John Doolittle

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I was very distressed to learn from Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan, of the rape of four nuns in the Madhya Pradesh state of India. According to published reports, a gang of armed men forced their way into a Christy Jyoti Convent School, vandalized school property, and raped and terrorized the nuns. This terrible incident shows that it is not safe to be a member of a religious minority in Hindu India. Christian groups have reported a spate of attacks on members of the minority community since a Hindu nationalist-led coalition took office in New Delhi six months ago. The Indian government seems to have little interest in protecting the rights of religious minorities, whether Sikh, Christian, Muslim, or other. India's claims of secularism and democracy are suspect. The rapes were reported to India's National Commission on Minorities, which referred the incident to the National Human Rights Commission. America will be watching closely to see how the Indian Government handles it. All who love freedom must condemn this terrible incident. This offers one more reason for American taxpayers to be wary of supporting the questionable Indian government. We must maintain pressure on India until all the people of South Asia are free. We must support self- determination for all states throughout the subcontinent, including a free and fair vote in Punjab, Kashmir. I am placing the Council of Khalistan's press release and articles on the rape into the Record. [From the Council of Khalistan, Sept. 28, 1998] Four Nuns Raped in India Washington.--Four nuns were raped in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh on September 23. The case was sent to the National Commission on Minorities, which referred it to the National Human Rights Commission. ``This rape was designed to threaten religious minorities and prevent anyone from objecting to the repression India practices against its religious and ethnic minorities,'' said Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan, the government pro tempore of Khalistan, the independent Sikh homeland declared independent on October 7, 1987. The Council of Khalistan leads the Sikh Nation's peaceful, democratic, nonviolent movement for independence. ``Such ghastly crimes are a disgrace for the nation and make us hang our heads in shame,'' said Tahir Mahmood, chairman of the National Commission on Minorities. ``On behalf of the Sikh Nation, I extend our deepest sympathies to India's Christians and to the nuns who were raped for the political advancement of Hindutva,'' said Dr. Aulakh. ``If swift action is not taken, it will once again show India's religious intolerance and its terrorism against the minorities under its rule,'' he said. The Indian government has murdered more than 250,000 Sikhs since 1984, over 200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, almost 60,000 Kashmiri Muslims since 1988, and tens of thousands of Assamese, Tamils, Manipuris, Dalits, and others. The U.S. State Department reported that the Indian government paid over 41,000 cash bounties to police officers for killing Sikhs. More than 50,000 young Sikhs have been abducted by the police, tortured, and killed, then their bodies were declared unidentified and cremated. ``These rapes are of a piece with the repression in Punjab, Khalistan, in Kashmir, and throughout the nations occupied by India,'' Dr. Aulakh said. ``It is of a piece with the murders of Catholic priests in Bihar last year. The real aims of India's theocracy are now exposed to the world,'' he said. ``It is clear that there is no place in Indian democracy for Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, or any other minorities,'' Dr. Aulakh added. ``As the Sikhs who recently demonstrated at the United Nations noted, a religiously intolerant country cannot be democratic.'' Dr. Aulakh called on the United States to maintain its sanctions against India. ``The repression of minorities and the nuclearization of South Asia by the Indian government both support India's dreams of empire and its drive for hegemony over all South Asia,'' he said. He called on India to hold an internationally-supervised plebiscite in Punjab, Khalistan to let the Sikh Nation decide its future in a free and fair vote. He said that the people of Kashmir should have the plebiscite they are seeking as well. ``That is the democratic way to do things,'' Dr. Aulakh said. ``If India will not do this, how can it call itself a democracy?''

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, on August 14, News India-Times reported that Kuldip Nayar, a member of the Rajiya Sabha, the upper house of India's Parliament, came under verbal attack for saying that Pakistan's attack at the town of Doda came in retaliation for similar acts by Indian agents in the Pakistani state of Sindh. For this admission, some Indian Americans are trying to have him removed from Parliament, according to the article. Mr. Nayar has forthrightly stated Indian responsibility for the situation in Kashmir and has opposed the Indian government's nuclear tests. Indian governments haven't always been the close friends with the United States and have often destabilized the region. It put the Prithvi missile on the export market a few years ago, some of which can even reach parts of the United States. It has provided nuclear technology to repressive, anti=American regimes such as Iran. The Indian government votes against the United States at the United Nations more often than any other country except Cuba, yet it remains one of the top five recipients of U.S. aid. Not only India's neighbors, but also several of its constituent peoples have suffered at the hands of violent Indian governments. Internally, the Indian government has murdered over 250,000 Sikhs since 1984, more than 200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, almost 60,000 Kashmiri Muslims since 1988, and tens of thousands of Assamese, Tamils, Manipuris, Dalits, and others. In November 1994 the Hitvada newspaper reported that India paid the last Governor of Punjab, Surendra Nath, $1.5 billion to foment terrorism in neighboring Kashmir and in Punjab, Khalistan as well. According to the State Department, between 1992 and 1994 the Indian government paid over 41,000 cash bounties to police officers for murdering Sikhs. In one case, the police event went so far as to kill a three-year-old boy and his father and uncle to collect one of these bounties. We should also go on record demanding that India fulfill its half- century-old promise of a plebiscite in Kashmir and that it hold an internationally-supervised plebiscite in Punjab, Khalistan to decide the future of that country in a free and fair vote. I would like to submit the News India-Times article for my colleagues. [From the News India-Times, Aug. 14, 1998] Kuldip Nayar Flayed For ``Anti-India'' Remarks New Delhi: The recent statement allegedly made by Kuldip Nayar, veteran journalist and nominated member of the Rajya Sabha on the Doda massacre has created a furor in the country. Nayar is now looked upon as a ``treacherous, anti-national element'' for suggesting that the massacre at Doda is only a retaliation by Pakistan for similar actions by Indian agents in Sindh. The comment which has been so strong has even taken up editorial columns of the country's leading newspapers and magazines. One such editorial piece has even called it a blasphemous statement and that patriotism has been turned into a dirty word by a ``coterie of influential so-called intellectual.'' It added that such a statement would not have been made even by a spokesperson of Pakistan's notorious Inter-Services intelligence as that would have indicated its involvement in the Doda massacres. Meanwhile, American Friends of India condemning Kuldip Nayar have circulated a release questioning Nayar's credibility as a representative of the nation. ``This preposterous action by Kuldip Nayar brings several issues into question. Can he be trusted to be our representative in the Upper House of the It may be noted here that Nayar represents a lobby of so called intellectuals that blames the Indian government for Pakistan-sponsored massacres in Kashmir, and vehemently supports the U.S. government protests against the Indian nuclear tests. Does this lobby stand for India's unity or does it wish for its dismemberment? Nayar and his fellow co-conspirators will do well to note that Kashmir is not about religion. It is about freedom of religion. We urge the government of India and the Indian National Human Rights Commission to treat the Kashmiri Pandits as ``internally displaced people'' and stress the importance of providing conditions for their safe return to the valley. In light of such terrible tragedy of fellow Indians in Kashmir, Nayar should be expelled from the Rajya Sabha. We also urge the patriotic parliamentarians to take immediate action against Nayar for his treacherous and anti-national actions in the Rajya Sabha,'' the organization stated.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, a former Clinton adviser, George Stephanopolous, was right. Mr. Stephanopolous predicted a whisper campaign waged by the White House against Members of Congress who would eventually be forced to consider the independent counsel's allegations of possible impeachment offenses by the President. Furthermore, President Clinton's own brother, Roger, issued warnings to Members of Congress when he told CNN's Larry King, ``Some of the political people had best watch themselves because of the old glass house story. Be very careful.'' As predicted by these individuals, in recent weeks, including this morning, several of our colleagues have been subjected to vicious partisan attacks, via the news media, by individuals who are clearly attempting to intimidate Members of Congress in the wake of the Starr report. I take serious offense to what is obviously a scorched earth campaign. Mr. Speaker, we will never be intimidated by these scorched earth tactics. We will not back down from our constitutional responsibilities and we will not cower from the White House attacks. We will do what is right.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Resources Committee, I have worked to advance and strengthen tribal self- governments and promote private enterprise on our Nation's reservations. One tribe that has been a national leader in exercising its self-determination to build a strong tribal government and reservation-based economy is the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. Through the vision of Chief Phillip Martin, the Tribe used its sovereignty to develop a tribal economy to foster a highly responsive approach to providing traditional government services on the reservation. When Chief Martin became leader of the Tribe, he knew that the tribal government had to assume responsibility of government functions rather than they rely on the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take care of its members. Dramatic gains have occurred during the past 20 years on the Choctaw Reservation. The average educational level of adult tribal members has jumped from sixth grade in the 1970s to twelfth grade today. Life expectancy has also increased by nearly twenty years, and infant mortality has declined substantially. Through the efforts of the Choctaw Housing Authority, housing for tribal members has risen above substantial levels. The tribal members of the Choctaw Tribe have worked extremely hard to achieve their vastly improved living standard. The innovative approach to eradicating poverty on the reservation by reaching out to private businesses to invest in the tribe has been very successful for the Choctaws. I commend Chief Martin for believing in his tribe and taking the risk to develop the enterprises on the Choctaw Reservation. The restoration of the Choctaw Indian tribe is a great American success story of self- reliance and sheer determination that we all can be proud.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2795, the bill just passed.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4079) to authorize the construction of temperature control devices at Folsom Dam in California, as amended.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the primary purpose of H.R. 4079 is to authorize the construction of a temperature control device on Folsom Dam. The dam is located about 20 miles upstream from the city of Sacramento, California on the American River. A temperature control device is needed to allow the diversion of municipal water supplies from a point higher in the water column in the Folsom Reservoir than is now possible with the existing municipal water intakes. By diverting the water high on the water column, cold water can be released into the lower American River for steelhead and fall-run chinook salmon during the critical July through October period of the year when water temperatures tend to reach their annual highs. I would urge an aye vote on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 4079, the bill just passed.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2795) to extend certain contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation and irrigation water contractors in Wyoming and Nebraska that receive water from Glendo Reservoir, as amended.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2795 provides for the extension of certain contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation and irrigation water contractors in Nebraska and Wyoming that receive water from Glendo Reservoir. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett) who is the author of the bill.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I have no more requests for time, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding public servant, former Justice Frank K. Richardson. Frank K. Richardson, Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of California, has brought credit and distinction to himself through his illustrious record of public service, and it is appropriate at this time to commemorate the valuable leadership and dedicated service he has provided to his community and the people of the State of California. Justice Frank Richardson was born in St. Helena, Napa County, California, and lived in various locations in Northern California, one of which was Sacramento, where he attended Marshall School. After he completed his freshman year in high school in San Jose, the Richardson family moved to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where Frank attended Germantown High School. Frank attended the University of Pennsylvania for his freshman year of college but then transferred to Stanford University, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree ``with Distinction'' in political science in 1935. Frank was elected to the Phi Beta Kappa Honors Society, and graduated from Stanford Law School with a Bachelor of Laws degree in 1938. Frank became a member of the California State Bar in 1938, upon passing the bar exam, and began practicing law in Oroville in the law offices of retired Judge Hiram Walker. While practicing law, Frank immersed himself in the civic life of Oroville by serving as President of the Oroville Rotary Club, as a member of the Methodist Church, and as a Republican candidate for the State Assembly. While residing in Oroville, Frank met Betty Kingdon, who he later married in 1943. They celebrated their 55th wedding anniversary on January 23, 1998. The Richardsons' household has grown to include four sons and five grandchildren. During World War II, Frank served as a First Lieutenant in the United States Army (Intelligence), participated in the European Theatre of Operations, and received two Battle Stars for his valor. After the war, Frank and Betty Richardson decided to move to Sacramento, California a place they both love and which has been their home for the last 43 years. From 1946 to 1971, Frank practiced law, first as an associate to Sumner Mering, then as a sole practitioner for 23 years. During this time, Frank taught law classes at night in Evidence and Torts at McGeorge School of Law. In 1971, then-Governor Ronald Reagan appointed Frank Richardson as Presiding Justice of the Third District Court of Appeals in Sacramento. In 1974, Governor Reagan elevated Justice Richardson to the California Supreme Court, where he served for 9 years as an Associate Justice. In December 1983, Justice Richardson retired from the California Supreme Court. Six months after his retirement from the California Supreme Court, and after a semester of teaching at Pepperdine University School of Law as its Distinguished Visiting Scholar, President Ronald Reagan appointed Justice Richardson as Solicitor to the United States Department of the Interior. In that capacity, Frank supervised the work of the legal staff of the Department of the Interior throughout the United States until his retirement from that position in July 1985. In recognition of his skills as a lawyer and judge, and for his service to his community, state, and to the legal profession, Justice Frank Richardson has received honorary doctorates in law from Pepperdine University School of Law, Mid-Valley College of Law in Los Angeles, Western State University School of Law in San Diego, and the University of Southern California School of Law, which also made him an Honorary Member of its Order of the Coif Society. Justice Richardson served as a member of the Board of Visitors of Stanford Law School, McGeorge School of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law, Brigham Young University School of Law, and Whittier College of Law. Frank also was a member of the Board of Regents of the University of the Pacific and the Editorial Board for the University of San Francisco Law Review. In the years following his retirement from the California Supreme Court, Justice Richardson has served as Chairman of the Select Committee on Internal Procedures of the Supreme Court of California, as a member of both the Advisory Board of the National Institute of Justice and the California Commission on Campaign Financing, and as a member of the Board of Directors of FEDCO and the Board of Governors of the President Ronald Reagan Foundation. In 1993, Justice Richardson was elected a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation, an honorary organization of attorneys, judges, and law teachers whose professional, public, and private careers have demonstrated outstanding dedication of the welfare of their communities and to the highest principles of the legal profession. Frank was active in numerous state and local bar activities, including his leadership as President of the Sacramento County Bar Association, as a member of the Executive Committee of the State Bar, the Conference of Delegates, the Committee for the Administration of Justice, and the Committee of Bar Examiners, as Counsel to the California Commission on Uniform State Laws, and as a Fellow of the American College of Probate Counsel. His attention extended beyond his professional interests to the local community, where he distinguished himself as President of the Sacramento World Affairs Council, the Sacramento Community Welfare Council, the Sacramento YMCA, and the Sacramento Lions Club, as an active community member in the United Crusade and KVIE-Channel 6, Sacramento's public television station, and as the founder and first President and member of the Board of Directors of the Methodist Hospital of Sacramento. Frank Richardson served on the Board of Directors of the Sacramento Chamber of Commerce, the Boy Scouts of America, the Goodwill Industries of Northern California, and the Sacramento State College Association, and years later, after his retirement from the court, he served as Chairman of Sacramento's Bicentennial Commission. I take great pleasure in commending the Honorable Frank K. Richardson, Retired Justice of the Supreme Court of California, for his outstanding record of judicial leadership, his long and distinguished record of public service, and his outstanding display of civic leadership. He is indeed a man worth emulating and exemplifies the standards those in his chosen profession seek to uphold.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, we must end federal support for disastrous bilingual education programs. Federal complicity in stifling English learning in the name of politically correct multiculturalism is just one more example of elitist bureaucrats thinking they know what's best for local schools and parents. Bilingual education has been a grave injustice to people who immigrate to America and to their children. The vast majority of immigrants who chose to leave their ancestral homelands did so in hopes of providing a better future for their children. Absolutely essential to realizing their dreams of success in America is for their children to learn, and master, the English language. Otherwise, they will be doomed to menial, unrewarding, and low-paying jobs for life. Additionally, they will be unable to fully enjoy mainstream American culture, including interaction with people of other ethnic groups through our common language--English. These multiculturalists who would keep immigrant children in a linguistic ghetto are preventing them from enjoying the ethnic diversity the multiculturalists pretend to value so highly. A child who speaks only Spanish and a child who speaks only Vietnamese cannot communicate and learn about each other. It is unrealistic to assume immigrant children can succeed in America if they only know the language of their parents. And, as people get older their ability to learn another language declines. Therefore, the highest priority for educating non-English speaking children must be to learn English. Of course, I don't feel it's up to the U.S. Congress to set priorities in what is properly a decision of local schools and parents, but the federal government most certainly shouldn't be encouraging counterproductive measures. Advocacy of bilingual education on the part of the teachers unions unfortunately fits the historical pattern of labor union disregard for the well-being of immigrants in the financial interest of the union's members and leadership. Just as unions in the past worked to restrict immigrants from the labor pool in order to artifically maintain their own wages, the teachers unions want to protect the salary bonuses given to bilingual-certified teachers. Never mind how effective bilingual education programs actually are in teaching these children English, say the teachers union bosses, we want to maintain the salaries they provide the instructors. Enough with the corrupt labor unions and centralized bureaucratic power and feel-good multiculturalism that threatens to balkanize this country. Let's give power to parents and local schools and give opportunity to these immigrant children. Support the Riggs English Language Fluency Act.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

