Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. THOMAS. Is the gentleman indicating that that 17-year-old is a citizen or a noncitizen?

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I will tell the gentlewoman one more time, and I do not know how to explain it to her any other way but to say that there is no corporate money that is legally allowed under the so- called hard money definition. It is not allowed, either domestic or foreign. When individuals contribute today under the Federal Election Act, individuals who are not citizens can contribute, as we saw paraded over and over again in terms of the individuals that participated in the presidential election in 1996, some of whom have now come forward and admitted guilt in carrying on the raising of illegal contributions. Those are individuals; those are not corporations. Could I ask the gentlewoman a question to respond to her?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) is a very simple bill. It says if someone is a citizen, they can contribute. If they are not a citizen, they cannot. The gentleman from Nebraska was not able to be with us tonight, but if he were here I am quite sure he would say, ``Please join me and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) who sponsored the same measure in H.R. 140, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) who sponsored the same measure in H.R. 1777, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) who cosponsored H.R. 1777, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) who cosponsored H.R. 1777.'' So, apparently, there are a number of Members of this House on both sides of the aisle who believe that banning foreigners from contributing in elections is something that should be done. And all I have heard from the other side of the aisle is that none of this is bipartisan. Mr. Speaker, I believe if it is supported by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), that this clearly indicates that this measure is bipartisan, and I would ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before Members get too carried away, I would like someone to look at the CRS report for Congress on campaign finance legislation in the 105th Congress. I was just perusing it in terms of the numbers of bills that were introduced. I would call my colleagues' attention to H.R. 140, introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). One of the provisions of H.R. 140 is that it would prohibit contributions from non-citizens in U.S. elections. There is another bill I would call my colleagues' attention to in the 105th Congress. It is H.R. 1777. It is sponsored by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan). Among the provisions in that bill is a section on foreign contributions, which says that it would prohibit contributions in Federal elections by non-citizens and others not qualified to vote. So I would appreciate, Mr. Speaker, if those on the other side, when they make their comments, not get too carried away when, in fact, Members on both sides of the aisle have introduced worthwhile legislation which would ban contributions from individuals who are not citizens. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I find it really, really difficult to argue that the bill in front of us, offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), which very plainly says that only citizens should be able to participate in the financial aspects of a campaign, just as only citizens are supposed to be able to participate in the voting part of the campaign, is in fact meaningless and a charade. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann), a Member who has lived firsthand, both at the State and Federal level, a meaningful, quote- unquote, campaign reform.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2608) to protect individuals from having money involuntarily collected and used for political activities by a corporation or labor organization.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Bob Schaffer) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to manage the time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3582) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to expedite the reporting of information to the Federal Election Commission, to expand the type of information required to be reported to the Commission, to promote the effective enforcement of campaign laws by the Commission, and for other purposes.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, if some are looking for the definition of ``cynical,'' I would suggest they go back to the 103rd Congress. The current minority party controlled the House of Representatives, controlled the United States Senate, controlled the office of the presidency. The Democratic Party could pass in the House or in the Senate and sign by their President campaign reform. Guess what happened? Guess what happened? Nothing. Nothing went to the President. So what I find about these fervent reformers is simply this: They are fervent. The problem is, if we look at the previous legislation, McCain-Feingold or Shays-Meehan, what they are fervent about changes. Go back to the original McCain: This country is being undermined by Political Action Committees. We have to ban PACs. We have to ban leadership PACs. Take a look at their bill. It is not in there. Now, does it mean that what was fundamentally important to Americans has changed, or are they in search of a political answer that they can use under the guise of real reform? If we want to ban soft money, take a look at H.R. 3581. This bill tonight bans soft money at the Federal and the State level tougher than they do. Yet they are going to complain and moan about soft money. Take a look at what we are doing in terms of non-citizens. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) has a bill that agrees with that, but he has been coming to the floor and berating what we are doing. It seems to me that at some point cynicism has to stop, and it stops now. They have had 2 hours and 40 minutes more time than we have had previously to debate reform. It seems to me that the key to good legislation, the key to following the process, is to see if any of these measures pass. I believe campaign reform tonight will pass.