizen voting, and Shays-Meehan does not
do anything about either of them. The States that we have listed, many
of them are asking for help. Local registrars are asking for help. How
do they know if people are citizens when they register them? They are
begging for us to help.
Mr. Chairman, this is an argument, and those who think we should not
stop voter fraud, those who think we should not require citizenship,
then should stand up and support a bill that does away with it, that
you do not have to be a citizen to vote, that you just have to be here.
Mr. Chairman, this is a simple pilot project that makes sense, that
can work. I urge all the Members to support it.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute No. 13 offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 442, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Peterson) will be postponed.

Sequential Votes Postponed in the Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 442,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment No. 9
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), amendment No.
10 offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker); amendment
No. 13 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert); an
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Linda
Smith); amendment No. 16 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher); amendment No. 17 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Paul); amendment No. 18 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul);
amendment No. 19 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay);
amendment No. 21 offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Peterson).

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte to the Amendment in the Nature
of a Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Goodlatte) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13
offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice
vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The text of the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute is as follows:

Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Goodlatte to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:
Add at the end the following new title:

TITLE __--VOTER REGISTRATION REFORM

SEC. __01. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR STATES TO PROVIDE FOR
VOTER REGISTRATION BY MAIL.

(a) In General.--Section 4(a) of the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-2) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by adding ``and'' at the end;
(2) by striking paragraph (2); and
(3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
(b) Conforming Amendments Relating to Uniform Mail Voter
Registration Form.--(1) The National Voter Registration Act
of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.) is amended by striking
section 9.
(2) Section 7(a)(6)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-
5(a)(6)(A)) is amended by striking ``assistance--'' and all
that follows and inserting the following: ``assistance a
voter registration application form which meets the
requirements described in section 5(c)(2) (other than
subparagraph (A)), unless the applicant, in writing, declines
to register to vote;''.
(c) Other Conforming Amendments.--(1) The National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.) is
amended by striking section 6.
(2) Section 8(a)(5) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(a)(5))
is amended by striking ``5, 6, and 7'' and inserting ``5 and
7''.

SEC. __02. REQUIRING APPLICANTS REGISTERING TO VOTE TO
PROVIDE CERTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

(a) Social Security Number.--
(1) In general.--Section 5(c)(2) of the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-3(c)(2)) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (E)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(F) shall require the applicant to provide the
applicant's Social Security number.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 5(c)(2)(A) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1973gg-3(c)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting after
``subparagraph (C)'' the following: ``, or the information
described in subparagraph (F)''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect January 1, 1999, and shall apply with
respect to applicants registering to vote in elections for
Federal office on or after such date.
(b) Actual Proof of Citizenship.--
(1) Registration with application for driver's license.--
Section 5(c) of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993
(42 U.S.C. 1973gg-3(c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(3) The voter registration portion of an application for
a State motor vehicle driver's license shall not be
considered to be completed unless the applicant provides to
the appropriate State motor vehicle authority proof that the
applicant is a citizen of the United States.''.
(2) Registration with voter registration agencies.--Section
7(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-5(a)) is amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) A voter registration application received by a voter
registration agency shall not be considered to be completed
unless the applicant provides to the agency proof that the
applicant is a citizen of the United States.''.
(3) Conforming amendment.--Section 8(a)(5)(A) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(a)(5)(A)) is amended by striking the
semicolon and inserting the following: ``, including the
requirement that the applicant provide proof of
citizenship;''.
(4) No effect on absent uniformed services and overseas
voters.--Nothing in the National Voter Registration Act of
1993 (as amended by this subsection) may be construed to
require any absent uniformed services voter or overseas voter
under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act
to provide any evidence of citizenship in order to register
to vote (other than any evidence which may otherwise be
required under such Act).

SEC. __03. REMOVAL OF CERTAIN REGISTRANTS FROM OFFICIAL LIST
OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS.

