John Doolittle

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Reclaiming my time, let me just say, everything is hard money, not soft money.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I think we all stipulate, the present regulation, it should not be cash, it should be a check. But, yes, that is enough. That is enough because the American people are the judges, not a government czar.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The point is, right now, only the people who are personally rich can spend unlimited amounts of money. At least under this system, if they are not rich themselves, they can go to those who have money and they can contribute to them instead of just the limit of $1,000 they are limited to now.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. It is not from a handful at all. It would be from a number of people. It would all be reported. And if people think that is too much, they would not vote for them in the election. What is the matter with that? That is freedom. That is disclosure. That is the American system.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, there is so much that is wrong with the present system, but the Democrats gave us this system. We had a Republican President who, unfortunately, signed it into law. It is a disastrous system. Before this system came into being, most people had never heard of PACs or of soft money or hard money or issue advocacy or all of these wonderful permutations that come as a direct result of the big government regulation that you Democrats gave us, that you love, that is so unconstitutional, so undesirable, and so unworkable. By the way, that is what is wrong with Shays-Meehan. It is more of the same old rehash, more rules, more regulations, more bureaucratic czars, more of everything that is ruining our political system. It is terrible. Here, this is like having a patient that has been misdiagnosed by the physician. The sicker the patient gets, the heavier the dosage of medicine. What is the medicine? Government regulation. Obviously, we do not have enough, let us have some more. Let us take Shays-Meehan. Let us have the Allen-Hutchinson freshman bill. Let us have more of these awful proposals that are so contrary to the whole history of America that have produced this mess that frustrates people, that makes them wonder what is going on in Washington, D.C. What we need to do is step back, get a new diagnosis, and find out what the problem really is. The problem is government regulation of political speech. What could be more clear than the First Amendment, which says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech? Yet, Shays-Meehan, Allen- Hutchinson or Hutchinson-Allen, and many of these proposals that are coming before us are precisely that, abridgements of the freedom of speech, all in the name of some greater good, fairer campaigns or whatever it is. I think that we have a real problem here. At least the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) is giving us a bill that has the potential of producing some improvement. I do not think it is perfect, but few bills are perfect that come before this House. At least it offers the opportunity to do something. To the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), we hear all this talk about big money. The last campaign, I see the gentleman raised $1,177,000 according to the official FEC records. So the gentleman has got some big money in there himself.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Reclaiming my time, that is the system you liberal Democrats gave us. The Democrats took away the American system and gave us the government regulation of political speech.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me respond. I respectfully submit that is utter nonsense. The Supreme Court itself observed in the Buckley case that there is no obligation for the government to fund people in making their speech, but we all have the right to make the speech we want to make. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have 5 more minutes.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I would just observe I do not think any of this debate has in any way been improper. I mean this is getting right to the heart of what these issues are, and frankly I would just want to say that I think we are going to have to have this kind of freewheeling debate to really bring out the different points of view. I have no desire to prolong it, and if there is no desire to offer amendments, I have no objection to going to a vote.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentlewoman, we have had about 25 years or so of extensive Federal regulation of our campaigns and yet things seem to have gone from bad to worse. Would the gentlewoman care to share her opinion as to why we seem to have have ever-increasing problems despite all the massive regulation that has been in the law?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I am happy that we are considering this proposed amendment to the Constitution, because this amendment, without question, is where the debate ought to be on the government regulation of political speech which is under consideration. I want to commend the gentleman from Missouri and my other liberal colleagues who have endorsed this approach. I do not endorse it, but I commend them, because it is honest. My liberal colleagues recognize that, in order to limit speech, it is necessary to amend the first amendment. They know that any attempt to abridge a citizen's first amendment rights by statute, such as most of the proposals before us do, in fact, is unconstitutional. So I commend them for their honest admission of this fact. Mr. Chairman, this is a debate which will clarify that the so-called campaign finance issue is really about limiting our right to engage in political speech and participate in free elections. In an effort to pave the way for big government regulations such as Shays-Meehan, this resolution would amend the Constitution to grant Congress and the States power to set spending and contribution limits and to define what a political