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is the fourth item before us tonight. A little bit of math will tell us that, when we are finished with this particular measure, we will have been debating campaign reform for 2 hours and 40 minutes. The phrase ``this is a sham'' has been repeated, I believe, a world record number of times on this floor, perhaps for a want of a different term. This particular measure, if anyone bothers to look at it, has 10 specific provisions. Seven of them are FEC, Federal Election Commission, recommendations. They were contained in the Republican campaign reform bill of the 104th Congress. They are, by anyone's examination, absolutely appropriate, indeed, long overdue and necessary reforms. Of the other three, one especially, the electronic reporting on the Internet, I will leave to my colleague to explain in more detail, as one of the younger, more astute, computer knowledgeable Members of the House. The other two provisions, are not FEC recommendations, but I believe any Member would have a very difficult time not agreeing that they are also appropriate and indeed overdue. One of the provisions provide that, when a standard FEC complaint form is filled out, that such complaint indicates that it has not been verified by the FEC. In too many campaigns, someone files a complaint form. It is accepted by the FEC, and the statement is made: The FEC has accepted my complaint. In fact, on the form itself, it will say the complaint has not been verified. The final provision was in a bill by our colleague from California (Mr. Dreier). It says that the Federal Election Commission, when a question is submitted in writing, can submit a written response to the individual. It just seems to me that if the Federal Government is going to control the election process, someone ought to be able to get an answer from the government when they ask a question. If the question is in writing, then the answer ought to be in writing. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) and I ask unanimous consent that he manage the balance of the time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3581) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reform the financing of campaigns for election for Federal office, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 3581 has a strong resemblance to H.R. 3458 that came out of committee, with a couple of changes based upon information which was provided to us after the committee met. As a matter of fact, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), indicated that he was concerned that although there was a soft money ban at the national level, there was not a commensurate soft money ban of Federal money at the State level. And so to address that particular concern, the bill was modified to follow the 103rd Congress's Republican campaign reform bill which banned soft money at both the Federal and the State level. There were a number of other very minor adjustments that were made, so that the bill that is in front of us tonight says, number one, that only American citizens may contribute to political campaigns. Anyone who is a noncitizen may not participate in a political campaign, either in contributions or in spending. No one need go into any detail as to why that is part of a campaign reform bill, based upon what we now know and are continuing to learn from the 1996 presidential campaign. In addition, it seems to a number of Members that if someone were compelled to provide money which could be used for political contributions, that it somehow seemed to violate the spirit of voluntary participation, and so we include a provision which requires that if any money from paychecks is spent by organizations in political campaigns, that money would have to have been solicited from individuals. They would have had an opportunity to say, ``Yes, you may utilize that money for that purpose,'' rather than having it removed from their paycheck without their permission. In addition, there is a very long section which will be offered later as a separate bill on suspension, as well, which has basically pulled together a number of the reforms that the Federal Elections Commission has been advocating for the last several years. They are contained in a number of Members' bills, and what they do is bring up to date the disclosure of campaign spending either through a more detailed reporting procedure or, a shortening of the time line for reporting, given the electronic world that we now live in. In addition, the Supreme Court has spoken very clearly about the ability of an individual to spend as much money as they so choose when it is their own money, and it is therefore extremely difficult for the average candidate to compete in an election against someone who has millions and millions of dollars to spend. It is quite clearly unconstitutional to not allow an individual to spend that money but we believe it is quite constitutional, based upon a threshold of personal spending by that individual, to allow for a modification of the contribution rules that permit an individual who does not have the wherewithal from their own resources to be able to run a credible and viable campaign. In addition, all of us have read the headlines about the kind of election activities that have been occurring in various regions of the United States, California, and Texas, for example. Miami, I believe, is one that comes to mind rather vividly in terms of the concern about whether or not the voting rolls contain only those individuals who should be on those rolls, and also whether or not even if individuals are legally on those rolls, it is the individuals on the rolls who are in fact casting their own ballots. So there is a section on voter fraud which is an enabling section. The section does not mandate anything upon the chief election officer of a State or a local election unit. It does, however provide the procedure, so that if that election officer wishes to validate the roll, he or she has the ability to do so. I previously mentioned the soft money ban at both the Federal and the State level. The other area concerns a number of Members as well in terms of more recent political activities. It deals with the issue of independent expenditures. Once again, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that unless someone is advocating the election or defeat of a particular candidate, that expenditure of funds in that category is protected by the Constitution. That is, the person has a constitutional right to spend the money. We believe that the American people need to know fully who is participating in the elections, notwithstanding the court's statement that individual groups have a constitutional right to engage in independent expenditures. What we propose is to designate a so-called election season, that is the last 90 days of a campaign. We choose that period as the election season because here in the House of Representatives, no elected Member is allowed to use taxpayer dollars to send out mass mailings during that period because it is a sensitive period. It is, in essence, the election season. The bill then says anyone who is advocating the election or defeat of a candidate or mentions a candidate or political party, if they do so during the political season, 90 days prior to an election, must report. They must disclose. That is the basic bill although we borrowed from a number of other Members' particular provisions, and I am sure they will wish to address those particular provisions. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) one of the major forces in reshaping the direction of campaign reform. (Mr. HUTCHINSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill).

