Ken Calvert

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the American Homeownership Act, and I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I submitted a portion of a study performed by the Business Roundtable which details the devastating economic consequences that could occur if the United States ratified the global warming treaty negotiated in Kyoto last December. Today I am submitting the introduction of a similar study performed by the CONSAD Research Corporation, one of the foremost economic research organizations. I would urge all my colleagues to consider this analysis as the debate surrounding the Protocol continues. Finally, I would encourage all Members to review a report the Department of Energy's own Energy Information Administration released today. The report is just one more warning of the possible disastrous consequences of ratifying the Protocol. The report can be found on the Internet at www.eia.gov. The Kyoto Protocol: A Flawed Treaty Puts America at Risk

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, last December I attended the international global warming summit in Kyoto, Japan. I took with me to the meeting information I had gathered at three hearings I convened in my Science Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment. At those hearings, where the Subcommittee took testimony from experts in climatology, it became obvious that there is no clear scientific consensus on which the Administration can base its claim that human-induced global warming is harming our planet. Over the next few days I will submit for the Record portions of studies that bring to light the weaknesses in the Kyoto Protocol. Today, I am submitting an Executive Summary of an analysis of the agreement conducted by the Business Roundtable. The summary gives an excellent account of the key issues of concern regarding the Protocol, making clear that the agreement has serious flaws in terms of its ability to improve the environment without harming the economy: Executive Summary of the Kyoto Protocol: A Gap Analysis In an in-depth analysis of an international agreement to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, The Business Roundtable finds that the accord, known as the Kyoto Protocol, contains major gaps that must be filled before its impact on the world's environment and economy can be evaluated. The Business Roundtable recognizes that the Protocol is only a first step toward a comprehensive agreement to reduce emissions, but urges the Clinton Administration not to sign the Kyoto Protocol until these gaps have been addressed. Background: On December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change reached an agreement, known as the Kyoto Protocol, that sets legally binding limits on the man-made emissions of greenhouse gases from 38 industrialized countries. Global carbon emissions would continue to increase under the agreement because it exempts Developing Countries--including China, India, Mexico, Brazil, and 130 others--from any commitments to limit their rapidly growing emissions. Continued growth in energy demand, and thus greenhouse-gas emissions, by Developing Countries will more than offset the reductions made by Developed Countries. President Clinton is expected to sign the Kyoto Protocol later this year, but he does not intend to submit the agreement to the Senate for its constitutional role of advice and consent until ``key'' Developing Countries agree to ``participate meaningfully'' in the effort. key issues of concern The targets and timetables would require the United States to make significant and immediate cuts in energy use. The Protocol would require the U.S. to reduce emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012, an unprecedented 41 percent reduction in projected emission levels. The process of Senate ratification and the subsequent lengthy domestic implementation process post-ratification would leave the U.S. very little time to make the painful choices regarding energy use that will be necessary to achieve these reductions. In addition, because the Protocol sets different targets for each industrialized country and the target is based on what is now an eight-year old baseline, the U.S. in effect will shoulder a disproportionate level of reduction and may be placed at a competitive disadvantage. Unless the Developing Countries also commit to emission reductions, the Protocol is incomplete and will not work. The Byrd-Hagel Resolution unanimously adopted by the U.S. Senate in July 1997 states that the U.S. should not be a signatory to any protocol unless it mandates ``new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse-gas emissions for the Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period.'' Many Developing Countries are rapidly growing their economies and will become the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the next 15-20 years. Greenhouse gases know no boundaries, and stabilization of greenhouse-gas concentrations cannot be achieved without global participation in a limitation-reduction effort. Moreover, regulating the emissions of only a handful of countries could lead to the migration of energy-intensive production--such as the chemicals, steel, petroleum refining, aluminum and mining industries--from the industrialized countries to the growing Developing Countries. Certain carbon ``sinks'' may be used to offset emission reductions, but the Protocol does not establish how sinks will be calculated. Carbon sinks, a natural system that absorbs carbon dioxide, have tremendous potential as a means of reducing emissions, but too much is currently unknown to make a fair determination. It is unclear how sinks might help the U.S. reach its emission-reduction commitment and, though the Parties to the Convention will work to develop rules and guidelines for sinks in Buenos Aires, the rules cannot be adopted until after the Protocol enters into force. The Protocol Contains no mechanisms for compliance and enforcement. Simply put, it would be inappropriate for any country to ratify a legally binding international agreeement which lacks compliance guidelines and enforcement mechanisms. The Protocol outlines a system of domestic monitoring with oversight by international review teams, but what constitutes compliance and who judges it will not be determined until after the Protocol enters into force. The means of enforcement--also unknown--is equallly critical, since a country's noncompliance could give it a competitive advantage over the U.S., and eviscerate the agreement's environmental goals. The Protocol includes flexible, market-based mechanisms to achieve emission reductions, but it does not establish how these mechanisms would work and to what extent they could be used. The U.S. intends to rely heavily on market-based mechansims to find the most efficient and cost-effective ways to reduce emissions. But until the rules and regulations are established it is uncertain how effective these mechanisms will be and to what extent they can be used by companies. Many countries are resisting these market-based mechanisms and their reluctance may hinder the development of adequate free-market guidelines. The absence of many countries from the marketplace, and the possible limitations and restrictions on the marketplace, could render these mechanisms useless or of little value. The Protocol leaves the door open for the imposition of mandatory policies and measures to meet commitments. Just as the U.S. favors flexible market mechanisms, the European Union and many Developing Countries favor harmonized, mandatory ``command-and-control'' policies and measures--such as carbon taxes and CAFE standards--to meet commitments, and they will have numerous opportunities to seek adoption of these policies. Finally, the procedures for ratification of, and amendment to, the Kyoto Protocol make it difficult to remedy before it enter into force. The Protocol may not be amended, nor can rules and guidelines be adopted, until after the Protocol enters, into force. The Clinton Administration is now considering the negotiation of a separate or supplemental protocol to attain necessary additional commitments, but this approach would open all issues to further negotiation. The Business Roundtable believes that the Congress and the American people cannot evaluate the Kyoto Protocol until the Administration sets out a plan as to how it intends to meet the targets of the Protocol. To place the magnitude of the U.S. reduction commitments in perspective, it is the equivalent of having to eliminate all current emissions for either the U.S. transportation sector, or the utilities sector (residential and commerical sources), or industry. The Administration needs to detail how targets in the Protocol will be met, and how the burden will be distributed among the various sectors of the economy. The Business Roundtable feels it is imperative that a public dialogue take place on the major issues highlighted in our Gap Analysis before the Protocol becomes the law of the land and government agencies begin to write regulations.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Stokes for their leadership in crafting this Conference Report. As always, my good friend from California has presented this House with a bill that will improve the livelihood of our nation's veterans, preserve housing programs and maintain our commitment to scientific excellence at NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the EPA. We are all aware of the Chairman's dedication to a healthy environment. By authoring the California Clean Air Act, Mr. Lewis made possible the environmental advancements our region in southern California has experienced in recent years. I share his dedication to clean air and a healthy environment. And I stand in strong support of the language in the Conference Report regarding the Administration's misguided Kyoto Protocol. I went to Kyoto last December and talked to many of the international key players there. I was interested to hear from Chinese representatives that they had no intention of adhering to this international agreement. Because China will become the number one emitter of Carbon Dioxide sometime in the next two decades, the treaty doesn't work. I also held three hearings in my Science Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment before attending the conference. At those hearings, top climatologists told us that no clear scientific evidence exists indicating that there is human-induced global warming. So, the treaty will not work and the science doesn't show that we need it. But that is not the only reason to support the language in the Conference Report. I also support the language because it stops this Administration from implementing the Kyoto Treaty without Senate ratification. If they were able to do so they would be ignoring the sanctity of the Constitution. If the President believes this treaty is good for America, let him send it to the Senate so it can be weighed on its merits in a full and open debate. That is what the Constitution demands. Again, I thank Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Stokes for their excellent work on this Conference Report and urge a yes vote.