Sam Farr

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I find it such a privilege to rise today in this hallowed House of Representatives, the people's House. I think when we left here Friday there were some harsh words exchanged between the caucuses, and we rise today to pay tribute to two men who may have done more to pull us together, to realize what this building is all about. I bring condolences from the district that I represent, far away from here, the central coast of California. For those of us who work here every day, I think sometimes we take what we do in this building for granted. Following the tragic shooting just 48 hours ago, Capitol Police Officer Jacob Chestnut and Special Agent John Gibson I think have given us all pause to think more seriously and more respectively of the job we do in this building, because this is the people's building and this is the people's House. Just look at the visitors that are outside this hall today, coming into the Capitol, paying tribute with flowers, notes and condolences. Yes, the government must go on. It never stops. But sometimes in history it pauses for a moment, it pauses to pay tribute. Officer Chestnut and Special Agent Gibson gave their lives while standing their duty. For this building, its workers, and, more importantly, this Nation, we pause to honor them. Their lives were not lost in vain, because, for now, our Nation joins in mourning their loss. Perhaps today our democracy is a little bit stronger as each American reflects on the sacrifice these men gave. Each of us knows the pain. We have all lost loved ones. We know how much Wen Ling Chestnut and her five children, Joseph, Janece, Janet, Karen and William, and Evelyn Gibson and her three children, Kristen, John and Daniel, feel the sudden emptiness of losing their husbands and fathers. My district, this Nation, joins in their loss and in the mourning we will give tomorrow.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, it appears from this discussion that the only thing that Congress fears is fear itself. We are afraid of existing law because the existing law is feared by special interests. We fear the cleanup of licensed nuclear facilities. We fear the cleanup of the air in Yosemite and the Grand Canyon, the hazy air. We fear the pesticide manufacturers, who oppose the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act. We fear, as we have heard, New York and New England industries who oppose the dredging as a remediation tool. We fear the utilities, who oppose the regulatory determinations for mercury emissions. Most of all, we seem to fear our very own Environmental Protection Agency and the Council of Environmental Quality. My colleagues, this fear can be conquered. It is very simple. It only requires that we vote in favor of the Waxman amendment.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, opponents argue that China's record on human rights, trade, proliferation and other issues do not justify extending normal trade relations. Though I agree that much must be done to alleviate these very serious problems, I have to disagree with some of my colleagues on this issue. I feel that we should use every type of engagement--including normal trade relations--to bring China into the international community and to achieve U.S. objectives on human rights, trade and proliferation. The Chinese economy is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. While many Chinese remain poor peasants, hundreds of millions have seen their lives improved through economic reform. Market reform is the single most powerful force for positive change in China this century, and possibly in the country's long history. Recent economic progress, which has significantly improved living conditions in China, represents real benefits for both the United States and China. Congress should extend normal trade relations for another year. By supporting normal trade relations, the House is choosing a policy of engagement over a policy of isolation. Engagement has been the policy of every President, Democratic and Republican, for twenty-five years. Engagement is not appeasement. It does not mean ignoring our differences with China or engaging them blindly. It means actively engaging China to resolve our differences. It means hard bargaining in pursuit of American objectives and keeping lines of communications open to breech new markets. These new markets will have a direct impact on the U.S. economy. U.S.-China trade was valued at $75.3 billion in 1997, supporting an estimated 400,000 American jobs. Last year, California led all other states in total exports to China, amounting to $2.3 billion in sales. California agricultural exports made up over $40 million of these exports. I have seen a dramatic increase in the amount of agricultural exports to China in the last several years. In my Central Coast district in California, agricultural exports have increased to more than 100,000,000 pounds of produce entering China and Hong Kong. China receives more produce from the 17th District of California than every country except Canada and Japan. American producers are just starting to get a toe-hold in the Chinese market, and additional commodities are entering China at an increasing rate. With China's reduction in import tariffs last October, on average by about 25%, the future looks very bright for increased exports of U.S. products to China, both direct to mainland ports and via Hong Kong. It is imperative that the United States continue to work towards improved human rights for both political activists and religious dissenters. However revoking NTR will only slow progress in resolving our difficulties with China. Continued engagement will provide the most fertile ground to improve human rights, copyright law enforcement, and Chinese foreign policy. I feel that it is essential that we support our farmers whenever possible and closing this market would be devastating to my district. For these reasons I can not support House Joint Resolution 121.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge that this appropriations issue is probably led in this House by two of the finest gentlemen in here, the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Illinois. It is indeed a beautiful relationship between two senior men in this legislature who have done such an outstanding job in this appropriation, one of the most important for our country because it is really about our soul, about the land and the culture. What I am concerned about is that we again have to bring to the floor and go through a very difficult debate on funding the NEA. The National Endowment for the Arts is not a debate just about arts. It is a debate about whether we are willing to be creative in America. If we are not creative, we are going to lose the competitive advantage. There is not an industry in the United States that does not depend on the arts, does not depend on the imagination, does not depend on the ability to look at things, as they say, outside the box. The people with that creativity come through the art world. It is as the same fingers that operate the computers that operate the piano keys. We have to realize in this country that, if we forgo support for the arts, we forgo our culture. Look at this room and this building. Is this not about art and history of our country? So the National Endowment should not be coming to the floor struggling. We are appropriating $98 million. A few weeks ago, we had a debate which I supported on giving support for marketing our agricultural crops abroad. We are appropriating more money to sell oranges than we appropriate for the National Endowment for the Arts. I think that is a pity in a country that is probably the most creative country in the world. So when we talk about the arts, let us talk about business. Let us talk about why all of Wall Street supports the National Endowment for the Arts. Anything less hurts America.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Has anyone under existing law been convicted?