expenditure is. The words of the Gephardt resolution are relatively few, but the ramifications are stunning. The amendment would give Congress a free hand to regulate, restrict or, indeed, even prohibit any activity which is perceived by the government to constitute the campaign expenditure. Candidate spending, independent expenditures, and even issue advocacy by private citizens and groups would be swept within the orbit of governmental regulation. Thanks to the first amendment, America's premier political reform, Congress does not have the authority to stifle political speech. The Supreme Court has rightfully rejected efforts to suppress political speech time and time again. If this amendment should pass, it would provide the government with a blank check to gag American citizens, candidates groups, and parties. Liberals call this reform. The Founding Fathers had the wisdom and courage to construct the Constitution of the United States. The first amendment has served our Nation well for over 200 years. The first amendment speech protections are a legacy we are extremely fortunate to have. Of all the types of speech that we are guaranteed by the first amendment, guess which was the most important in the minds of the framers? It was not the ability to go out and advertise automobiles or beer. It was political discourse, the very thing the British Government tried to abridge when it was in power. Our founders tried to prevent this from ever happening again by enacting the first amendment. Mr. Chairman, the first amendment prevents the government from rationing the political speech of an American citizen through campaign spending regulations in the same way it prevents the government from telling the Washington Post or the Sacramento Bee how many numbers it may distribute or how many hours a day CNN may broadcast. Amending the first amendment for the first time in two centuries, the big government reformers want to make the unconstitutional be constitutional. They would rewrite the first amendment, a frontal assault on American freedom that even the ACLU has characterized as a recipe for repression. While I relish the debate itself, I recoil at the prospect of gutting our first amendment freedoms. I prefer the crystal clear language of the first amendment, which says, ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.'' We as representatives would do well to abide by the Constitution and defeat this resolution.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Chairman, make no mistake about it, at the heart of this debate on campaign reform is our right as American citizens to freely engage in political speech, a right which is guaranteed to us under the first amendment of the Constitution. Throughout the course of this debate the big government campaign reformers will be trying to tell us that unconstitutional government regulations are needed because they believe money is evil and that it is corrupting our political system. These people look at America as a seething cauldron of unseemly interests who debase the political process. Many colleagues, on the other hand, take the approach that James Madison did. James Madison, the author of the first amendment, understood that America would be a cauldron of special interests, but special interests, in Madison's view, would be people who would be guaranteed a right to have some influence. Madison anticipated, expected and deemed it necessary that in a republic people must have influence. The campaign finance regulators would like us to believe political giving is inherently corrupt. But, in fact, participating in the political process is not merely desirable, it is guaranteed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that the Constitution allows political parties or any group of Americans to spend unlimited amounts on political speech. What the Court has said is that the constitutional right to free speech is moot unless we have the right to amplify our voice above the din, particularly in a country of 270 million people. The Court correctly declared, in the landmark Buckley decision of 1976, that political spending is speech. Listen closely to the Court's words in Buckley: The first amendment denies government the power to determine that spending to promote one's political views is wasteful, excessive or unwise. In a free society ordained by the Constitution it is not the government, but the people, individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political committees, who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign. This decision means that the first amendment does not allow the government through some statute we pass here to be put in charge of regulating either the quality or the quantity of political speech. The Supreme Court made it clear that the government does not have the authority to decide between worthy and unworthy speech. The first amendment does not allow Congress the latitude to categorize certain kinds of speech as offensive and other kinds as laudable. That issue, Madam Chairman, is at the core of this debate. Another Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, understood that in a free society the people should be empowered to make decisions without interference from the State. Madam Chairman, I believe we do need to change our flawed campaign finance laws. The problems we endure today are due primarily to government regulation of campaign financing. True campaign reform should honor the first amendment by expanding participation in our republic and by enhancing political discourse. Unfortunately, most of the measures we will be debating advocate greater government regulation which will continue to worsen the current problem.