Sam Farr

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of the Reyes amendment. Let us think about this for a minute. We have 2 borders in this country, one with Mexico and one with Canada. The shortest of the 2 is Mexico. We are suggesting here that that is the border we need to put troops on in a country that has been a great ally to the United States, and frankly, the border between California and Mexico and Texas and Mexico is the busiest commercial border in the world. We are going to try to now slow down that border and put people that are untrained on that border, and it just does not make sense. Essentially it sends out a message that our country just wants to be fortress America. Most of America is surrounded by water. What about all the coastlines? Are we going to put the troops in my district in Pebble Beach in Florida and in West Palm Beach? People would not stand for that. Besides that, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) comes up here and says his amendment allows him to engage and yet we read in the amendment, here it says, ``Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a member assigned under subsection (a) to conduct search, seizure or similar law enforcement activity or to make an arrest.'' The Reyes amendment is a better one, please support it.

Mr. FARR of California

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

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, as the largest base closure in the United States, we need this bill. (Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for the Moran-Watts-Thornberry amendment to the Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Authorization Act, which would create a demonstration project for military retirees to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Guaranteeing health care for our nation's military retirees should be one of our nation's top priorities. Yet millions of military retirees are prohibited from receiving Department of Defense health care because they have passed the age of 65 and are eligible for Medicare. As a result, Americans who served in our nation's defense are denied the health care they have more than earned as a result of their sacrifices to our nation. In my own district, thousands of these retirees--individuals who dedicated many years of their lives to the military--are now without military health care. Denied CHAMPUS or TRICARE, and put last on priority lists for care at Military Treatment Facilities, these brave men and women have an increasingly difficult time obtaining the health care they need. This, Mr. Chairman, is simply unfair. The amendment before us provides a solution to the problem. It establishes a three-year demonstration project in which up to 70,000 Medicare-eligible military retirees would be permitted to enroll in FEHBP at six test sites. The amendment would also allow dependents of these retirees to be eligible for FEHBP, as well as widows of those who died while on active duty for more than thirty days. Passage of this amendment will allow military retirees and their immediate families to continue to obtain cost-effective health care from the federal government after the age of 65. It is a fair and flexible solution that will help ensure that these brave and dedicated Americans will not have to worry about obtaining the health care they need and deserve. Mr. Chairman, next week we celebrate Memorial Day. I cannot think of a more appropriate time in which to act on behalf of our nation's military retirees. Let's pass this amendment today.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, it is 11 o'clock, 5 minutes of 11:00, and we are now finally getting to the debate on the rule on campaign finance reform, an interesting rule that brings 11 different viewpoints to the floor, allows an hour vote for each one, and unlimited amendments. The question is whether this Congress is going to be serious about passing campaign reform. It was just mentioned that, when our party was in control, we and the 101st, 102d, and 103rd did pass campaign reform, and it was substantive. It was a bill that, first of all, had the premise of fairness, a bill that did not favor one party over another. Second, it reduced the influence of special interest. Third, it leveled the playing field. And, fourth, it made access to the system by nontraditional candidates. One of the bills that is in order is a bill that does that. It caps spending. It reduces individual PAC contributions. It reforms the role of wealthy donors and people who use their own money. It reforms the role of soft money. It finally puts the brakes on massive expenditures of money in the political realm that are now unregulated, undisclosed and outside the law, those that are independent expenditures. I hope Members of the party will take a look at this bill. There are 106 coauthors on this side. It is the only bill that is on the floor that is really comprehensive, the only bill that addresses all the issues that the 101st, 102d, 103rd Congress did. If you adopt this rule, you will have a chance to do comprehensive campaign finance reform.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the California Coastal Rocks and Islands Wilderness Act of 1998. I am pleased to be able to offer this bill with the support of my colleague, Representative Elton Gallegly. The purpose of this bill is to recognize the ecological significance of the tens thousands of small rocks, islands and pinnacles off the California coast, by designating them as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. These small islands and rocks provide important resting sites for California sea lions, Steller's sea lions, elephant seals and harbor seals, as well as providing a narrow flight lane in the Pacific Flyway. An estimated 200,000 breeding seabirds of 13 different species use these rocks and islands for feeding, perching, nesting and shelter. Birds that use these areas include three threatened and endangered species: the brown pelican, the least tern and the peregrine falcon. The Wilderness designation afforded by this act would apply to all rocks, islands and pinnacles off the California coast from the Oregon border to the U.S. Mexico border, which are currently under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This includes nearly all of the federally-owned lands above the mean high tide and within three geographical miles off the coast. The designation would afford the highest protected status and highlight the ecological importance of all of the small rocks, islands and pinnacles off the California coast, which together comprise approximately 7,000 square acres. Adding these areas would also further the Wilderness Act's goal of including unique, ecologically representative areas to the System. Rocks and islands which are already patented or reserved for marine navigational aids, National Monuments, or state parks will not be affected by the legislation. I am pleased to be able to introduce this bill and look forward to its swift passage, so that these unique areas of California's ecosystem can be preserved and protected for generations to come.