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I agree with that. Why does not the gentlewoman just say that?

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, it says ``for carrying out activities on the date of the election.'' Is not ``activities'' broader than just going to the polls, driving somebody? I am trying to think of the League of Women Voters issues. We are trying to get people to the polls. Those are activities. All of that is related to the election day.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I like what the gentlewoman just said, but I do not think that is what the language put in here says. It says ``provide currency to any person for purposes of carrying out activities on the date of an election to encourage or assist individuals to appear at the polling place for an election.'' I think what the gentlewoman said is to give money directly to anybody to go to a polling place, but this is any activities.

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

Mr. FARR of California. I would like to reclaim my time. Because the gentleman flies home every weekend on the taxpayers' money, he may be home on the taxpayers' money doing a political campaign event. That is his transportation to his district. So if the President goes to your district and does a political event, he is penalized; the payment for all of that is paid for by your amendment. But if you do it on the taxpayer's dime every weekend, you do not have to pay for it. So you are exempting Congress from this. It is a double standard again. It is again bashing the White House, because this bill is about Congressional campaign finance reform, and I do not know whether the gentleman is even intending to vote for the bill. I think these are dilatory amendments, I think you are exempting Congress, and I think it is wrong.

Mr. FARR of California. Well, that is exactly what it says.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. The language in here says that it includes any fund-raising event for the benefit of any political committee of a national political party. If the President was to fly to the gentleman's district to do a campaign event for him, this would not apply because his campaign is not a national political committee?

Mr. FARR of California. Reclaiming my time, I think this amendment, it says receives anything of value, and it only applies to the executive department. We are here talking about congressional campaign finance reform, applying to this House of Congress. These amendments, and I might support this amendment, but I think it is diverting the attention, it is trying to say that the problem is all in the executive branch and that there are no problems here in Congress and that we do not need to spend time debating it. I think this amendment is exactly what is going on here. People want to not pay any attention as to what the problems are in this Congress. If the gentleman was sincere about trying to stop solicitations using Federal property including aircraft, it would apply to the legislative branch as well.

Mr. FARR of California. Why not include Congress?

Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I have a question of the author. Why did he exempt the legislative branch from this? The only branch that uses the aircraft he is intending is the executive branch. Why is the legislature exempt? When people are on CODELs or on missions with corporate members or interested American citizens who may be suggesting that if you come with me we perhaps can play a golf game somewhere. That is something of value. Your amendment says receives anything of value. It does not define it. It could be a baseball cap. It could be anything. And then it exempts Congress. It exempts the legislative branch. Why does he not include the legislative branch in here if it is as strong as he thinks it should be?

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The point made by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), under the gentleman's law, I think it does not give the discretion the gentleman talks about, because this bill says ``Any person who violates it shall be sentenced to a term.''

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

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to say that this is an issue that I struggled with in our bill. I compliment the gentlewoman. I think this is a great improvement on existing law, because it clearly separates what is express advocacy. Express advocacy under this definition is any time one gets out and says this is the record of a candidate and this record is evil, do not vote for this person. Or this is the record of an angel, please vote for this person. That is express advocacy. That will trigger that the people who publish such things will have to disclose where their money came from. It would have to be hard money. That is the kind of thing that we have been saying that we need to do. If we just say this is a voter guide, we do not agree with it. But you cannot say therefore vote against this person. That would be an example, because one does not advocate a position, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) said in the gentlewoman's words, of unmistakable or unambiguous support for or in opposition to one or more candidates. So you clearly have drawn a line between what has been the problem, which is these kind of hit pieces that have come out that the candidate knows nothing about, even the opposition knows nothing about because they are independent of either, and have been expressing sort of evil actions based on a record. I think that you are commended because this makes a clear distinction

Mr. FARR of California

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

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

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for yielding me this time and I thank him for cosponsoring this legislation, the underlying legislation on campaign finance reform. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert). He and I are cochair of the State society for California. Like him in the bill that I authored, H.R. 600, a comprehensive campaign reform, I really looked at this, because this is one of those issues where it really sounds good. But let me tell the gentleman from California why it is rejected. It is rejected because as he knows under Federal law, you do not have to live in the district to file for candidacy. What happens is that you can take a district that is a poor district under his law, say that 50 percent of the money has to be raised there, and you can shop around. So in a district in the inner city of Los Angeles or in the inner city of any large area where you do not have a large economic base, you look at the candidate who files and you say, well, that candidate is going to have to raise money to get elected. I am going to be a candidate who is going to use my own money. I am rich. I am going to go down there and file for the candidacy in that election. I want it. I can buy that election, because I do not have to raise a dime of money inside the district because I am not going to ask anybody for contributions. There is the inequity, is that you set up a system which is designed to hurt minorities, because those are the people that often get elected from these inner city districts, and for people that are trying to get started in politics. I cannot think of any of us in this room that did not begin when we decided to get into public life, whether it was at the mayor's level or at city council or school board or county commissioner or even running for county sheriff by which this rule would not apply. You could raise money outside your district for any of those local offices. But when you began this venture of getting into politics and noted that the average congressional campaign in America cost $600,000, that is a lot of money, and you began to say, ``Where am I going to get that money?'' You say, ``Well, let's go to my family, let's go to my friends that I went to school with, to high school and college with, maybe that I was in the service with.'' The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and I have mentioned before, we were both in the Peace Corps. So people like that went out, and that is where you began your nest egg of how you are going to run for office. And you are soliciting money from people who know you best, who have actually worked with you, they know you better than anyone because you are just saying, ``Based on what you know of me, please help me.'' Those moneys may not be coming from your district. I think that this amendment where it sounds good is really kind of a poison pill. I think it is frankly, and I hate to say it this way, but I think it is really un-American. Because it does not apply to people in local office, it does not apply to people in State office, and essentially are we not trying in America to say that we want you to participate in government, we would love to have people running for office, and that we ought to be removing barriers, not creating more? I think that is why I am so concerned about some of these amendments. I am concerned about the message that we are giving in this great land of America about what we think democracy is. We are selling it short. We are cheapening it. We are distrusting it. We are saying we do not believe the voters. If you make one false move, you do not have an ID, you do not have a picture, you are elderly, you are locked up in a nursing home, you do not have a driver's license, you do not have any proof of citizenship because maybe you are in States, many States did not file birth certificates earlier than about 1910. So if you were born before that, you would not have any proof of citizenship. So what we are doing is we are making it more and more difficult, and I think requiring, as I said, it sounds good, 50 percent, but if you are in a district where you do not have a lot of wealth and you as a candidate do not have any wealth or you are new to the business, you are not going to be able to raise funds, and you cannot run for office under this amendment.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, in the H.R. 600 that I drafted, what it said is we put limits on what you could spend, because that was the real problem. In that, we said, if you were a wealthy candidate, you can only spend $50,000 of your own money.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am sitting here tonight wondering what is happening to us. Have we become so suspicious of our own country that we do not believe in democracy anymore? This debate is supposed to be about campaign finance reform, and now we are debating an amendment that says we do not trust the people who are asking to participate in our democracy. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and I were both in the Peace Corps. We were so proud of talking about what is the governance structure of this country. I have to tell my colleagues that this amendment tonight is going too far. This says we do not trust the people out there; we do not want to be a government by the people. We are sitting here in this room with all of these law-givers around us, and I realize that not one of them, except for Thomas Jefferson, was a citizen. But how could we prove he was a citizen, because when he was born, there was no country. So the people we respect we now deny with these kinds of amendments in saying that if one is an American, one has to prove it. Which one of us walks around with any kind of proof that shows that you are an American citizen? Show me. There is not one thing on your body that has it. Not a driver's license, not a credit card. It does not say you are a citizen of America, but this amendment is going to require it, an I.D. with a photo. One has to have a Social Security card and put down Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers? The American public is going to say, what are you doing to us? Is this what you require of us to participate in a democracy that is of the people, by the people and for the people? My God, this is the country that did away with literacy tests to allow people to vote, and poll taxes, and now we are putting it back on in indirect ways. We should look before we leap with these kinds of amendments. This is a bill about congressional campaign reform, about finance reform, about how we pay for elections; not how we distrust the voters of America. I think we are doing a pretty good job and I think our forefathers would be ashamed of us in thinking of this kind of an amendment.