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, the First Amendment to the Constitution reads, ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.'' The First Amendment is America's most important political reform. As Americans, it is our most precious and sacred guarantee. That is why the founders put it at the very top of the list. Mr. Speaker, it was political speech that the founders deemed most vital. Why? Because it was political speech that the British government tried to stifle when it was in power. The Founding Fathers tried to prevent government suppression of political speech from ever happening again, by adopting the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The framers of the Constitution did not explicitly or implicitly create a campaign speech exception to the First Amendment, as some Members of Congress now wish to do. Mr. Speaker, under the First Amendment, Congress does not have the authority to regulate political speech. As long as we have any shred of a Constitution left, we are going to have the ability to act as individuals or as groups to engage in political expression, free of government intrusion.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) for his commitment to force readiness. He knows well how the cuts in training have put our national security at risk. But I would like to ask for his commitment that when this bill is in conference that he will fight to maintain the House readiness reporting language and will work to keep my amendment on retention in the conference report.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the committee for their attempt to bring objectivity and honesty to the readiness reporting system. When I visit with military people in the field, I often hear about the lack of ammunition, spare parts, fuel and other essential equipment that is degrading their training for combat. I thank the chairman also for incorporating my amendment in the en bloc amendments. This amendment would require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the vital issue of retention. Air Force and Navy pilots, perhaps the most intensely and expensively trained members of the military, are leaving in droves, and other highly trained members of our Armed Forces are also leaving. Why? Because over the past 5 years they have been asked repeatedly to do more with less. That means more missions of marginal value to the security of the United States, executed with fewer people, older equipment and, most vitally, less combat training. This amendment will take a look at this. And I want to urge my colleagues to support the amendment and to support the bill.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn. (The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 40 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, May 18, 1998, at 12 noon.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, we constantly hear these days from reformers who support a bigger Federal Government that campaigns cost too much and that government must step in and further regulate campaign spending. But I ask my colleagues, is spending on political advertising really out of control? Consider this: Tonight Americans will watch the final episode of Seinfeld and a 30-second ad purchased tonight during that final episode will cost $1.5 million for 30 seconds. By contrast, the cost of a typical congressional race is about $0.5 million or one-third the 30- second ad tonight on Seinfeld. By restricting a candidate's ability to spend campaign dollars, we will restrict his ability to speak to potential voters through television, radio, mail and personal appearances. This is the very type of speech the Founders sought to protect through the first amendment to the United States Constitution. When we support spending limits, we must feel that there is too much speech in political campaigns and that candidates communicate too much with voters. How is it that spending a few billion dollars exercising our most precious rights as Americans is deemed to be excessive while the tens of billions of dollars spent on disposable consumer products is not? Free political discourse and plenty of it is infinitely more valuable to the protection of our liberties than any beer or car commercial can ever be. In 1996, spending on all campaigns, Federal and State, totaled just $4 billion, yet Americans spend roughly five times that much, or $20 billion per year, on laundry and dry cleaning. In comparison, total advertising in a year, that year, 1996, was around $150 billion versus the $4 billion spent on campaigns at all levels of government. Total campaign spending viewed another way, per eligible voter, averages just $3.89, really the cost, approximately, of a McDonald's value meal. Is that amount too much? Even at a much higher price, liberty would be a much better value. Total campaign spending as a percentage of the gross domestic product is not increasing, as is stated by some and implied by others, but rather it has remained fairly constant since 1980, fluctuating between .04 percent and .06 percent of the gross domestic product. Voters have minds of their own. They are not helpless to make their own decisions in the face of political advertising. Money spent on advertising does not buy votes, it enhances a candidate's ability to communicate his message to voters. I urge my colleagues to oppose any measure that would ration our constitutional rights, and I would remind people that the first amendment is quite clear on this subject. It states: Congress shall make no law, shall make no law, abridging the freedom of speech. Next week the House of Representatives will engage in a historic debate about campaign reform and what needs to be done to address the problems that confront us. Before we can embark upon a course of reform, we had better have a clear understanding of what those problems are. Once we know what they are, we should then consider how to address them. I would submit that the problem of campaign reform is much like the case of the sick patient who has been diagnosed and treated by the same physician for a long period of time. If the diagnosis is wrong, then the treatment prescribed is not going to help the patient. In this case, we see that the patient is ill and the same doctor is treating him and the same prescription is being offered, only more of it. And the more that is given, the sicker the patient gets. We hear a great deal of talk today about the evils of soft money. Most Americans, I would venture, really have