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the works of two photographers and one poet from my district are currently on display in the Cannon Rotunda. This is the second year that I have hosted ``A Matriot's Dream: Health Care for All'' at a reception in the Rayburn Foyer. This collection of photographs by Kira Corrilo Corser and poetry by Frances Payne Adler creates a visual story of compelling social issues. This heart-wrenching exhibit on the plight of the uninsured is a must-see for everyone. Many of us don't worry about health care once we've made our choice during open season, but what about those who can't afford health care; or have maxed out the coverage with horrendously high medical costs related to cancer or childhood leukemia; or those who simply can't afford the co-pay on medication they must take three times a day for high blood pressure. The photographs and poetry go straight to the heart on these and other questions. Also showing in the Cannon Rotunda is a photo essay on the daily lives of the Cuban people. In 1996 the artist, Ms. Heidi McGurrin, spent a number of months on a photo-journalistic assignment in Cuba. Her current show, ``Cuba: So near . . . yet so far'', presents the Cuban people--from a young bride to a homeless man; a man on his pillow to a woman hanging laundry--in amazing clarity and detail. Ms. McGurrin's work centers mostly around La Habana, Mantazas and Varadero. This is an incredible opportunity to meet the Cuban people and gain a small insight into their daily lives. Ms. McGurrin wrote a short statement which she titled ``Lasting impressions of La Habana''. This statement gives you a taste of the richness that is Cuba and that shines through Ms. McGurrin's photographs. I submit this statement for the Record. Lasting Impressions Of La Habana Blown by the winds She stands proud and naked Pulsing with music and beautiful faces . . . jumping colors dripping beauty open hearts a heaven glimpsed . . . a sadness felt old passions lived A country full of heart, honesty, soul, passion, rhythm. Blacks, honey colored mulattos, mixtures of Chinese and Spanish, Cubanos. Handsome. Full of music. Beautiful souls who sing and dance and cry and feel, whose struggle is for truth, honor, beauty and heaven. Proud. Flowers are everywhere, even in the trees, the beautiful trees. The buildings with old ironwork, stained glass, marble everywhere, are like old peeling faded dancers of every color and hue, so regal. Pale blue, deep blue, pale green, burgundys and wines, soft rouge colors, standing like proud haunting crumbling angels. The women are beautiful. They pay attention and look at you as though they have never seen anyone like you before, they make you feel very much alive, but kind of like a ghost. You are there but you are not there, just like the buildings . . . the feelings can be elusive. Walking through the inner city I saw families sitting in the doorways . . . the least gesture from me would bring such warmth, a beautiful smile. I feel so much love for these people.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Sanders Amendment to the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 1999. In the name of reducing deficit spending, Congress has slashed hundreds of billions of dollars from programs for education, health care, the elderly, and veterans. These cuts have left millions of the neediest Americans in even greater need. Yet when it comes to the intelligence budget, we are willing to spend tens of billions of dollars every year without meaningful reductions. H.R. 3694 provides $28 billion dollars for national intelligence programs. This enormous amount represents $3 billion more than what we spend on food stamps, over 50% more than what we spend on medical care for veterans, and more than the total amount spent on child nutrition, special education, and Pell Grants combined. We need to keep our budget priorities straight. The welfare of the American taxpayer should be more important than funding secret operations overseas. This amendment would reduce the intelligence budget by 5%; although a modest cut, it would at least ensure that the intelligence budget does not escape the same budget-cutting axe that has cut so many other government programs. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate the 50th year of statehood of a strong and trusted ally, the State of Israel. A young nation with a long and honorable history, Israel has been a symbol of hope and a land of opportunity for millions of Jews throughout the world. Surviving six wars, continuing terrorism, and severe economic boycotts, Israel's 600,000 citizens have shown the world what it means to be committed to one's homeland. Against all odds, Israel has established a dynamic, vibrant democracy that supports free elections free press and freedom of speech. A country of remarkable accomplishments, Israel has moved from a poor third-world country to a thriving state with unlimited economic prospects, Israel has molded fields of sand into successful farms, villages of historic destruction into brilliant cities with prosperous businesses and enterprising kibutzes, and barren desert lands into lush forests of green. Persecution endured has been turned into prosperity, isolation into idealism and hardship into heroism. With all if successes, the people of Israel have never forgotten who they are, the roots that intertwine every Israeli with every member of the global Jewish community. Israel has welcomed over 1,000,000 refugees with open arms, providing work and learning opportunities, with the chance to become a vital part of the Israel experience. The United States' bond with Israel is stronger than ever, a friendship that has flourished and helped strengthen both of our nations. Working together for peace in the Middle East, we all yearn to see a day when children no longer need be afraid of war and terrorism and all families throughout the region feel safe and secure. We can now look forward to a time that this troubled area of the world toils towards tearing down age-old barriers instead of erecting new ones. The Israeli nation has become an inspiration for people the world over. I salute Israel on this joyous anniversary and pledge my support to it enduring legacy