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

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, just to observe that even a very prominent, respected liberal Democrat Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court made this point, speaking for the unanimous court, quote, one of the points in which all members of the court agree is that money is essential for effective communication in a political campaign. That is why Justice Marshall and all other members of the court ruled that expenditure limits were unconstitutional, because money is the means of making the speech. Today only the millionaire has unlimited free speech. I seek to give this to the average citizen as well running as a candidate. For that reason I have offered my bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rarely agree with my hometown newspaper. It is one of the most partisan Democrat newspapers in the United States, known as the Sacramento Bee. But they did write an editorial which had many points of agreement. I have put it out in a Dear Colleague. The editorial was yesterday. It is entitled ``Wrong- headed Reform: Passage of Bad Campaign Regulations Is No Victory.'' I just thought I would share this with the Members. This is not coming from the Republican side or the conservative side, but this is coming from a very liberal Democrat-oriented newspaper. I think they make some very, very valid points. The points they make, I believe, are as valid against the substitute of the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) as they are against the Shays-Meehan bill and other bills of that type. They are speaking of the Shays-Meehan bill. They say, ``It centers on two big wrong-headed reforms: Prohibiting national political parties from collecting or using soft money contributions, and outlawing independent political advertising that identifies candidates within 60 days of a Federal election. That means the law would prohibit issue campaigning at precisely the time when voters are finally interested in listening, hardly consistent with free speech. ``Since that kind of restriction is likely to be tossed by the courts as a violation of constitutional free speech guarantees, the net effect of the changes will be to weaken political parties while making less accountable independent expenditure groups, kings of the campaign landscape.'' It was a great editorial. I will not take the time to read it all here now. The point is this, that even they, even from the other side, they recognize how disastrous these approaches are. This is the same approach that the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) is going to take. I say to the gentleman from California, he and I have talked about whether we are going to request a vote. I am going to request a vote on mine. I hope the gentleman requests a vote on his. I hope the gentleman will put it up there and let people register or be publicly recorded on how they stand on the approach being taken in the gentleman's bill. I think it would be beneficial for the process. I would like to just to now make a couple of points about some of the problems with the present system, and some of the problems with the proffered solutions. I believe that today's campaign finance system requires current and prospective officeholders to spend too much time raising money and not enough time governing and debating issues. Lamar Alexander may have had a very interesting statement. He was one of the gentlemen who ran for the Republican nomination for President in the last cycle. This is what he said. I will not read the whole quote, but he said, ``When I ran for President in 1996, contribution and spending limits forced me to spend 70 percent of my time raising money in amounts no greater than $1,000.'' If Members ask any congressional candidate, any nonincumbent, especially, what percentage of time they spend raising money, it will be just about the same. This is a disaster. It has to be corrected. Now, in addition to this problem of too much time raising money, today's system has failed to make elections more competitive. We have had big government campaign reform. It was enacted by Congress in 1974. Shays-Meehan and the Farr substitute are just reiterations of that same philosophy. We need to make these elections more competitive by allowing challengers to be unleashed, and to go out and raise money wherever they can and in any amount, only with the proviso that there has to be full and timely disclosure. Mr. Chairman, we know this system works. We have it in the Commonwealth of Virginia across the river over here, and we have it in the State of California and in a number of other States. The system works, only we need better disclosure than we presently have in the Federal system. We need to adjust those limits. Even David Broder, from the Washington Post, not known as a Republican, let alone a conservative, had this to say. Excuse me, this is in the Washingtonian, August, 1996. He said, ``Raise the current $1,000 limit on personal campaign contributions to $50,000, or maybe even go to $100,000. Today's limits are ridiculous, given television and campaigning costs. Raise that limit with full disclosure, which would enable some people to make really significant contributions to help a candidate.'' I would submit, Mr. Chairman, this is the direction we should move in, not in the direction of the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), not in the direction of the Shays-Meehan amendment, but in this direction. This is the way that will actually produce some real reform and some real results. I ask for opposition to the Farr substitute.

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

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, to those who support big government and more regulation my bill is going in the wrong direction. But to those of us who believe that here the problem is the regulation which has directly spawned PACs, soft money, issue advocacy, independent expenditures, et cetera, then we are going to offer a new direction. And, as I said before, there is no way this bill, Shays-Meehan, is ever going to become law of this Congress, so we are really laying the foundation now for next Congress, and I invite all the people sincerely concerned about campaign reform to cast a ``aye'' vote on mine, even if they voted for the Shays-Meehan bill or the Farr or will vote for the freshman bill coming up. Mr. Chairman, we are taking a new approach. As my colleagues know, I have to smile when I hear the rhetoric of my opponents about this. One would think I was proposing something that was out in Mars or out in left field, but of course it could not be ``left'' field because that is the big government approach. Let me just make this observation: The largest State in the union, California, has had this system for decades. The Commonwealth of Virginia has had this system for decades. We do not hear in Virginia any problems over the election they just went through. I think the current governor is the son of a butcher. The former governor, his immediate predecessor, was the son of a football coach. So the issue of millionaires, that is a red herring, it is a false issue the other side brings up. We are the ones who are against the present situation where are only millionaires can spend whatever they like. I would like to have the average citizen running for office to be free to compete against the millionaire, which today he cannot do. Why? Because of the strict contribution limits that are in place. I believe, Mr. Chairman, this philosophy of deregulation is important to support. I believe it will clean up our system. We have very strict disclosure. And let me say to the gentleman, ``You won't need all this soft money. It will largely wither away once you allow the natural flow of money from contributor to candidate with full disclosure, and then let the voter decide.'' Take the governmental czar out of the equation. I ask my colleagues to support my substitute. Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 5 Offered by Mr. Doolittle

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, I assure the gentleman, there is lots of room for debate in this. The Buckley case, of course, is completely consistent with prior cases on the First Amendment and has been upheld repeatedly, dozens of decisions since then, so it is not an exception to the Supreme Court's rulings in this area. It is not an aberration. It is completely consistent with mainstream constitutional law. It was correctly decided for the most part, I have quibbles with parts of it, but in general the idea that you cannot place expenditure limits on people who are running for office is desirable and constitutionally correct. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) really, in his substitute, does what I think most of the sponsors of Shays-Meehan really want, and that is to get the public financing. That is highly unpopular, and I wish the gentleman would bring it up for a vote. I have taken a radically different course than most of the other bills with my full disclosure and deregulation. I would like to see the complete antithesis--offered by Mr. Obey--voted on in this House as well. Perhaps the gentleman will change his mind at the end and perhaps not. Anyway, I guess I would just like to quote, again the Sacramento Bee, virtually the Washington Post of the West Coast, when it editorialized yesterday against Shays-Meehan, but the two criticisms, I think, go right to the heart of the bill of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) as well. And it says in the editorial page, ``it centers on two big, wrong- headed reforms: Prohibiting national political parties from collecting or using soft money contributions and outlawing independent political advertising that identifies candidates within 60 days of a Federal election.'' I think in this case the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) may have said his was 90 days. The editorial continues: ``That means the law would prohibit issue campaigning at precisely the time when voters are finally interested in listening, hardly consistent with free speech. Since that kind of restriction is likely to be tossed by the courts as a violation of constitutional free speech guarantees, the net effect of the changes will be to weaken political parties while making the less accountable `independent expenditure groups' kings of the campaign landscape. So, indeed, we see that far from bringing control from the elite back to the average person, the bill of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), according to the Sacramento Bee, and I believe this as well, would go exactly in the opposite direction and further strengthen the hand of the elite, just as Shays-Meehan would do along with the other big government types of reforms. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say, at the end of my brief remarks, I am prepared to yield back. We have no more speakers. I would just like to observe that I am really not defending the status quo. I loathe this present system as much as anybody. But it is the big government types who gave us the present system. The present system has created this absurd situation which you identified where a millionaire can do anything he likes for his own election, but he can only give $1,000 to somebody else's. The converse of that is that the individual, as a candidate who is not a millionaire, who has no money, so to speak, of average means and has to get it from others, he has to go grub for money and spend 70 percent of his time, like Lamar Alexander was quoted as doing, because the present system limits him what we can do. So the millionaire, under the big government elite system, the sky is the limit to the billionaire, he can spend whatever he likes, and that is okay. But the average person is limited in what he can raise in order to be able to spend it in his campaign. It is just not fair. It is not right. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I have different solutions for this. I just want to make clear, I think in many ways, in fact, I do not think, I know my proposal is clearly the most dramatic in terms of the change that it would make, because it totally overthrows the existing order and does not leave even a vestige of it. We institute instead thereof full disclosure. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, just to observe, the system is sick and the system rewards the elites, particularly the media elite. Overwhelmingly the liberal media elite in this country is going to get even stronger under the bill of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the Shays-Meehan bill and under these other big government types of reforms. That is why, if we really want to do something for the average person, we will go in the opposite direction and deregulate, not further encumber the system with even more regulation. By the way, just as a point of note, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, just to name one, was, I believe, an elected Republican leader in the Arizona legislature, so she certainly was familiar with elections. While it is true that she was not on the court when Buckley was decided, she has certainly been participating in all the various decisions which without fail have continued to sustain and uphold the rationale in Buckley ever since it was rendered in 1976. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to just observe that the swimmer is drowning and they are killing him, and they are killing him with these types of so-called reforms which in fact are going to make it more difficult for that swimmer to survive. By the way, right now, under their big-government reform that we presently have, the millionaires are free to spend whatever they like. Under my bill, that person of average means will also be able to go out and raise the money that he or she needs in order to compete with the millionaire. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth).

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Reclaiming my time, I will answer that question. The point is, when you are a challenger and you do not have any money and you are not a millionaire, you can go ask somebody else that has money to give you their money. You can read the quotes of Eugene McCarthy, which, in effect, is what happened, helped get Lyndon Johnson not to run for President again in 1968. McCarthy has said that if he had not been able to raise large amounts of money from a relative handful of individuals, he never could have run the race. That is the situation we are in today. Let me continue describing the problems that we face. Today's system hurts taxpayers by taking nearly $900 million collected in Federal taxes and subsidizing the presidential campaigns of all sorts of characters, including convicted felons and billionaires. That needs to be changed. Lastly, today's system hurts voters in our Republic by forcing more contributors and political activists to operate outside of the system where they are unaccountable and consequently more irresponsible. That is what the Sacramento Bee was talking about in its editorial. That will surely be the effect if we enact the reforms in Shays-Meehan. It is already the effect under the present big-government reform which we have had for 24 years and which has spawned all of these things the opposition claims to deplore: PACs, soft money, hard money, issue advocacy, independent expenditures, all of those things. And yet, instead of stepping back, rediagnosing the problem and doing something that matters, they just offer all the same tried and failed solutions of before, and we just cannot have any more of that. The present system does not work. It will get worse under their approach. We need to take a different approach. All right, let me suggest some goals that a genuine campaign reform ought to have. One, we ought to encourage political speech rather than limit it. All these other approaches seek to limit it despite the fact that Constitution is quite clear when it says, ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.'' My colleagues on Shays-Meehan and the others are cheerfully trying to find a way to abridge the freedom of speech while claiming they are not abridging it. But, in fact, they are abridging it. And those provisions will eventually be struck down, just as many of them contained in the present law we have were struck down in the famous Buckley v. Valeo case and reaffirmed dozens of times since then. Secondly, we ought to promote competition, freedom, and a more informed electorate. We ought to enable any American citizen to run for office. We ought to increase the amount of time candidates spend with constituents in debating issues rather than raising money. And we ought to make candidates accountable to their constituents for the money they accept. Those, I would submit, are the goals of true campaign finance reform. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.