no idea even what soft money is. We hear the terms ``hard money'' in contrast to ``soft money.'' We hear discussions of issue advocacy or we will hear the term ``independent expenditure.'' I would just observe that these were terms that really came into being the first time the Dr. Regulator made his prescription for the patient when, in 1974, the Democrats ran through a partisan law that took partisan advantage and skewed the whole Federal law in favor of their party and against Republicans. Now, after this law was passed, we began to understand a new term, the term of ``PAC.'' I remember 2 or 3 years ago when our big government reformers were trying to outlaw PACs, or political action committees; it is funny that we do not hear much about that anymore. PACs have not changed, it is just that now all the focus is on something else, soft money. But let me just remind all my colleagues that basically the terms of ``PACs'' and ``soft money'' came into being as a result of the present Federal law, rammed through Congress by liberal Democrats taking advantage of the reaction against the Republicans and Richard Nixon. And they put that law through, and ever since we have seen the ill effects of that law. And now when the body politic is deemed to be even sicker, Dr. Regulator is back again with the same old prescription; more regulation. The answer is always the same; more regulation. Now, what is the question? It is very interesting how over the years this has never changed. We always have to have a new law, a new regulation proposed to fix something. In this case, they are trying to fix our campaign system. Let me suggest that the cause of the patient's illness is the regulation itself. That is the cause. If we wanted to deal with the underlying problem and heal that patient, remove the regulation. Now, there is a truly radical idea; remove the regulation, do not have more of it, as virtually everyone on the other side proposes and some of our own Republicans are proposing. Reconsider what is causing the sickness. Get a proper diagnosis. Then we will be able to proceed. I would submit that the various ideas being advanced by the left and by some of us here on our side of the aisle are flat-out wrong and they will not solve the problem. I believe them to be highly undesirable, unconstitutional. But even setting aside those two things, actually they are quite unworkable. If regulation worked, we would not have the mess that we have today in our Federal campaign system; we would not have a presidential system that takes our taxpayer dollars and spends it on candidates that we oppose as taxpayers. That system needs to be repealed. That system is hurting us. That is denying the parties their most vibrant candidate. Think for a minute to the 1996 campaign and what happened on the Republican side and think ahead to what is likely to happen this time around. The candidate who was nominated, the candidate who is going to be nominated is the one who has the highest name ID amongst the voters no matter what his ideas or record happens to be. There is very little information available to the voter about this person, and there will continue to be little information because we have such strict spending limits set in law that it is not possible for the candidates at the presidential level to communicate their ideas. We saw that fully played out in the Republican side of it. Senator Dole, by the time he was able to win enough delegate votes to cinch up the nomination, was unable to continue spending between that point and the Republican Convention in midsummer because of the Federal campaign law. How on Earth can this be good policy? How can this be consistent with the precious first amendment, which says so clearly that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech? Let me just observe, before this disastrous 1974 law rammed through Congress, bipartisan liberal Democrats twisting the law to their own advantage, the law that we live under today, our campaigns were relatively unregulated and it worked relatively well. It was not perfect, but we will never achieve perfection as long as mortal human beings are upon the face of the Earth governing themselves. So let us not look for perfection; let us look for the best that we can get and something that works. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that the system we have today is worse than what we had. We have tried to correct abuses and created far worse problems. The problems we have today are violations of the first amendment. We do not have free speech in this country anymore when it comes to campaigning. I find in my district voters are hungry for reliable information about the candidates. They want to hear directly from the candidate and it is getting harder and harder to do that. People should be offended that under the present law an individual can, or, rather, a political action committee can contribute five times what an individual can contribute to a candidate's campaign. Why is that just or right or fair that there is a 5-1 advantage? After all, the first amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. So how did it get abridged? By a statute enacted into law by the Congress and the President. Well, this was tested in the famous Buckley v. Valeo case, and almost all of that tremendous law passed in 1994 was thrown out, except for just a couple of parts, the parts that remain with us today and that still negatively afflict the campaign system and really the body politic. And the Supreme Court did uphold the right by Congress to place limits on what amounts could be contributed to campaigns, limits that skewed it in favor of PACs and against individuals. However, as time has gone on, the value of these limits has been eroded; whereas at the time, an amount that could be contributed to an individual was $1,000 or by an individual to a candidate was $1,000 and by a PAC to a candidate was $5,000. And while those limits are in effect right now under present law, which has never been changed, let me just observe we will have extraordinarily high inflation in the intervening years. So that today, the $1,000 and the $5,000 have been reduced by two-thirds. Now, earlier I told my colleagues that the cost of a Seinfeld ad for 30 seconds was $1\1/2\ million. Those are today's prices in 1998. But we still live by a campaign law that was written in 1974, when the equivalent 30-second add was dramatically less. The fact of the matter is, political advertising of all kinds has gone up with inflation and probably above inflation, and yet campaigns are still restricted to the old limits that are the present limits. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) understands these issues very well and has been valiant in fighting to protect our First Amendment rights. And we hope and pray that others will be similarly valiant in the upcoming debate and series of votes that will be commencing next week. Let me just observe that ``hard money,'' the term that we apply to that, is contributed from individuals or PACs or parties to the campaign of the candidates. Those are hard dollars, strictly regulated by Federal law, very unfair, very burdensome, very biased Federal law that was passed over 20 years ago. As I indicated before, the inflation has been dramatic, it has eroded the real purchasing value of the limitation by two-thirds, and we live with that today. As the cost of advertising has shot up over the years, campaign spending has followed the course of least resistance. It so happens that it is possible to engage in a form of spending using soft money. Soft money is money that is not covered by the Federal law and it is money that cannot go directly to campaigns but it must be used for voter registration, get-out-the-vote effort, voter identification, those kinds of things. That is soft money. That was felt to be very desirable at one point by our elected officials. And in fact, after the 1976 campaign Ford v. Carter, both parties felt that we should strengthen the ability of parties and we should strengthen it by allowing them to make greater use of the so- called ``soft money,'' that in order to have healthy, vibrant political parties, they needed to be able to engage in this kind of campaign spending. In fact, since that time, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that we cannot proscribe spending by political parties in the soft money area. In fact, very recently in the Supreme Court case involving the Republican Party of Colorado, they explicitly held that this was clearly protected by the first amendment to the United States Constitution. I remain amazed, despite these clear pronouncements of the Court time and time again, Buckley v. Valeo has been cited by the Court over 100 times in subsequent opinions. That was rendered in 1976. So, for 22 years, this case has been repeatedly cited and yet we are constantly finding bills introduced that fly right in the face of the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. In fact, there is now a special project made up of law professors all over the country, I understand, to figure out ways to bring court challenges to get Buckley v. Valeo overturned. Because as long as that court opinion stands, none of these laws being proposed that abridge our first amendment rights is ever going to be able to stand the court test. To commend a colleague who is a liberal Democrat, and with whom I disagree completely on this issue because I will commend him for his honesty, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) recognizes that to do what he and the Democrats want to do cannot be done by statute; it can only be done by amending the Constitution of the United States. And indeed, that is what he has proposed to do, actually amend the Constitution, modify the first amendment, and basically make it possible so that Congress can legitimately abridge a citizen's first amendment rights and do so to accomplish the greater good of campaign reform, greater good in his mind, not in my mind and, I would submit, not in the minds of most Americans. But at least there is honesty in attempting to go about it the right way; because we cannot do the things that many of my colleagues seek to do and be consistent with our great U.S. Constitution until and unless we deregulate this campaign system and follow the Constitution, which clearly says that Congress is supposed to stay out of it. And by the way, of all the types of speech, guess what the most vital, most important form of speech was in the minds of the framers? It was not the ability to go out and advertise automobiles or beer or something like that. It was political discourse, the very thing the British Government tried to abridge when it was in power. We tried to prevent that from ever happening again by having the first amendment to the United States Constitution, which I think is unique amongst the nations of the world. Our adherence to that is better than any other country. We have a very, very clear standard. The government should not be able to regulate in this area. The government must not regulate in this area, and, indeed, the government cannot effectively regulate in this area. Because as long as we have any shred of a Constitution left, you are going to have the ability of individuals acting independently or of groups acting independently to contribute whatever amount of money they would like to political campaigns. You see, today we are seeing increasingly the ability of the average person to run be depreciated. Look how with increasing frequency, individuals of personal wealth are running for these offices. Why? Because there is a great exception to the Federal campaign law, one the drafters of it did not wish to allow, but one the Supreme Court carved, and they carved it legitimately and correctly; that is, you have the unlimited right to spend whatever you wish on your campaign. So an individual that is going to spend his own millions can do so for as much as he would like or she would like. Yet, that same individual who may have $1 billion can only give $1,000 to some other candidate, to a candidate of average means, to someone who works for a living and who supports his or her family, but who believes