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), one of the cosponsors of the bill, someone who has been involved as long as anyone else in honest, earnest campaign reform.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), a member who has been involved for years both at the State and Federal level in campaign reform, a cosponsor of H.R. 3581.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of hearing my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) and my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and rarely do they wind up on the same side. My hope would have been that they wound up on the same side that was right. Unfortunately, I believe they wound up on the side that was wrong, because when we analyze this legislation, it will do none of what they claim, quite frankly. Just as my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), indicated that we want to exchange aid for trade, it makes sense to do it with Sub-Saharan Africa, it makes sense to do it with Israel. We created a free trade agreement with Israel which allowed them to earn rather than to receive the aid that we provided. There should be no one who would fear a textile import flood from Sub-Saharan Africa. It just is not going to happen. The two countries that do have a bit of a textile production, Mauritius and Kenya, are less than 1 percent of United States imports. The thing I think everyone has to realize is that because the United States signed the World Trade Organization, quotas will be phased out beginning in 2005. All this does is give those Sub-Saharan African nations a few years' head start before we phase out the quotas. That is entirely appropriate and fair to allow them to begin to earn their way instead of welfare. Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, if my colleagues are concerned about point of origin or transshipment, and we certainly are, there are many parts of the world that utilize their locations as a drop stop, repackage and send-on. That is not what we intend and that this bill does not allow. The country of origin rules are as stringent as we have in place anywhere for any country. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) was concerned about the 35 percent domestic content. It requires a 35 percent domestic content and substantial transformation. That is, one has to do things to the product. One cannot just pass it through. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, placed an amendment in the bill denying the opportunity to be involved in this trade for 2 years if one is found guilty of transshipment, a very rigid penalty that had not been included before. I think it is appropriate. We need to make sure that people do not violate the rules. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues need to understand that all of the other trade rules that we have in place are not suspended. The arguments that were made for the textile concerns in the Caribbean I think carried great weight. Given the proximity of the Caribbean, given the ability to move product through the Caribbean, there was some concern. No one can present a credible economic argument for the utilization of Sub-Saharan Africa the way that the Caribbean could have been used because it is simply not economic, dealing with textiles, to make the same argument. One cannot pencil out a cost-effective argument the way one could this in the Caribbean. Besides all of that, the Generalized System of Preference, which protects sensitive industries in the United States, is completely available to that textile industry or any other industry if they have import-sensitive products and make their point. The full weight of the Federal Government in denying the importation of products is available under the Generalized System of Preferences. So this bill is not, unfortunately, all that its strongest proponents claim it to be; it is a modest, modest, long overdue, self-help structure. And it is nowhere near its strongest proponents' arguments because it simply is not going to open the flood gates the way my colleagues have intimated. It is a well-crafted bill. The thing I could say most about it is that it is probably long overdue. It is entirely appropriate. The United States has nothing to fear from sub-Sahara Africa, and if we do, we have in place a number of protections that are automatic and they trigger severe penalties. This is a reasonable rule. More importantly, it is a modest and reasonable proposal. We should vote yes on the rule; we should vote yes on this long overdue opportunity to allow people to earn their own way with a free trade zone between the United States and sub-Sahara Africa.