(a) In General.--Section 8(d) of the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(d)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph:
``(3)(A) At the option of the State, a State may remove the
name of a registrant from the official list of eligible
voters in elections for Federal office on the ground that the
registrant has changed residence if--
``(i) the registrant has not voted or appeared to vote
(and, if necessary, correct the registrar's record of the
registrant's address) in an election during the period
beginning on the day after the date of the second previous
general election for Federal office held prior to the date
the confirmation notice described in subparagraph (B) is sent
and ending on the date of such notice;
``(ii) the registrant has not voted or appeared to vote
(and, if necessary, correct the registrar's record of the
registrant's address) in any of the first two general
elections for Federal office held after the confirmation
notice described in subparagraph (B) is sent; and
``(iii) during the period beginning on the date the
confirmation notice described in subparagraph (B) is sent and
ending on the date of the second general election for Federal
office held after the date such notice is sent, the
registrant has failed to notify the State in response to the
notice that the registrant did not change his or her
residence, or changed residence but remained in the
registrar's jurisdiction.
``(B) A confirmation notice described in this subparagraph
is a postage prepaid and pre-addressed return card, sent by
forwardable mail, on which a registrant may state his or her
current address, together with information concerning how the
registrant can continue to be eligible to vote if the
registrant has changed residence to a place outside the
registrar's jurisdiction and a statement that the registrant
may be removed from the official list of eligible voters if
the registrant does not respond to the notice (during the
period described in subparagraph (A)(iii)) by stating that
the registrant did not change his or her residence, or
changed residence but remained in the registrar's
jurisdiction.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 8(i)(2) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1973gg-6(d)) is amended by inserting ``or subsection
(d)(3)'' after ``subsection (d)(2)''.

[[Page H6811]]

SEC. __04. PERMITTING STATE TO REQUIRE VOTERS TO PRODUCE
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PRIOR TO VOTING.

(a) Photographic Identification.--Section 8 of the National
Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (k); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (i) the following new
subsection:
``(j) Permitting States To Require Voters To Produce Photo
Identification.--A State may require an individual to produce
a valid photographic identification before receiving a ballot
(other than an absentee ballot) for voting in an election for
Federal office.''.
(b) Signature.--Section 8 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6),
as amended by subsection (a), is further amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (k) as subsection (l); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (j) the following new
subsection:
``(k) Permitting States To Require Voters To Provide
Signature.--A State may require an individual to provide the
individual's signature (in the presence of an election
official at the polling place) before receiving a ballot for
voting in an election for Federal office, other than an
individual who is unable to provide a signature because of
illiteracy or disability.''.

SEC. __05. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT THAT STATES PERMIT
REGISTRANTS CHANGING RESIDENCE TO VOTE AT
POLLING PLACE FOR FORMER ADDRESS.

Section 8(e)(2) of the National Voter Registration Act of
1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(e)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(2)(A)'' and inserting ``(2)''; and
(2) by striking ``election, at the option of the
registrant--'' and all that follows and inserting the
following: ``election shall be permitted to correct the
voting records for purposes of voting in future elections at
the appropriate polling place for the current address and, if
permitted by State law, shall be permitted to vote in the
present election, upon confirmation by the registrant of the
new address by such means as are required by law.''.

SEC. __06. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this title shall apply with respect
to elections for Federal office occurring after December
1999.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote of this series.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165,
noes 260, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No 358]

AYES--165

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chambliss
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Livingston
Lucas
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Redmond
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowbarger
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)

NOES--260

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
White
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--9

Gonzalez
Istook
Linder
McDade
Moakley
Rangel
Riggs
Towns
Young (FL)

{time} 2035

Messrs. CRAPO, LAZIO of New York, WAXMAN, McGOVERN, and HALL of Texas
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. HILLEARY, WAMP, and LEWIS of California changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 442, the Chair
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of
time within which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each
amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings. The
chair would request Members to remain in the chamber and to vote in the
allotted time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Wicker to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute, No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute
No. 13 offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Wicker to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:
Add at the end the following new title:

[[Page H6812]]

TITLE --PHOTO IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR VOTERS

SEC. 01. PERMITTING STATE TO REQUIRE VOTERS TO PRODUCE
PHOTOGRAPHIC IDENTIFICATION.

Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993
(42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (k); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (i) the following new
subsection:
``(i) Permitting States to Require Voters to Produce Photo
Identification.--A State may require an individual to produce
a valid photographic identification before receiving a ballot
for voting in an election for Federal office.''.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192,
noes 231, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 359]

AYES--192

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Redmond
Regula
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowbarger
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)

NOES--231

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--11

Bateman
Gonzalez
Istook
Kennedy (MA)
McDade
Moakley
Rangel
Riggs
Scarborough
Towns
Young (FL)

{time} 2042

So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was
rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Calvert to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Blunt). The unfinished business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Calvert) to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute No. 13 offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Calvert to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr. Shays:

TITLE __--RESTRICTIONS ON NONRESIDENT FUNDRAISING

SEC. __01. LIMITING AMOUNT OF CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS NOT RESIDING IN
DISTRICT OR STATE INVOLVED.

(a) In General.--Section 315 of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(i)(1) A candidate for the office of Senator or the
office of Representative in, or Delegate or Resident
Commissioner to, the Congress may not accept contributions
with respect to an election from persons other than local
individual residents totaling in excess of the aggregate
amount of contributions accepted from local individual
residents (as determined on the basis of the information
reported under section 304(d)).
``(2) In determining the amount of contributions accepted
by a candidate for purposes of this subsection, the amounts
of any contributions made by a political committee of a
political party shall be allocated as follows:
``(A) 50 percent of such amounts shall be deemed to be a
contributions from local individual residents.
``(B) 50 percent of such amounts shall be deemed to be
contributions from persons other than local individual
residents.
``(3) As used in this subsection, the term `local
individual resident' means--
``(A) with respect to an election for the office of
Senator, an individual who resides in the State involved; and
``(B) with respect to an election for the office of
Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to,
the Congress, an individual who resides in the congressional
district involved.''.
(b) Reporting Requirements.--Section 304 of such Act (2
U.S.C. 434) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(d) Each principal campaign committee of a candidate for
the Senate or the House of Representatives shall include the
following information in the first report filed under
subsection (a)(2) which covers the period which begins 19
days before an election and ends 20 days after the election:
``(1) The total contributions received by the committee
with respect to the election involved from local individual
residents (as defined in section 315(i)(3)), as of the last
day of the period covered by the report.
``(2) The total contributions received by the committee
with respect to the election involved from all persons, as of
the last day of the period covered by the report.''.

[[Page H6813]]

(c) Penalty for Violation of Limits.--Section 309(d) of
such Act (2 U.S.C. 437g(d)) is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(4)(A) Any candidate who knowingly and willfully accepts
contributions in excess of any limitation provided under
section 315(i) shall be fined an amount equal to the greater
of 200 percent of the amount accepted in excess of the
applicable limitation or (if applicable) the amount provided
in paragraph (1)(A).
``(B) Interest shall be assessed against any portion of a
fine imposed under subparagraph (A) which remains unpaid
after the expiration of the 30-day period which begins on the
date the fine is imposed.''.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 147,
noes 278, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 360]

AYES--147

Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bereuter
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Brady (TX)
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Costello
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Horn
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis
Jenkins
Jones
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Rohrabacher
Royce
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Snowbarger
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thune
Tiahrt
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wolf
Young (AK)

NOES--278

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooksey
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Cubin
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gordon
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Reyes
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Schaefer, Dan
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snyder
Solomon
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Sununu
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thornberry
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--9

Buyer
Fox
Gonzalez
Istook
McDade
Moakley
Riggs
Towns
Young (FL)

{time} 2050

Mr. PICKERING changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was
rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Personal Explanation

Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 360, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

amendment offered by mrs. linda smith of washington to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute no. 13 offered by mr. shays

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Blunt). The unfinished business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman
from Washington (Mrs. Linda Smith) to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute No. 13 offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mrs. Linda Smith of Washington to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13 offered by Mr.
Shays:
In Section 301(20) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971, as added by section 201(a) of the substitute, strike
subparagraph (b) and add the following:
``(B) Voting Record and Voting Guide Exception--The term
``express advocacy'' does not include a communication which
is in printed form or posted on the Internet that--
``(1) presents information solely about the voting record
or position on a campaign issue of 1 or more candidates,
provided however, that the sponsor of the voting record or
voting guide may state its agreement or disagreement with the
record or position of the candidate and further provided that
the voting record or voting guide when taken as a whole does
not express unmistakable and unambiguous support for or
opposition to 1 or more clearly identified candidates,
(ii) is not made in coordination with a candidate,
political party, or agent of the candidate or party, or a
candidate's agent or a person who is coordinating with a
candidate or a candidate's agent; provided that nothing
herein shall prevent the sponsor of the voting guide from
directing questions in writing to candidates about their
position on issues for purposes of preparing a voter guide,
and the candidate from responding in writing to such
questions, and
``(iii) does not contain a phrase such as `vote for,' `re-
elect,' `support,' `cast your ballot for,' `(name of
candidate) for Congress,' `(name of candidate) in 1997.'
`vote against,' `defeat,' or `reject,' or a campaign slogan
or words that in context can have no reasonable meaning other
than to urge the election or defeat of 1 or more clearly
identified candidates.''
In Section 301(8) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971, as added by section 205(a)(1)(B) of the substitute,
strike paragraph (D) and insert:
``(D) For purposes of subparagraph (C), the term
`professional services' means polling, media advice,
fundraising, campaign research or direct mail (except for
mailhouse services solely for the distribution of voter
guides as defined in section 431(20)(B)) services in support
of a candidate's pursuit of nomination for election, or
election, to Federal office.''
In Section 301(8)(C)(v) of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971, as added by section 205(a)(1)(B) of the
substitute, add at the end thereof,
``, provided however that such discussions shall not
include a lobbying contact under the Lobbying Disclosure Act
of 1995 in the case of a candidate holding Federal office or
consisting of similar lobbying activity in the case of a
candidate holding State or elective office.''

[[Page H6814]]

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 343,
noes 84, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 361]

AYES--343

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Bachus
Baesler
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bunning
Buyer
Calvert
Campbell
Canady
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hayworth
Hefner
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)

NOES--84

Aderholt
Armey
Baker
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bilirakis
Bono
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Camp
Cannon
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Cox
Deal
DeLay
Doolittle
Dreier
Ehrlich
Gephardt
Goode
Goodling
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Johnson, Sam
Jones
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Lewis (CA)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McInnis
Meek (FL)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Northup
Norwood
Obey
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Paxon
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Radanovich
Riley
Rogers
Royce
Ryun
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Solomon
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Waters
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield
Wicker
Woolsey

NOT VOTING--7

Gonzalez
Istook
McDade
Moakley
Riggs
Towns
Young (FL)

{time} 2057

Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. SCARBOROUGH and Mrs. NORTHUP changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. BLAGOJEVICH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was
agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher to the Amendment in the Nature of
a Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rohrabacher) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13
offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice
vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 155,
noes 272, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 362]

AYES--155

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Bartlett
Bateman
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Conyers
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Ensign
Everett
Fossella
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Holden
Hostettler
Hyde
Inglis
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
King (NY)
Klink
Kolbe
Kucinich
Largent
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Norwood
Packard
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pombo
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Redmond
Regula
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
White
Wicker
Wilson
Young (AK)

NOES--272

Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Buyer
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Cook
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton

[[Page H6815]]

Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mollohan
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pitts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--7

Gonzalez
Istook
McDade
Moakley
Riggs
Towns
Young (FL)

