Sam Farr

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood).

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is important to point out that there is some major overhaul of Federal law in this bill. This commission, which the President shall appoint with recommendations from Congress, is going to do some things that I think are absolutely essential to us positioning ourselves for the 21st century. The bill says, and I quote, ``A review of all existing or planned ocean or coastal activities of Federal entities and recommendations for changes in such activities necessary to reduce duplication of Federal efforts.'' The bill also calls for, ``a review of the cumulative effect of Federal laws and regulations on the United States ocean policy and examination of those laws and regulations for inconsistencies and contradictions that might adversely affect the conduct of ocean and coastal activities, and recommendations for resolving the inconsistencies.'' This is a good way of setting some Federal policy that gets us away from just trying to administer item by item, as we have historically. Then, ``a review of all known and anticipated supply of and demand for ocean and coastal resources in the United States, and a review of the relationship between Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector in planning and carrying out ocean and coastal policy recommendations.'' Probably even the most controversial area of all is to examine the relationship between the fisheries development and fisheries conservation responsibilities of the National Marine Fisheries so that we do not really just legislate in crisis. We can legislate sound management practices. All of these recommendations will come back to Congress for enactment in the future. Mr. Speaker, I want to also say that a person on my staff who was here as a Sea Grant Fellow and had to go back to school, but I wanted to point out that but for her work we would not be this far long: Jennifer Newton. Chris Mann on our committee staff, and also the minority staff of John Rayfield, Harry Burroughs, and Sharon McKenna all made this bill possible, and I want to thank them for their effort. Lastly, wholeheartedly my thanks and appreciation and professional respect goes out to the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Saxton). We have had a wonderful time working together on this bill because we mutually had a vision of where we ought to be going and we stuck with that vision and did whatever was necessary to try to bring it to fruition. So I have a great deal of appreciation for the gentleman's leadership and he serves his district well. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the role and leadership that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) has played in this. We are a Congress that oftentimes emphasizes our partisan differences, and I think on this bill we are emphasizing our bipartisan strengths on a common issue, which is the oceans. This is the International Year of the Ocean, and it is interesting how that international year has played out. I am joking but I think that we have to realize that in the International Year of the Ocean who knew that the Academy Awards would honor the oceans by granting the Oscar to the movie Titanic? Who would have known, when we began this year, that the New York Times bestseller's nonfiction list would be for a break in the all time record of a nonfiction book about weather, called The Perfect Storm? Who knew, when we began this year, that we were going to have on Larry King Live two talk shows about weather, the El Nino? So we are finishing this year with Congress responding to all of these issues by enacting a bill that really takes all of those issues into consideration, and that is a bill that puts together a commission that is to look at these Federal programs not as a single sector oriented, which is what we found in our committee discussions. Too much of what we do in the Federal Government over time ends up just trying to solve a single problem. We create a government to administer that problem. We fund the government to deal with that problem and as we grow more complex and more complicated in an area dealing with a body of water that really knows no political boundary, no State political boundary, local boundary, international boundary, these are issues where we have to take a holistic approach to dealing with the problems and that is what this commission is called upon to do. It is called upon to bring back to Congress the conflicts that are out there, the conflicts in our own law, the conflicts between State and local and Federal governments. So I think that Congress is really putting its best foot forward in enacting this legislation because it is doing something that everybody on each side of the aisle wants to do and that is do a better job with limited resources. So I really appreciate the bipartisan effort in this creation of this bill. I want to also thank the staff of the Committee on Resources and particularly the subcommittee of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), because we have worked together and everybody shared all the information. It has not always been easy because there are some interests here that are very sensitive. So we are here on the floor with, I think, a good bill that everybody can be proud of. I just want to point out also that it has been an effort. I represent the coast of California and I have a special interest in it. We have a lot of marine institutions around the bay, 16 to 17 different institutions that relate to the ocean. We call ourselves the Kennedy Space Center of the ocean. A lot of other areas like to claim that title, too, whether it is Woods Hole, Massachusetts, or the San Diego area with Scripps, but we held in the Monterey Bay region the first- ever Presidential Conference on the Oceans. It was attended by Members of both sides of the aisle and they got to speak and participate. I think we are really on a national realization that if we do not deal with the problems of the ocean, we are going to have a lot of detrimental effects for those of us who want to live on this planet. As far as economic security, national security, environmental security, food security and issues like that, this commission will bring us all together with some comprehensive recommendations to Congress of how we might move forward. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) whose district is surrounded by water. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Lisa Gonzales. I met Lisa when I visited Branciforte Junior High School in Santa Cruz, California earlier this week. Lisa told me that kids are dropping out, that they're losing hope. The students who are most at risk are the ones who need special help learning English. I want our schools to be able to help them. Our children are our Nation's best hope for the future. They all bring special needs to our classrooms, and that includes language training for those who don't speak, read or write English. We are morally and constitutionally obligated to use the best methods possible to teach them the language of their new country. Parents, teachers and administrators all over the country know that our children need bilingual education in our schools. This bill doesn't fix bilingual education. Its goal is divisiveness and rhetoric. We need to focus on student performance, not political controversy. These programs keep hope alive for the children who need it most. Reject this legislation.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the student I spoke to on Tuesday in Branceforte Middle School in Santa Cruz, Lisa Morelas. She said one thing. She said, kids are dropping out because they cannot get access to the transition of bilingual education. It seems to me that our commitment here as Members of Congress is to keep that hope alive, not just political promises alive. We have got to measure student performance, not political performance. The student performance says, let them learn English through the bilingual program. Do not cut the program. Do not cut the safety net. Oppose this amendment.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, that is one thing the gentleman is correct on. But the gentleman is absolutely wrong on the fact there is any public money on this and it is unconstitutional, because it is totally voluntary on the part of the candidate.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Respecting that the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) has a right to close, I just want to reiterate what we are closing on. We are closing on a bill that changes the law, proposes to change the law. Under existing law, if someone wants to contribute to a candidate, it is a $1,000 limit for each cycle, for a primary campaign and for a general election. Under Mr. Doolittle's it is unlimited, unlimited amount of money. Right now under current law it is $5,000 a cycle, $5,000 in the primary, $5,000 in the general maximum for PACs, political action committees, and that is authorized by law, and that does not change, the limits are not changed, in the Shays-Meehan bill. But they sure are changed in the Doolittle bill because it goes to unlimited amounts. Under current law the national parties can receive $20,000. Under the Doolittle bill, unlimited amount of money, unlimited. State parties under existing law can receive $5,000. The Shays-Meehan goes to $10,000 for the reasons that were talked about. But Doolittle, unlimited, unlimited amount of money. In all of the above in aggregate it is about $25,000. Under the Doolittle bill it is unlimited. Mr. Chairman, the Doolittle bill is going in the wrong direction. It is doing the wrong thing, giving the wrong message. This country is about ``We the people.'' In order to get people involved in politics we have got to make it accessible, affordable, not owned by millionaires, not owned by campaigns where we do not even see who is contributing. Defeat this measure. It is probably one that should receive the biggest defeat of all of the bills that are trying to hurt the attempt to get Shays-Meehan to the Senate and to the President's desk. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) the leader of the Shays-Meehan bill.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman also from California (Mr. Fazio), my distinguished colleague.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. It is very interesting to watch what is going on here. The gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) talked, a Republican from California, a colleague of mine, also served in the California State legislature where I served as a member of the Assembly, he served as a member of the Senate and we are both opposed, Democrat and Republican, to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) who also served with us. It is obvious that there are just two vast differences of opinion here. Every bill about campaign finance reform, about the system we have in America, wants to change the way money is contributed to campaigns with the exception of one, Mr. Doolittle. He wants to open up thinking that the way to get elected to Congress is to just add more money, throw more money on the problem. Mr. Chairman, in 1998 the Senate and the House have already spent $112 million and we have not even had a general election. Is the problem there is not enough money? I do not think so.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) who has been leading in the freshman effort. (Mr. ALLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a great voice on campaign reform. (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) who has been here day and night, has been the voice of advocacy for campaign reform, and who has a strong statement in opposition to this bill. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.).