that he or she can make a difference in our public affairs. But this person is not a millionaire or a billionaire. This person, therefore, cannot contribute his own personal wealth, because he does not have personal wealth. All he or she can do is go out and live by the limits imposed by Federal law and get these contributions in the amounts that I told you, $1,000 or $5,000. In case anybody is wondering, you know, you hear these reports that Members of Congress have these fund-raisers, and representatives of PACs come and tender the check. I will check my own campaign reports recently but, over time, I think I only have, out of about the half million dollars or so that I, as one representative, am able to raise in campaign dollars over a 2-year period, I will bet you I do not have more than two or at most three political action committees donate the maximum $5,000 contribution. It just is not that common. The only reason I share that with you is to indicate that when you have to raise, as a challenger, by the way, you see, I am an incumbent now; if I really wanted to feather my own nest as an incumbent, I would climb on board and vote tomorrow for McCain-Feingold or Shays-Meehan, because I will make it infinitely more difficult for someone to try and challenge me. It will be infinitely more difficult as an incumbent and it will be infinitely more difficult for any challenger to be able to successfully challenge an incumbent. Why? Because the incumbent has the advantages of office. Let us start with name identification in the mind of the voter. That is number one. Most people have heard of me in the Fourth Congressional District of California, because I am an incumbent and have run before. By virtue of that fact, it is much easier for me to go out and hold a fund-raiser and have a number of individuals come in and contribute to me in relatively small amounts, because I am known, than it is for a challenger who is virtually unknown to go out and hold a fund-raiser. Almost no one will show up, figuratively speaking, because nobody knows the individual. They have never even heard of his name. So why would they show up at some event? Why would they write a check to him? They do not really know him. So name ID and incumbency are tremendous advantages. Most studies show that the challenger has to outspend the incumbent in order to win the seat. You will make it infinitely more difficult for that challenger in order to prevail if you go with the big government types of campaign reform that impose further limits and further restrictions and get the heavy hand of government even further into the process. Sometimes when I see what happens to groups that legitimately participate and have the FEC decide to go after them or some congressional committee decide to hold a hearing, when you look at the months of negative publicity involved, when you look at the hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees that have to be spent in order for these individuals or groups to defend themselves in the exercise of their legitimate constitutional rights, I mean, I ask myself, I think why on Earth would anybody ever put themselves through this? The effect of all of this Federal regulation is to chill free speech. It is to make people think twice before they participate in the process. That is basically its effect. I believe, frankly, its intended effect is to drive people out in a way, and it is just better off not to get involved. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is the wrong way to go in our body politic. Free speech is precious. People should be able to engage in free speech without the fear of the government coming down on them. People should be encouraged to run for office, not discouraged. It is very discouraging to a person of average means who may have good ideas, great ideas, who seeks to run a campaign, and find that he has got to raise that half million dollars by holding numerous fund- raisers, and being on the phone and raising money all the time, whereas, his wealthy opponent simply writes himself a check. He is on the air and in the mail and can sit back and let all the professionals do it. It is just not right. This Republic was founded upon the idea that all men are created equal. Obviously by men, they meant men and women, but obviously not equal in result, but equal in the opportunity to work and to fight for the things that we believe in. That opportunity is constrained today by the heavy hand of government. It is going it be made worse by the big government reformers who want to come in and sell you on some snake oil formula to give away your first amendment rights in exchange for the nirvana of campaign reform. Mr. Speaker, I for one intend to be vigorously involved in this debate and to stand up for our fundamental freedoms. This is really the right to self-governance of the American people. It is not just politicians fighting amongst themselves over how much advantage they can get. I know that it seems that way to our American people. I hope through these debates they will realize it is really their rights that we are protecting, their rights to freedom of speech, their rights to participate in the political process, their rights to dictate to their government, rather than to have their government controlling them and dictating to them. After all, let us not forget the words of George Washington: Government does not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a troublesome master. Jefferson referred to it as a necessary evil. But let us remember that it is not a positive good as President Clinton and company would have you think, and therefore the more of it, the better. If some government is good, more is better. That is completely contrary to the founders who said that it is a necessary evil, that it could be a fearful master and a troublesome servant. These are concepts, I think, that are almost lost today upon our students in the school, and their concepts we are going to have to revive here in the halls of freedom, in the halls of the United States Congress. Mr. Speaker, I have appreciated the opportunity to engage in this special order, to get out some of my thoughts about what we need to do relative to the topic of campaign reform. Let me just close by, I guess, citing an ancient but well-founded concept, the hypocritic oath to physicians, which is first do no harm. Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere hope and prayer that as we embark next week upon this important topic of the Constitution, first amendment rights and campaign reform, that we will, indeed, do no harm.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth), our chairman, and the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) for their kind remarks. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, as has been indicated, will allow the Forest Service to develop a resource management contract that evaluates the landscape as a whole rather than, as is present practice, in individual pieces, by streamlining the government contracting process and reducing staff time spent developing a project, thereby saving taxpayer dollars. H.R. 2886 will provide the Forest Service with new innovative contracting authority for the purpose of developing a comprehensive land management contract for the Granite area. Conceptually, the proposed project seeks to combine management activities, like forest thinning, with road maintenance, wildlife monitoring, and repair and maintenance, to improve erosion and runoff conditions. This bill would allow the Forest Service to use the revenue generated from the sale of commercial timber to offset the cost of conducting nonrevenue producing watershed improvement work. Existing Federal contracting authority prohibits the Forest Service from offering a contract that bundles multiple resource activities under one umbrella. While a combination of forest thinning and repair and restoration work might be needed in an area to improve forest health conditions, existing law requires the Forest Service to offer separate contracts for this type of work. These limitations often result in tremendous duplication of effort by staff, unnecessary paperwork and higher preparation costs at the expense of the taxpayer. In the end, the result is an overly bureaucratic process that prevents the Forest Service from developing a project that evaluates the landscape as a whole. This bill alters this dynamic by allowing the Forest Service the opportunity to accomplish a greater amount of resource work by simply streamlining the contracting process. H.R. 2886 looks to meet both environmental and commercial needs by using a stewardship approach to managing our Federal lands and watersheds. By allowing the Forest Service to implement a project that saves taxpayer dollars, reduces the risks of catastrophic wildfire and improves the quality of water flowing through our forest streams, this project will serve as a learning model of how to coordinate and gain efficiency in multipurpose restoration of forested watersheds. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan legislation passed unanimously out of the Committee on Resources, and, as was indicated, it is supported by the administration. H.R. 2886 includes language that clarifies stewardship contracting authorities of the Forest Service and addresses concerns raised by the environmental community. I would ask for the support of my colleagues, and urge them to pass this legislation today.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I have known my friend, Paul N. Johnson, for a number of years, and I was most impressed with the insights he shared in the Los Altos Town Crier (December 10, 1997), which he recently sent to me. I agree with the sentiments expressed therein and commend the article to your attention. I Am a Weary American (By Paul N. Johnson) I am weary of career politicians who feed at the public trough, who lie and promise whatever they think will gain them votes with the electorate. I am weary of bureaucrats, whether in government, business, unions, education, etc., who make mountains out of molehills, who make life difficult for individuals and for those who can make things happen, who add absolutely nothing to our society or economy, and whose main function is to ensure the continuation of their jobs, and only give lip service to what their purpose is supposed to be. I am weary of people who expect governments to solve every problem we have, not thinking enough to realize that individuals on the local level can solve problems faster, better and more economically than any government. I am weary of those whose main desire in life is to control the lives of others and tell then what to do, who will use and manipulate anyone or anything that will help them achieve that end, and who want to invade every aspect of our lives. I am weary of increasing taxes with no end in sight, and of politicians who raise taxes for a specific purpose and then use the revenue for whatever is expedient or for the ``current crisis.'' I am weary of media biases that are unbalanced, sometimes are not factual, emphasize irrelevant items, and do so self- righteously; and of news ``reporting'' that too often consists of sound bites of emotion that are supposed to be news or fact. I am weary of emotional, immoral, vulgar and violent trash in books, on television and in the movies, of those who try to promote pornography as art, and of hearing vulgar language almost everywhere and then being expected to consider it ``normal.'' I am weary of lawyers who represent unpopular people or causes, claiming high-minded reasons for doing so, but whose real reason is greed and/or publicity; and of lawyers who zealously encourage lawsuits over trivial matters for their own avarice. I am weary of judges who ignore the law and let criminals free to terrorize citizens again. I am weary of protesters who trample the rights of others while claiming they represent a higher cause; who shout down speakers, but insist on their right to be heard. I am weary of people who insist on their ``rights'' but refuse responsibility for their actions. I am weary of so many people who are eager to take offense when no offense was intended. I am