{time} 2105

Mr. CONYERS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was
rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Paul to The Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute No. 13 Offered By Mr. Shays

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on Amendment No. 17 offered by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Paul) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13
offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice
vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Blunt). A recorded vote has been
demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 62,
noes 363, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 363]

AYES--62

Abercrombie
Armey
Bartlett
Bilirakis
Boswell
Campbell
Chenoweth
Coble
Cook
Cooksey
Crane
Cunningham
Davis (IL)
Deal
Doggett
Doyle
Ehlers
Filner
Foley
Fox
Goodling
Hill
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Largent
LaTourette
Leach
McIntosh
Metcalf
Mica
Mink
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Nethercutt
Norwood
Pastor
Paul
Pombo
Rahall
Redmond
Roemer
Rogan
Royce
Sanders
Sanford
Schaefer, Dan
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Smith, Linda
Sununu
Taylor (NC)
Tiahrt
Torres
Traficant
Watts (OK)
Weller
Young (AK)

NOES--363

Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
Lazio
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mollohan
Morella
Myrick
Neal
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--9

Bateman
Gonzalez
Herger
Istook
McDade
Moakley
Riggs
Towns
Young (FL)

{time} 2112

Mr. DICKEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was
rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered By Mr. Paul To The Amendment In The Nature of a
Substitute No. 13 Offered By Mr. Shays

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on Amendment No. 18 offered by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Paul) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 13
offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice
vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.

[[Page H6816]]

A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 88,
noes 337, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 364]

AYES--88

Abercrombie
Barcia
Bartlett
Bilirakis
Camp
Campbell
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (IL)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Doolittle
Duncan
Ensign
Filner
Foley
Gibbons
Hayworth
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hooley
Hulshof
Hunter
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kasich
LaTourette
Leach
Luther
Maloney (CT)
McCarthy (MO)
McHugh
McIntosh
Metcalf
Mink
Moran (KS)
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Pappas
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Pombo
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Redmond
Regula
Rivers
Royce
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Sununu
Taylor (NC)
Thune
Tiahrt
Torres
Traficant
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weller
Whitfield
Young (AK)

NOES--337

Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Combest
Condit
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Jackson (IL)
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
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pascrell
Paxon
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thurman
Tierney
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weygand
White
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn

NOT VOTING--9

Gonzalez
Istook
McDade
Moakley
Riggs
Towns
Wexler
Yates
Young (FL)

{time} 2119

Mr. KASICH and Mr. SCARBOROUGH changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was
rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered By Mr. DeLay To The Amendment In The Nature Of A
Substitute No. 13 Offered By Mr. Shays

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Blunt). The pending business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute
No. 13 offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Blunt). A recorded vote has been
demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185,
noes 241, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 365]

AYES--185

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fossella
Fowler
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Redmond
Regula
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowbarger
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Young (AK)

NOES--241

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Bachus
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse

[[Page H6817]]

Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E.B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Schumer
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
White
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn

NOT VOTING--8

Gonzalez
Istook
McDade
Moakley
Riggs
Towns
Yates
Young (FL)

{time} 2127

So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was
rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered By Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania To The Amendment In
The Nature Of A Substitute No. 13 Offered By Mr. Shays

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute No. 13 offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165,
noes 260, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 366]

AYES--165

Aderholt
Archer
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chambliss
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Fawell
Fossella
Fowler
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Granger
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Redmond
Regula
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)

NOES--260

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bunning
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gordon
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Inglis
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E.B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
White
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn

NOT VOTING--9

Fox
Gonzalez
Istook
McDade
Moakley
Riggs
Towns
Yates
Young (FL)

{time} 2134

So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was
rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

personal explanation

Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 366, I was
inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
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. Blunt, 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.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I missed
rollcall votes 356 and 357 because I was unavoidably detained in my
district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall
vote 356 and ``aye'' on rollcall vote 357.

[[Page H6818]]

____________________