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I appreciate the opposition, because it shows how little they really understand the bill. First of all, there is no free time in this bill. There is no free lunch. All candidates pay. They just pay the lowest unit rate only if they volunteer to limit what they are going to spend in campaigns. This is about campaign expenditure limits. You, as a candidate, say, I will limit myself to $600,000. That is all I am going to spend to get elected to the House of Representatives. Why do we have to do this? Because, Mr. Chairman, it is getting obscene how much money we are spending. Do Members realize, 10 years ago, the Senate and the House, total expenditures to get elected spent $58 million. This year, in 1998, disbursements, money that has already gone out is $112 million in the Senate and the House. In 10 years we have more than doubled what we are spending in this House. We have got to put a limit on that. I do not think we are going to get enough votes to be the bill that will top the Shays-Meehan. We are going to have to be back here next year. I hope that in all this debate we are listening to each other so that we can come up with a comprehensive campaign reform bill. We are not doing it this session. In fact, I really appeal to my Republican colleagues, because throughout history you have not been there. You have not been helping. In 1990, only 15 Republicans voted for a bill that got out of the House with 255 votes. In 1991, only 21 Republicans voted for a bill that got out of the House with 273 votes. In 1992, only 19 Republicans voted for a bill that got out of the House with 259 votes. And George Bush vetoed the bill, the bill that I am talking about right now. We need campaign reform. We need it now.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), following the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has been a leader in understanding the problems of too much money in campaigns.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield four minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), a cosponsor of the bill and one of the persons that has been working hard and diligently to bring us campaign finance reform. In the process of yielding, I would like to respond that the reduced limits in this bill and originally in the Shays-Meehan bill do not cost the taxpayers anything. They are under existing business rates, rates that are given to nonprofits. They still have to pay for it, but it is a reduced rate that is in the public interest. It says the candidates ought to be treated just like we treat nonprofit entities for mailing and for buying public service announcements. They have to pay for those, but they pay at the lowest rate. That is what this bill does. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the kind remarks by the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), a person who led this effort before I ever got elected here. I am sort of the ``Son of Sam'' on this issue to Sam Gejdenson from Connecticut, who has been a great leader and historian on campaign finance reform.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise on my bill, which is the substitute bill. It is called the Farr bill, or better known around here as H.R. 600. This bill was introduced on February 5, 1997, a year and a half ago. It has 106 cosponsors, all of them Democrats. It is a shame that we could not get bipartisan support on this bill. Mr. Chairman, it is a comprehensive campaign reform. Unlike the Shays-Meehan bill, it is a bill that still to this day in the stage it is on the floor is comprehensive. It is based on four principles of campaign reform, the principles of fairness; that is, the bill should not favor one party over another; the principle to reduce the influence of special interests. We have the bill that reforms PAC contributions, large donor contributions, bundling and soft money. Third, the principle of level playing field; that is, make campaigns competitive by enacting spending limits. And fourth, to assess to make the system accessible to nontraditional candidates, make it possible for minorities and for women to run for this House of Representatives. This House ought to reflect the composition of the people it governs in the United States, and, therefore, we need more people of color and more women in office. Mr. Chairman, how are we going do that under the tradition that we have established in America that just says, ``You can spend as much money as you can raise,'' and we go on, and on, and on. What this bill does is it sets spending limits, it sets new PAC limits, it sets new individual contributions limits, it eliminates bundling. We made an exception to those organization who do not come up here and lobby, that do not make efforts to campaign on the Hill to have connection between the money and their issue on the Hill. So, organizations like Emily's List or Wish List are still available under our bill. It eliminates soft money, but it does one thing different than the Shays-Meehan bill does: it still allows for States to do voter registration, voter build up, essentially allowing at the State level people to be encouraged to get into the public process of electing their Members of Congress. It broadens the definition of express advocacy so that those third party, undisclosed, sort of hit pieces as we have come to know them, will no longer be allowed to be done without telling the people whose doing it, and it establishes a lower cost rate for those candidates that voluntarily pledge to limit their spending so that they will get cheaper rates at television and radio. That is essentially what the bill does. Now the history of those who have watched this debate, who have listened to debate and have written about campaign reform, they know that this has all been historically proposed by the Democrats. I hate to stand here in a partisan way in this Chamber, but we have to because the history of the effort is that the Republican party has opposed all efforts to do campaign reform. This bill is a good example. The bill came out of the bill that President Bush vetoed in 1992. If my colleagues look over the history, they will see that there is constant defeat of efforts of campaign reform spelled out in the congressional history. Mr. Chairman, in this decade alone a bill similar to the one that is on the floor right now passed this House in 1990. Another one passed when it came back from the Senate in 1991, and Bush vetoed it in 1992. In 1993 the Democrats passed out a comprehensive campaign reform bill, filibustered in the Senate in 1994. Then guess what happened? The Republicans took over this House, and we have seen not one, nada, nothing in campaign finance reform. Thank God for the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), two colleagues here who have put together an effort similar to mine, started at that same place, started at the same time. They negotiated like mad, and had they not had the courage and particularly the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) to stand up against his leadership and tell him that time was now to bring the bill to the floor we would not have had the debate nor the successful vote even though their bill is much watered down, much different than when it started out, much compromise, and, as the newspapers have said, the effort is not over yet. So this challenge, this bill, this moment, is whether we in Congress can stand up and really do comprehensive campaign reform. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio).