Sam Farr

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a gentle man, Hiroshi ``Heek'' Shikuma, whose superior abilities and foresight were instrumental in developing an industry that has become a mainstay of the area economy, while his wisdom and gentleness made him a leader in the spiritual community. Mr. Shikuma passed away this past February. Mr. Shikuma was born, raised, and educated in the Pajaro Valley. During World War II, he served in the United States Army's Japanese-American 442 Regiment, receiving a Purple Heart after being wounded in combat. Upon his return, Mr. Shikuma began farming in the rich soils of the Pajaro Valley. At that time, local farmers were just becoming aware of the value of strawberries as a crop. Strawberries were selling for an incredible twenty cents a pound in San Francisco. Shikuma Bros. Inc. was established when Heek was joined by his two older brothers, Mack and Kanji. Through hard work and dedication the strawberry industry prospered. The Shikuma family founded the Central California Berry Growers Association, a marketing cooperative that enabled growers to optimize the value of their product. Today the cooperative is known as Naturipe. Mr. Shikuma has been active on the board since 1949, for a time presiding as its president. In 1989, Mr. Shikuma was honored by the Japanese American National Museum and Los Angeles County for his contributions to the California strawberry industry, which now produces more than 70 percent of the nation's berries. In 1993, the Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau named Shikuma Bros. the ``Farm Family of the Year.'' As successful as Mr. Shikuma was in his business enterprises, he found the time to be a supporter of the community in which he lived. He was a long-time member of the Japanese American Citizens League, and served as president. His family founded the Japanese Presbyterian Church which became the Westview Presbyterian Church in Watsonville. Mr. Shikuma was remembered by his daughter, Nancy, as a ``man of high integrity who extended his hand to others in need of help. He always put his family first and never spoke a harsh word to anybody.'' Our thoughts are with the family, his wife of fifty years, Chiyeko, his two daughters, Nancy and Anne, his son, Ted, his brother, Mack, and sister, Emi, his grandchild and many nieces and nephews. His loss will be felt profoundly, but the mark he has left on the community is indelible. Heek Shikuma provides a magnificent example of the best in humankind with his special blend of intelligence, diligence and kindness.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise as author of one of the major campaign finance reform bills, a comprehensive cleanup bill, and it contains the same measure in it that Shays-Meehan does. Therefore, I rise to oppose the amendment that is being offered. This amendment really does not make any reform. It does not clean up anything. It takes the law back to what it is today, and that is not progress. So this amendment is really not about voter guides, it is really about special interest money remaining in politics. The Doolittle amendment, by removing the express advocacy language, maintains the status quo, it means that multi-mega-million dollar campaigns are not run by politicians nor by political parties but can be run by very special interests. So where in this amendment is the reform? How does maintaining the status quo get us further ahead? In this whole debate, of all the 11 bills that have been brought to the floor by the Committee on Rules and these series of amendments, are all supposed to end up with the law in better shape after we have addressed it than it is today. This amendment does not do that. If adopted, it offers no change. I think that sometimes these amendments can be classified as red herrings, to really divert our attention from the real issue here, which is how do we stop the money madness that is in campaigns? How do we bring money out of campaigns and really get down to where people are talking to people, not just buying words and buying fancy television ads? Certainly this amendment is not the answer. Mr. Chairman, I support reform and I am urging strong defeat of the Doolittle amendment. And if there are no other speakers, Mr. Chairman, maybe we ought to move on.

Mr. FARR of California

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

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member. I think in the dialogue we have heard here today what we recognize is we do have a serious trash problem here in the United States Congress, and trash is trash. It is not Republican trash or Democratic trash or Independent trash, it is something that we have just got to get our hands on and clean up. This amendment I think allows the House to do that. It simply dictates that of the money in this bill that goes to pay for the operation and maintenance of the House buildings, $100,000 of that shall be bracketed, shall be made available to underwrite the recycling program and only the recycling program. The amendment, by earmarking specific funds for this program, sets recycling as a priority for the House. I offer this amendment because recycling is a program that has been neglected, and consequently has had very limited success. Most of the Members of the House do recycle. They support this. But the level and type of recycling varies from office to office, leaving a doubt in the end results of those efforts because the program itself is in such a disarray. The amendment will guarantee that the House has all the resources that we need to jumpstart this program into high gear. I am not offering this amendment to fulfill some sort of ecowarrior's dream to save trees, I am offering this amendment because it is a way to earn money for the House and for the government by avoiding landfill costs and by earning revenue on high-grade recyclable material. It is a way to reduce our dependency on the landfills and take trash out of the community. It is a way to make the House a good corporate citizen of the D.C. community, and yes, it is a way to conserve resources. I urge Members to support my amendment and give the House a chance to get recycling right.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment, and after hearing the analogy of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) of this being a city on the Hill, I accept the support of the mayor and the vice- mayor, here. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FARR of California. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and I were talking at lunch today, talking about recycling in our own homes. We said it is our daughters that remind us, they are sort of the recycling cop in our houses, telling us that you have to recycle this and that. What this House needs, I think what every office needs, is a 13-year-old daughter or son to say, put this in the right place. Frankly, that is leadership, and it is going to require the Architect of the Capitol to really get tough with our offices and remind us that this is a responsibility of each office. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FARR of California. Not specifically. The problem is that the program is broken. It needs a commitment. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) certainly has given his commitment to it. I believe that he is sincere, but we need to get it off the ground.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to pay tribute to Colonel Ila Mettee-McCutchon, the Commander of the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center and Presidio of Monterey, and Commandant of DLIFLC, on the occasion of her retirement from the U.S. Army. Colonel Mettee-McCutchon has been an inspiration to all during her 26-year career in the armed forces, and her positions of successive command only further confirm her valued leadership within the Army and of the respect shown to her by the men and women serving under her command. Colonel Mettee-McCutchon is herself an esteemed graduate of the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center. She first earned both B.A. and an M.S. in clinical psychology from Auburn University which prepared her well for her exceptional career in military intelligence. Later, she completed the WAC (Women's Army Corps) Officer Basic Course and the Military Intelligence Officer Advanced Course, and then graduated from the Command and General Staff College and the U.S. Army War College, true marks of distinction in the career of any military officer. For the first three years following Colonel Mettee-McCutchon's commissioning in 1971, she served as a psychologist at the Presidio of San Francisco responsible for drug and alcohol abuse rehabilitation. After displaying compassion and savvy in that assignment, she was transferred in 1974 to the Military Intelligence Branch and appointed a Regular Army Officer of Military Intelligence, which was the beginning of her extraordinary career in the field of military intelligence. Colonel Mettee-McCutchon was initially a stratectic analyst at Fort Bragg; before moving up to the following posts: Commander, Headquarters and Operations Company, 525th Military Intelligence Brigade, Fort Bragg; Chief, Joint Intelligence Center, U.S. Southern Command Panama; Commander, 741st Military Intelligence Battalion, 704th Military Intelligence Brigade, Fort Meade; and Staffer in the Intelligence Division, International Military Staff of NATO, at NATO Headquarters, Brussels. Because of her superb record of accomplishment in these critical intelligence posts, she was chosen to be Commander of the Garrison at the Presidio of Monterey in October, 1994. Colonel Mettee-McCutchon has earned numerous awards during her career including the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal and the Army Meritorious Service Medal with 4 Oak Leaf Clusters. She is married to John R. McCutchon, Lieutenant Colonel of Infantry (Retired), and has one child, Erin T. Mettee-McCutchon. I am sure everyone who knows Colonel Mettee-McCutchon joins me in recognizing her career of exemplary service to her country, and expressing heartfelt wishes for a happy retirement.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this cheap-sugar, put-the-farmers-out-of-business amendment.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, MAP HELPS BOOST U.S. AGRICULTURE EXPORTS. U.S. agriculture exports expected to exceed $60 billion. Last year exports amounted to $57.3 billion, resulting in a positive $22 billion agricultural trade surplus, result in a record trade surplus of $30 billion, and generate over $100 billion in related economic activity. MAP HELPS PROVIDE NEEDED JOBS THROUGHOUT THE U.S. ECONOMY. Over one million Americans have jobs which depend on U.S. agriculture exports. Every billion dollars in U.S. agriculture exports creates as many as 20,000 new jobs. MAP HELPS MEET SUBSIDIZED FOREIGN COMPETITION. The EU spends more on wine promotion than U.S. spends for all commodities combined. European Union (EU) and other foreign competitors continue to enjoy a 10 to 1 advantage over the U.S. in terms of export subsidies. EU and other foreign competitors are moving aggressively in providing other forms of assistance to maintain and expand their share of the world market at the expense of U.S. farmers and ranchers. Without U.S. policies and programs to help counter such subsidized competition, American farmers and ranchers will be at a substantial disadvantage. MAP REPRESENTS A SUCCESSFUL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP. MAP is specifically targeted to help small businesses, farmer cooperatives and trade associations meet subsidized foreign competition. MAP is administered on a cost-share basis by the U.S. Department of Agriculture with farmers, ranchers and other participants required to contribute up to 50% toward the program's cost. Every $1 invested has resulted in $16 in additional U.S. agricultural exports, according to USDA. MAP helps boost U.S. agriculture exports, meet foreign competition, improve U.S. balance of trade, strengthen farm income, and protect American jobs. The U.S. must continue to have in place policies and programs which help maintain the ability of American agriculture to compete effectively in a global marketplace still characterized by subsidized foreign competition. This is especially true under the new Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIR Act), which resulted in the most sweeping reforms in farm policy in over 60 years. While achieving significant budget savings, it reduces income support to producers over 7 years; eliminates acreage reduction programs; and provides increased planting flexibility. More than ever, farm income and the economic well-being of American agriculture are now dependent on continued access to foreign markets and maintaining and strengthening U.S. agricultural exports.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment. As many of my colleagues know, I have a major bill that is also going to be considered. But I think the most important bill, the one that everyone is consolidated around and can be passed is the Shays-Meehan bill. I ask this body, when it comes time to vote for that bill, if you do not vote for it now, when will you vote for it? If you do not vote for it, who will vote for it? This body has been able to rise to the occasion when asked by the American people to address the issue of campaign finance reform. This body in the 101st session of Congress passed a comprehensive campaign finance reform bill. In the 102nd session, this body passed a bill. In the 103rd session, this body passed a bill. All of those bills received far in excess the minimum number of 218 votes. They were all bipartisan votes. So we have in the past been able to rise to the occasion and adopt very comprehensive campaign finance reform. This amendment should be adopted because we always need to be looking farther than what we are able to legislate. America is changing, and the style of campaigning and the style of running for office is changing. We will not have all the answers in one bill. A commission needs to look at where we go as we merge into the 21st Century. For a democracy to survive, we have got to have active participation. Politics is not a spectator sport. It is a participatory requirement to sustain a country, to sustain a government in an era when people are getting turned off and thinking that their vote does not make any difference or thinking that money in politics buys such influence so a common voter cannot have an influence. Yet, we see time and time again where elections around this country are won by just a few votes. Even in this House, we have had Members who have won by as little as four votes. We know that votes count. We ought to be doing things to really engage people in participating in the process. We are moving into an era where telecommunications is playing more and more of a role in communication. Our old ideas about regulating campaigns have not really taken that into consideration. A commission certainly can look into that. A lot of voters in a lot of States are now voting by mail. In California, it has been very popular. Oregon elected a United States Senator entirely by a mail ballot election. A lot of issues were raised in that. A commission can look at that and figure out whether those are things that we as a Congress ought to be looking at. Public financing has been suggested as a voluntary effort. Maine has adopted it. Is it good for other States. Is it good to Congress at a national level. These are options that a commission can look at. We certainly need to all encourage a greater participation. We need to encourage greater participation. I do not think we have all the answers. We, as Members, go home every weekend. We go out and have constituent meetings. We are always trying. We are talking to schools. The galleries are filled. We have students in here all day. There are probably classrooms on the steps right now if it is not raining outside. We are always engaging them and telling them the importance of participating in the process. But as we say this, we watch how many people participate in elections. You have to register to vote in this country. Even those who are registered are not all the qualified adult persons. Those who are 18, American citizens, and have resided at least for 30 days in a community, those are the qualified voters in America. Yet, only half of the qualified voters register to vote, and only half of the registered voters turn out to vote. If we are in the business of selling democracy, we are doing a very lousy job. We need to have commissions take a look at how we can better encourage people to do that. This amendment will do that. But most important, I think, to build confidence in America, we need to show them that, in 1998, this House, the House of Representatives, can pass a bipartisan bill that is both comprehensive and substantive that leads us another step towards regaining confidence in the American citizens, that their government in Washington can be a government that is true to the principles of this country. That is why we need to pass the Shays- Meehan. I started this support for this amendment indicating that, if not now, when? My colleagues, Shays-Meehan, if not now, when?

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

Mr. FARR of California. The campaign of the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) is very well-known in this country. And what she is saying is her campaign was taken over by outside influences, both her campaign and her opponent's, and these outside influences were not accountable to anybody in their district because they did not have to disclose who they were and where the money came from. Basically, what is happening here is the American public knows there is a campaign season, there is a beginning and there is an end and they know what goes on in between. There ought to be something we know who is saying it. They could call somebody a rotten SOB. They could call somebody good. They could call somebody evil. They could say all kinds of things about them. But as long as they do not have to say vote for or against them but they say everything but that, they can destroy them. And they as a consumer, as a voting person, they have no idea who has paid for all that. They do not even know who it is because they usually make up fake titles about what they are. They are always good citizens for something, but then all they do is talk about evil. So the campaign of the gentlewoman showed to America something that we in Congress were not even aware was going to happen, and that is that it is totally out of control, that we are going to have messages all over this country by people that are totally unaccountable. If we pass this amendment, it will make it worse. Because the amendment says they can have any commentary, any commentary, they can say anything about anybody they want to as long as they do not say vote yes or no. So they put out this message that is very evil and derogatory and they do not have to be accountable. That is not the way the American public is. Everything we are doing in this country is trying to make consumers have more information. We are labeling what they eat. We are labeling what we sell them. We are labeling what they borrow their money from. And we ought to label what their candidates have to deal with. It is a bad amendment.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, leadership is about getting results. This rule that we are about to vote on ensures no leadership. It ensures a lot of talk, but no results. Campaign finance reform is complicated because we have to reform all of the law; we have to do the whole system. It is ironic that I just heard the GOP leadership get up and say, we do not want to change the law, we just want to have a debate on a few amendments. Yet, yesterday, when my colleagues proposed to the House how we are going to deal with the complicated tax reform, their solution was to throw the whole thing out. Today, we need to overhaul the system, but we do not have to do it by addressing 258 amendments. We need to have leadership that we have seen this House have before. Let me show my colleagues what the history of this House is. In the 101st Congress, 1989 and 1990, H.R. 5400 was introduced by our colleague, Al Swift. It went through the House by a vote of 255 to 155. Fifteen Republicans voted yes. The bill was adopted in the Senate. The 102nd Congress, 1991 and 1992, H.R. 3750 by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), voted off this floor, passed the House by 273 votes to 156 votes. That bill went on to conference and ended up going to President Bush on May 5, and he vetoed the bill. That bill did everything that all of these amendments are talking about, that all of this debate is talking about. We do not even have that bill as one of the major bills this time. The 103rd Congress back in 1993-1994, when most of us came here, this passed the House in November 1993 by a vote of 255 to 175, another bill by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson). The point is that leadership is about getting results. Results are about getting a bill out of this House and a bill that is comprehensive, just like the bills that my colleagues were talking about yesterday for tax reform. Defeat this rule, bring a substantive bill up, and let us pass that.

Mr. FARR of California

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

Mr. FARR of California. I object, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FARR of California. The gentleman had 5 minutes and he yielded it all.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am one of the authors of one of the bills that are going to be considered, and I find this process incredibly demeaning, although we get up here and talk about how open it is because we have 258 amendments on the floor. But, frankly, the bottom line of all this is that we have to vote on a bill, and the judgment will be whether we put a bill out and put out a good bill. Congress is able to do that, because we did it in the 101st session of Congress, the 102nd session of Congress and the 103rd session. And, in fact, the bill we put out is more comprehensive than any of the bills we are debating here tonight. So this body is capable. We never brought up 258 amendments to try to make those things. We did not talk about severability in those issues. So I think my colleagues see what is going on here. There is an effort here to try to really defeat the issue. I find it very ironic that we are debating right now on a nonseverability amendment to a nongermane amendment, because I think some of the people who sponsor these amendments really do not want campaign reform. They want nonreform. This debate sometimes becomes almost silly, because the public may not understand the legal implications of severability, but they do understand fair play. And what campaign reform is about in America in 1998 is fair play. How do we take so much money out of the system? We have to pass a law to do that, and that law has to do a lot of things. But they are not all connected. Most people believe in fair play and they also understand that in fair play people can make mistakes. And this nonseverability debate is about we can never make a mistake. Congress cannot make one word of a mistake, because if the court throws it out, we have to throw out the whole thing. If we lived by that in our lives, then one poor grade would throw our child out of school; one overdrawn check would cancel our checking account. In fact, if one Member might get in legal trouble, we should throw out all Members because they all got elected at the same time. So let us get down to what it is all about. This is about a bill that is a bipartisan bill. We rarely see these on the floor. A lot of effort went in to try to bring a consensus about so that we could get enough votes to pass a bill out of this House in this session. This bill has a lot of parts to it, and for those who say that we cannot have severability, they have not read the bill. There is all kinds of little things in here, like automatic penalties for late filing. What if the court threw that out? Do my colleagues think that has something to do with soft money? Absolutely not. Should that kill the reforms on issue advocacy? Absolutely not. There are all kinds of parts in here that a court could say, for example, that we have not contributed enough money to enforce the law, some of the things that we have in here. We allow the FEC to refer suspected violations to the Attorney General at any time. Read the bill. If we read the bill we will say, well, if that one sentence were found unconstitutional, should all of this other substantive stuff be thrown out? Absolutely not. That is why people oppose this amendment, because they see this amendment as a way of destroying the whole effort here of trying to get a well-thought-out bill, a bill that has been compromised by the fact that it has gotten this far in this very controversial session of our Congress. We need to make sure that we pass a bill that is comprehensive. And frankly, I think my bill, and both the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and I have been working side by side, I think my bill at this point is much more comprehensive than theirs. But I am up here advocating the support of their bill because I think it is what we can politically do. Let us not try to destroy this with 258 nongermane amendments. That is silly.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because we are finally getting around to campaign finance reform, which as many people know, I have authored the major bill on campaign finance reform which will be debated. So the idea that we are debating campaign finance reform is music to my ears, but then I look at the way it has all been set up and I am reminded of the song in Musicman that goes, ``Talk a little, pick a little, talk a little, pick a little; talk, talk, talk, talk, pick a little, pick a little.'' Well, that is exactly what we are doing. We are talking a lot and we are picking it apart. There are 258 amendments to 11 different measures. I think the debate is designed to be confusing, it is designed to go on and on and on and on. It is designed to never have anyone coalesce around any one of the bills. Mr. Speaker, last night the Republican Party went out and raised $10 million, and today they are going to get up and talk about campaign finance reform. You bet we need it.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I was privileged to host the first National Ocean Conference in my district last week that featured the President and Vice President, Secretaries Daley, Babbitt, Slater, Dalton, EPA Administrator Browner, and CEQ Director McGinty, among others. As a result, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall votes 211 to 231, which I would like to be noted in the Congressional Record how I would have voted on each one had I been present. Mr. Speaker, I will submit them for the Record. Roll call vote.--211, yea; 212, yea; 213, yea; 214, yea; 215, yea; 216, nay; 217, nay; 218, nay; 219, yea; 220, yea; 221, nay; 222, nay; 223, yea; 224, yea; 225, nay; 226, nay; 227, yea; 228, nay; 229, nay; 230, yea; 231, yea.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to pass bipartisan legislation built by broad coalition. This should have been a no-brainer, but, once again, the House leadership decided to attack the most vulnerable of our society. I commend my colleagues for their strong vote on opposing the previous rule on May 22 and ask them to join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1150, the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act, and I would like to thank the hard work of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith), our chairman; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest); the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley); and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm); along with their staff, for crafting this legislation that is so important to the central coast of California and to the rest of the Nation. The farmers in my district are the most productive specialty crop growers in the world. They produce over $2.2 billion worth of fresh fruits, vegetables, and horticultural crops each year. I represent the ``Salad Bowl'' of the country. The agriculture industry is the backbone of the communities in my district, and they do this without Federal price supports. In this highly competitive field of agriculture, research is one of the few ways that the Federal Government can help my farmers. The new money in the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems will jump-start our efforts on emerging technologies as farming moves into the 21st century. The partnerships for high-value agriculture product quality research will give farmers and researchers the ability to work in conjunction with each other to address a wide range of opportunities facing the research community, including production, packaging technology, and value-added enterprises in rural areas. Mr. Speaker, the bill contains for the first time an initiative for organic farming and will help this niche market continue to grow. We have barely begun to tap the full potential of organic farming systems today. This initiative will provide competitive grants to facilitate the development of organic agriculture production, processing, and potential economic benefits associated with both domestic and foreign markets. Lastly, I think we have an obligation to provide food assistance to whose to fell through the cracks when we restored the SSI benefits to the elderly and disabled last year. This conference report restores the nutritional safety net for 250,000 legal immigrant adults and children who were indiscriminately cut off from the food stamp rolls.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me the time. The conference committee report is a good report. It is a good deal. The compromises have been made. And frankly, as a member of the Committee on Agriculture, the reason we got to the compromises is because the food stamp program allowed for savings. That is where the money comes from. I want to applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) for the work they have done. We have had a great bill. We all agree on it. There is no objection to it. Unanimous support in the Senate. And it comes over here and now we are going to try to screw it all up with a lousy rule. We have got to defeat the rule and support the conference committee report unamended.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I am pleased that we finally have a chance to debate on 11 measures, separate measures to discuss campaign reform, and I join this debate to fight for reform, real reform. Reform that stops the money chase, reform that restores the integrity to the election process, that allows candidates to discuss the issues, not sling mud. I support the Shays-Meehan bill, but I also have a bill to be discussed in this debate, one that is more comprehensive than Shays- Meehan and actually is the basis from which Shays-Meehan originally developed. But as good as Shays-Meehan is, it could be better. If the problem with campaign finance today is too much money in the system, then let us cap it. No one talks about spending limits anymore. But my bill has spending limits; none of the others do. If we want to reduce money in the system, do not let it be spent. I cap it out at $600,000, which is the average cost of a campaign in the United States in the last election. No one talks about PAC contributions anymore, but I do. My bill reduces individual PAC contributions and caps them in the aggregate. Shays-Meehan does not. If we want to reduce special interest money in the system, reduce the flow of money, cap it. My bill and my amendment has PAC limits. No one talks about wealthy candidates anymore, buying a seat in Congress, but I do. My bill limits how much personal money a candidate can spend on his or her campaign. Shays-Meehan and other bills do not. What about bundling reform? What about access to broadcast time? Have we forgotten that there is more to campaign finance reform than only soft money? We need reform. It needs to be bold. It needs to be comprehensive. Getting rid of soft money is a good start, but in itself is not enough. Getting tough on express advocacy is a good start, but in itself is not enough. Getting serious about disclosure is a good start, but it is not enough. Shays-Meehan is a good start, but it is not enough. I will offer an amendment using the text of my bill, H.R. 600, that does that, and more. If we are going to go through the trouble of passing campaign finance reform, let us pass comprehensive reform. Let us show America we are serious about cleaning up the system. If we are truly determined to do something about campaigns that are financed in this country, we must attack it from all angles, not just one. Incremental reform is reform delayed, and reform delayed is not reform at all.