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, in 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower established the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports through an executive order as part of a national campaign to help shape up America's younger generation. In 1966, the Presidential Physical Fitness Award was initiated by President Johnson and is a prestigious accomplishment. On October 1, 1998, the Linfield School in Temecula, CA, was designated as the 1997-98 President's Challenge State Champion School for Category II schools in California. The State Champion Award is presented to schools with the highest number of students scoring at or about the 85th percentile on the President's Challenge, a fitness awards program for children ages 6 through 17. The Linfield School had more than 82 percent of their student body score at or above the 85th percentile in the fitness program. The five assessments of the President's Challenge measure four components of physical fitness: a one-mile run/walk for heart and lung endurance, curl-ups for abdominal strength and endurance, a ``sit and reach'' stretch for muscular flexibility, pull-ups for upper body strength and endurance, and a shuttle run for agility and explosive power. On behalf of the residents of the 43rd congressional district, I congratulate the Linfield School for this award and commend them for recognizing that physical activity is an important component of health and development for future generations.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, today, after nearly a half-century as a member of California's higher education community, California Baptist College becomes California Baptist University. Cal Baptist, founded in 1950, was housed in a borrowed church building for its first four years, moved to its present Riverside location in 1954 and earned accreditation in 1961. The college reaches this milestone under the leadership of Dr. Ronald L. Ellis, president since 1994. Former presidents are Dr. P. Boyd Smith, 1950-57; Dr. Loyed R. Simmons, 1958-69; Dr. James R. Staples, 1970-84; and Dr. Russell R. Tuck, 1984-94. During the 1980's, the college was on the cutting edge of non- traditional education when it established the Business Executive program, the pre-cursor to the current Evening Degree-Completion program for working adults. In the mid-eighties, the college added its first post-graduate degree, a Master's degree in Counseling Psychology. Three years ago, the college added a Master of Education degree and, last year, the Master of Business Administration degree. From 1994 to 1997, the institutional enrollment increased 149 percent, much of it through graduate and Evening Degree-Completion programs. California Baptist College has consistently produced well-schooled graduates. Scores of children in my district are the beneficiaries of that product as they thrive under the teaching of Cal Baptist alumni. The graduates of Cal Baptist's Master's degree program in Counseling Psychology have an unusually high pass rate on the state licensing exam. Cal Baptist alumni serve in the Riverside police department, city government, management in our local banking institutions, a broad array of social service agencies, and church-related positions on a global scale. California Baptist College--now university--is in the business of preparing complete people, people who are equipped to make a difference. The university provides an environment that fosters not only intellectual development, but spiritual, emotional, physical, and character development. Students are involved in outreach to the homeless; tutoring programs at the county juvenile facility and Sherman Indian High School, a local Bureau of Indian Affairs boarding school; city clean up projects; and the City of Riverside's Study Circles on Race Relations. The university adheres to a high ethical standard, the kind of standard to which our nation has traditionally aspired and which we continue to uphold as the mark of the truly successful. On behalf of the residents of the 43rd Congressional District, it is an honor to congratulate California Baptist University upon the occasion of their transition to university status.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of fast track trade legislation. For the last several years the majority in Congress has eliminated the deficit, produced tax relief for the first time in 16 years and reformed welfare. The result has been a strong American economy. And Congress today has its role to play again. We cannot allow the current global economic crisis to slow U.S. economic growth any further. By denying the President the ability to negotiate fast track trade agreements we are hurting the long term prosperity of our country. We in Congress must send a strong and clear signal to our citizens and the world that we are willing to make the tough decisions today to secure prosperity for our children. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support fast track legislation. It is the right thing to do. As was mentioned, 95 percent of the customers are outside of the United States. Keep our country strong, support fast track.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a fallen police officer from Riverside, California. Officer Claire Connelly, who was an 18-month veteran of the force, is the first female Riverside police officer ever to be killed in the line of duty. She contributed generously of her time and talents to help others and to make her community a better place in which to live and work. She was a bright, caring, and compassionate individual who made an everlasting impression in her short life. Claire Connelly went out every day to make a difference and she did--some days in small ways, some days in big ways, and on July 12, 1998, at the cost of her life. One cannot ask more of peace officers. Officer Connelly deserves our deepest respect and gratitude. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and our colleagues join me today in remembering this fine officer. On behalf of the residents of the 43rd Congressional District, I extend my prayers and most heartfelt sympathy to her family and loved ones.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to an individual whose dedication to the community and to the overall well- being of the 43d Congressional District is unparalleled. My district has been fortunate to have dynamic and dedicated community leaders who willingly and unselfishly give of their time and talents to make their communities a better place to live and work. Mr. David Goldware was first among these individuals. He died last week at the age of 81. David Goldware was a man who never shied away from becoming involved from helping others and helping his community. He was a strong advocate for the less fortunate, for his community, and the country he loved. David Goldware served with honor in the U.S. Navy during World War II, and was decorated with a presidential unit citation for saving the life of a fellow crewman when their ship was torpedoed. After leaving the Navy, he continued this commitment to his country through his involvement with veterans' issues. When the Riverside National Cemetery fell into disrepair a few years ago, David helped put together any army of volunteers to clean up the cemetery and maintain the grounds. He was also active in many community organizations, including B'nai B'rith, Temple Beth El, City of Hope, Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce, United Way, Boy Scouts of America, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Riverside Community Hospital Foundation, and the Janet Goeske Senior Center. His good deeds and work in the community would fill pages and pages were I to try and list them all. David's outstanding accomplishments made everyone who met him proud to call him a friend, community leader, and fellow American. David was a wonderful guy--he brightened up every room and every person he met. He became the unofficial historian at every event he attended because he always had his camera with him. I have pictures in my desk drawer that David sent to me of a charity event in Riverside that were taken just a few days before his death. As always, David was there with his camera and a smile for everyone he met. David would have agreed that his greatest accomplishment was his family. He married his wife, June, in 1942 and together they raised two wonderful sons. She has recently preceded him in death. My deepest condolences go to David's sons, Michael and Nick. My thoughts and prayers are with them. David Goldware will be sorely missed--I don't know how you replace someone like him. The 43d Congressional District, and I, have lost a dear friend. We can best honor him by trying to meet the same high standard he set as a patriot, citizen, and friend.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The call was taken by electronic device, and the following Members responded to their names: [Roll No. 341] Abercrombie Ackerman Aderholt Allen Andrews Armey Bachus Baesler Baker Baldacci Ballenger Barcia Barr Barrett (NE) Barrett (WI) Bartlett Bass Bentsen Bereuter Berman Berry Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop Blagojevich Bliley Blumenauer Blunt Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bonior Borski Boswell Boucher Boyd Brady (PA) Brady (TX) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Bryant Bunning Burr Calvert Camp Campbell Canady Capps Cardin Carson Castle Chabot Chambliss Chenoweth Christensen Clay Clayton Clement Clyburn Coble Coburn Collins Combest Condit Cook Cooksey Costello Coyne Cramer Crane Crapo Cubin Cummings Cunningham Danner Davis (FL) Davis (IL) Davis (VA) Deal DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLay Deutsch Diaz-Balart Dingell Dixon Doggett Doolittle Doyle Dreier Edwards Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson Engel English Ensign Eshoo Etheridge Evans Everett Ewing Farr Fattah Fazio Filner Foley Forbes Ford Fossella Fowler Fox Franks (NJ) Frelinghuysen Frost Furse Gallegly Ganske Gejdenson Gephardt Gibbons Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Goode Goodlatte Goodling Gordon Goss Graham Green Gutierrez Gutknecht Hall (TX) Hamilton Hansen Harman Hastert Hastings (FL) Hayworth Hefner Hill Hilleary Hilliard Hinchey Hobson Hoekstra Holden Hooley Horn Hostettler Houghton Hoyer Hulshof Hunter Hutchinson Hyde Inglis Istook Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) 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 Largent Latham LaTourette Lazio Leach Lee Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (GA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lipinski Livingston LoBiondo Lofgren Lowey Lucas Luther Maloney (CT) Maloney (NY) Manton Manzullo Mascara Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCarthy (NY) McCollum McCrery McDermott McGovern McHale McHugh McIntosh McKeon McNulty Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Menendez Metcalf Millender-McDonald Miller (CA) Miller (FL) Minge Mink Moakley Mollohan Moran (KS) Moran (VA) Morella Murtha Myrick Neal Nethercutt Neumann Ney Northup Norwood Nussle Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Owens Oxley Packard Pallone Pappas Parker Pascrell Pastor Paul Paxon Payne Pease Pelosi Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Petri Pickett Pitts Pombo Pomeroy Porter Portman Pryce (OH) Quinn Rahall Ramstad Rangel Redmond Regula Reyes Riggs Riley Rivers Rodriguez Roemer Rogan Rogers Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Rothman Roukema Roybal-Allard Royce Rush Ryun Sabo Salmon Sanchez Sanders Sandlin Sawyer Saxton Schaefer, Dan Schaffer, Bob Scott Sensenbrenner Serrano Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherman Shimkus Sisisky Skaggs Skeen Skelton Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (OR) Smith (TX) Smith, Adam Smith, Linda Snowbarger Snyder Solomon Souder Spence Spratt Stabenow Stearns Stokes Strickland Stump Stupak Sununu Talent Tanner Tauscher Tauzin Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Thomas Thornberry Thune Thurman Tiahrt Tierney Torres Traficant Turner Upton Velazquez Vento Visclosky Walsh Wamp Waters Watt (NC) Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Wexler Weygand White Whitfield Wilson Wise Wolf Woolsey Wynn Yates

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Reclaiming my time, I think that it is important to raise a significant amount of money within our congressional district. I would hope that most Members feel the same way about that. I would hope that that they would vote for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my dear friend from California, I like his idea raising 100 percent of the money within the district. I recognize that that is probably not realistic, and so I believe that half of the money should be raised within the Congressional districts that Members represent. We heard earlier that maybe not even 10 percent is an acceptable number. Well, what is an acceptable number? We know that there are people who run for Congress that 99 percent of their money is raised outside of their district. I do not think the American public agrees to that. As the gentleman from Connecticut knows, I came here six years ago almost and have been talking about this 50 percent provision since I came here to Congress. I think most Americans believe that you should raise at least 50 percent of the money within your Congressional District. I do not think it is outrageous. I do not think there is anything wrong with this. As far as a wealthy candidate running in a Congressional district, I would say that any of us would have a problem if we were running against a very wealthy candidate, any of us. But, saying that, I would accept a perfecting amendment that would waive the rule if a wealthy candidate gets involved in a campaign and spends, say, $100,000, to take care of that problem. I recognize that. But what we are talking about here is 50 percent of the money within the district. I think it is reasonable. I think most people would expect folks to come back and raise money. It is difficult. None of us like going to all the fund raisers we need to go to back home, getting back home and putting together these events. It is a lot easier having an event here in Washington, D.C., or somewhere elsewhere where you can raise a significant amount of money. But this is, I think, an important responsibility. I would hope that all Members would accept this amendment. I think it is the right thing to do. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in the 103d Congress I served on the House Republican Campaign Finance Task Force. As a member of that task force, I pressed for language to require that candidates receive half of the campaign funds from people they are seeking to represent. My amendment today would require candidates to adhere to this 50 percent rule. The public's perception is that elected officials are beholden to the special interests that they believe finance the campaigns. As long as the public has this perception, it is important that every person running for public office restores confidence in our system. By requiring all candidates for office in the House of Representatives and the Senate to raise at least half of their campaign funds from individuals in the districts they represent, my amendment goes a long way toward restoring the people's trust. The amendment is simple and straightforward. On the first report to the Federal Election Commission after an election, candidates would have to show that they raised a majority of funds for that election from individuals within their own district for House candidates or within the State for senatorial candidates. Money from political parties will be considered 50 percent in-district money and 50 percent out-of-district money. If it is determined that they have not met this requirement, they will be subject to a fine by the FEC of two times the amount of the margin between in-district contributions and the contributions from outside the district. Candidates will have 30 days from that determination to pay the penalty interest-free. If the deadline passes without payment, interest will begin to be assessed. As Members of Congress, we owe it to our constituents to provide them with the security of knowing they are electing people to Congress to represent them, not special or remote interests. Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say to the gentleman from Connecticut, as he knows, I have been in favor of this concept since I first came to Congress almost 6 years ago. I am happy to hear that he raises 99 percent of his campaign contributions within his congressional district. I would daresay that there are some folks here that raise 99 percent of their campaign contributions outside of their congressional district. And so at what level is a fair and reasonable amount to raise within your own congressional district? I would think that most Americans, and I have seen polling documents as all of us have, that most Americans believe that you should raise at least half of your campaign contributions within your congressional district. The argument that folks in poorer districts would not be able to raise funds, all I would say is that all people who would run in that seat are playing under the same limitations, so that the playing field is leveled. I think it is important that people back home realize that the people who are elected to Congress at least represent them, if money is important and the reason we are here tonight on campaign finance reform is that we are going back and building the base within our own congressional districts and raising money back home. I think in years past, that was the case. We have gotten away from that. I think that this amendment will go a long ways to bringing back confidence within the system. I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say to the gentleman that how much should the threshold be? If it is not 50 percent, should it be 40 percent? Should it be 30 percent? Should it be 20 percent? There are people who are elected to Congress who raise 95 percent of their money outside of their congressional districts. Is that what American people out there expect from their candidates? I do not think so. I would point out to the gentleman that there are people who run for public office who are not from an area. The gentleman is correct. You do not have to have residency requirements as a requirement to run for congressional office, many of whom move into a congressional district and raise 95 percent of their money from outside of the district and a local candidate is not given the opportunity to get elected within the congressional district in which they reside, because they do not have the resources. But I would say if there is a problem with a self-funded rich candidate running for such a seat, and I would say that that is a problem for any of our seats if someone of such wealth decides to run, in that case the party can add funds to the race. I would also accept a perfecting amendment that would waive this rule at a certain threshold of funds, say $100,000 is thrown in by a wealthy candidate. But I would say that whatever district that a Member of Congress represents, he or she represents, if a wealthy candidate decides to run, you are in trouble under existing campaign law and will continue to be in trouble in the future.

Mr. CALVERT. Reclaiming my time, I understand, under the Constitution that the other gentleman pointed out, that we cannot restrict an individual from spending his or her own money. However, that is one of the reasons why I would accept a perfecting amendment that would waive the rule at a certain threshold and allow for dollars to be raised outside of a district if, in fact, that occurs. But getting back to the point that I am trying to get at, that people within congressional districts expect their Members to represent their interests within their district. I would say that Members of Congress who raise 95 percent, 90 percent, 80 percent of their dollars outside of the congressional districts that they represent do not represent the districts as well as someone who raises at least 50 percent of their monies from their district. I would hope that we would pass this amendment. I think the American public would be for it.

Mr. CALVERT. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. CALVERT

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.