weary of ``political correctness'' that amplifies trivia to appear to be ``momentous'' and ignores major and important problems. I am weary of unions who trample on the rights of those who don't agree with them, and sometimes on the rights of those they are supposed to represent. I am weary of ``educators'' who don't educate, who don't teach basics, and who don't teach unchanging truths and facts, but instead teach the latest man-made philosophy, which is modified regularly. And then claim ``it's not my fault'' because we don't have enough money, or the classes are too large, or on and on ad nauseam. I am weary of hearing about greedy sports ``stars'' who demand more money, provide less skill, do not have basic moral values (or at least the sense to keep quiet about it), and are pathetic ``heroes'' for our youth to emulate. I am weary of so many who want to maintain the status quo even though it obviously has not worked, does not work, and will not work. I am weary of increasing welfare costs and decreasing effectiveness. I am weary of religious leaders who are really frustrated politicians and who meddle in issues that are outside their expertise, at localities where they will not be affected by the results. I am a weary American who does want men and women who are honest, ethical and moral, and who have the integrity to lead our government at all levels, to run businesses, educational institutions, unions, etc., and to set an example for adults and children to follow. I am a weary American who is grateful to live in this country where there really is more right than wrong, and where there really are more good people than bad.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, recently the Council of Kahlistan, which leads the struggle to liberate the Sikh homeland, Punjab, Khalistan, from Indian rule, recently wrote an open letter to the people and government of Pakistan urging Pakistan to recognize Khalistan to stop India from achieving hegemony in South Asia. The letter pointed out that two leaders of the ruling BJP recently called for Pakistan and Bangladesh to become part of India. It has been fifty years since India and Pakistan achieved their independence, agreeing to partition at that time. For leaders of the ruling party to call for that agreement to be undone reveals India's imperialist aims in the region. The atrocities committed against the Sikhs, the Christians of Nagaland, the Muslims of Kashmir, the Dalits (``black untouchables,'' the aboriginal people of the subcontinent), and so many others also show India's drive to establish Hindu Raj throughout South Asia. An independent Khalistan can serve as a buffer to prevent war between India and Pakistan. Khalistan is committed to freedom, denuclearization in South Asia, and economic cooperation to assure prosperity for all. It is time for the United States to promote freedom, peace, stability, and prosperity in South Asia by supporting a free and fair vote on the political status of Khalistan and for Pakistan to recognize the legitimate aspirations of the people of Khalistan, Nagaland, and all the nations of South Asia. I am putting the Council of Khalistan's open letter into the Record. Council of Khalistan, Washington, DC, April 8, 1998. An Open Letter to the People and Government of Pakistan: To Stop Indian Hegemony, Recognize Khalistan To the people and Government of Pakistan: Your recent missile test is an unfortunate reminder of the tensions in South Asia. While it was a necessary response to India's drive to establish its hegemony over South Asia, it is still an unfortunate event. We all hope that South Asia will not once again erupt into a war. India's drive for hegemony shows in the recent statement by two BJP leaders that Pakistan and Bangladesh should become part of India. It shows in India's military buildup. And it shows in India's ongoing repression of the minorities living within its artificial borders. It has already murdered over 250,000 Sikhs since 1984. It has murdered almost 60,000 Muslims in Kashmir since 1988, over 200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, and tens of thousands of Assamese, Manipuris, Tamils, Dalits (``black untouchables,'' the aboriginal people of South Asia), and others. You can help to end India's drive for hegemony by recognizing Khalistan. Your recognition will be a major boost of the movement to bring freedom to the oppressed Sikh Nation. It will also carry strategic advantages for you, as Khalistan can serve as a buffer between you and India. If there is a war, Sikhs will not fight for India. The Sikh Nation can also use the fact the over 60 percent of India's grain comes from Punjab, Khalistan to deter India from pursuing its dream of Hindu Raj throughout South Asia. I ask you to recognize Khalistan immediately. We seek to establish an Embassy in Islamabad and four consulates in Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar, and Quetter. Khalistan is committed to the denuclearization of South Asia and to the establishment of a South Asian common market to bring greater economic prosperity to all the countries of South Asia. Khalistan will also sign a 100-year friendship and defense treaty with Pakistan. Only the liberation of Khalistan and the other oppressed nations of South Asia will bring true peace and stability to the subcontinent. The Indian government has been talking to Naga leaders about the status of Nagaland. Yet India has failed to live up to its obligations under the 1948 U.N. resolution in which it agreed to a plebiscite in Kashmir and it has refused to hold a free and fair plebiscite in Punjab, Khalistan. India is not one country. It is a collection of many nations thrown together by the British for their administrative convenience. The collapse of India's brutal, corrupt empire is inevitable. By recognizing Khalistan, you can help bring that about sooner and help bring freedom, democracy, peace, and prosperity to South Asia. I call upon the people and government of Pakistan to take this step immediately. Sincerely, Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President, Council of Khalistan.