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, one thing we all have in common in our districts is we all have roads, and we all have schools. If people been watching the debate on the floor, they would know that we committed ourselves to fixing the roads in America. We did that just a couple of weeks ago by passing BESTEA: $219 billion we are going to put into the road system in America. But when it comes to fixing schools, we put zero, zip, none, no money into fixing schools, not a drop of Federal dollars. We have educational programs, but far less spent on that than we do on roads. So if we want to fix schools like we fix roads, we need to spend some more money. Now, my colleagues do not suggest that in the road problem that we give vouchers for fixing the roads, but that is what my colleagues are suggesting here. It will not fix our educational system without a commitment of funds. If we were to give the same commitment to education that we just gave to roads, we would appropriate this year $219 billion. That is how we fix education.

Mr. FARR of California

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

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I really enjoy seeing this wonderful bipartisan support for education here on the House floor. I cannot think of any issue that is more of interest to the people in this country now than education, and it is wonderful that we are at a time when education has become our most important product, and I would like to acknowledge and compliment the leadership on both sides of the aisle, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for his great leadership and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee). I have a quick amendment. This amendment is to Part E of the Teacher Quality Enforcement Enhancement Grants, which is section 271(i). This section is the one that consolidates 17 existing higher education programs into a new competitive grant program to improve teacher training. Section 271(i) provides competitive grants to the States to strengthen the quality of teaching force in the core subject areas. My language would merely list those core subject areas as math, science, English, foreign languages, history, economics, art and civics. Modification to Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Farr of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I also discovered there was a drafting error that omitted government and geography from the list, so I would ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment to add government and geography.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Arthur Mitteldorf, a devoted conservationist and warm friend and respected member of the community. Mr. Mitteldorf's contributions cannot be measured. Throughout the years, he freely gave of his time and knowledge to environmental advisory committees. He wrote persuasive articles and commentaries on topics such as air quality, hazardous materials, and the consequences of building dams. His presence will be sorely missed by members of the Ventana Chapter of the Sierra Club, where he put words to the views of many. Early in life, his aesthetic sense found expression in music. While obtaining a degree in chemistry from Brooklyn College, Arthur played the cello in orchestras and chamber ensembles. His life as a cello player was set aside to become a businessman, and he rose to become president and chief executive of Spex Industries, Inc in Edison New Jersey. Later in life he returned to his music as a member of the Chamber Music Society of the Monterey Peninsula and of the Carmel Music Society. Arthur Mitteldorf and his wife Harriet undertook a project that was two years in the doing. Together they searched Carmel Valley for a stand of redwoods that would epitomize the beauty of the area. In 1990, having found a majestic tract, they donated 1,100 acres of redwood dotted canyons and hills to the Big Sur Land Trust. It is now known as the Mitteldorf Preserve. The Preserve not only provides a refuge for flora and fauna, but has become the centerpiece of the Land Trust public outreach, multiplying the Mitteldorf's contribution by setting an example to others to join them in their love for the land. Arthur Mitteldorf's generosity, his staunch defense of the environment, and his commitment to his community will be sorely missed by all who knew him. Our hearts go out to his family. We can take solace in the knowledge that his contributions will enrich generations into the future.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, law enforcement in my district supports needle exchange. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to point out that the majority party controls this House. This is the people's House. This is where people's voices can be heard, because everybody here has to be elected. We cannot run away from that responsibility. When the Democrats controlled this House, we passed out several times, three times, in fact, campaign finance reform, comprehensive campaign finance reform. The last of those bills to reach the President's desk was vetoed by President Bush. The people still want comprehensive campaign finance reform. Their pressure now gives this House a second chance, after the leadership orchestrated a defeat by a two-thirds vote and by scheduling it on a day when one of the Members, a former Member, had a funeral. So, Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to keep watching. Will we get a comprehensive campaign reform or will we see another orchestrated defeat?

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to note the passing of a woman whose loving care for her family and community spanned half the world, for over half a century. Filipina S. Macahilig began life in Manila, graduating from the University of the Philippines before working as a nurse through World War II. The children at the schools on Panay Island were comforted by her tender and competent care. At war's end, Ms. Macahilig moved to the United States, first to San Francisco and then to the Monterey Peninsula, where she continued to care for the ill and infirm. She and her beloved husband Edel raised her large family: four sons, Rene, Felicisimo, Requiro and Edilberto, and four daughters, Alice, Bernadette, Suzanne and Teresita, all of whom graduated with highest honors and became outstanding members of their communities. Her warmth extended outwards into the community through her service as a longtime member and officer of the Filipino Community Organization of the Monterey Peninsula. She replenished her spirit at the Carmel Mission Basilica where she was a faithful parishioner. She cared for her fourteen grandchildren and five great- grandchildren with her own special kind of gentle compassion, providing a model of humanity that they will carry with them always. Her death at the age of 87 was a loss, but her generous spirit will continue to warm and nurture the community through the memories she has left with us.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with respect to a tragic--and, unfortunately, still largely unknown--event in world history. Eighty-three years ago, the Armenians of Ottoman Turkey became the victim of a comprehensive government- sponsored campaign of persecution which, after eight terrible years, left dead or deported some two million Armenian men, women, and children. From 1915 to 1923, Turkish Armenians were executed. Tortured, and put into forced labor, solely because of their ethnic heritage. The human costs were terrible and enormous. Over one million Armenians died as a result of the genocide, and hundreds of thousands of others became refugees. One statistic is especially telling: Over 2.5 million Armenians lived in Ottoman Turkey before the genocide began; today, less than 80,000 remain. Although the lives that were lost as a result of the genocide can never be returned, we must never forget what befell the Armenians of Ottoman Turkey solely because of their ethnicity. We must remember, not only in the honor of their memories, but so that future generations understand the terrible effects of bigotry and ethnic hatred. When isolated incidents of persecution are tolerated, or when politicians gain from supporting ethnic persecution, the consequences can be terrible. We must therefore never tolerate discrimination in any form. We must also remember that such tragic events can happen again when the world community ignores the warning signs before it is too late. I join Armenian-Americans and others in commemorating the terrible events of eighty-three years ago, and urge that we work to protect the human rights of all people around the world, so that we may prevent such a terrible tragedy from ever happening again.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, well, we were here yesterday for almost 12 hours; and we were able to kill campaign finance reform. It reminds me of borrowing a lyric from the old song ``The Party's Over:'' ``It's time to wind up the masquerade. But make up your mind, the piper must be paid.'' The campaign finance reform has not been done. There are no limits on expenditures. There is no ban on soft money. There is no disclosure for independent groups that campaign for or against politicians. History reveals again last night that the Republican Party has killed the campaign finance reform once again. In 1992, a bill got to the President's desk and Bush vetoed it. In 1994, the Senate Republicans filibustered against campaign finance reform and killed it. In 1996, this House, under present leadership, killed H.R. 3505. And now, in 1998, the House leadership once again killed campaign finance reform. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party does not want to bite the money interests that field their campaigns. But do not forget, it is not the money that elects us, it is the people who vote.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see a speaker from Nevada, an author from Wyoming and a legislator from California all up here to support the National Historic Trails Center in Casper, Wyoming. I am a big supporter of historic trails. In fact, we are going to authorize to spend $5 million of taxpayers' money, and I think it is money well spent. But we are going to see probably everybody is voting for this bill because it is a good thing to do, to support historic trails. I wonder if this trail is going to lead us into some meaningful campaign finance reform. Do my colleagues think that we could sort of get, in a bipartisan spirit, this idea that we ought to probably limit the amount of money that goes into campaigns, not expand them, that I understand is the proposal, kind of limit it down here? I mean, there was so much money spent in campaigns in the 1996 election, if we limited it to $5 million like the center would have, we would have meaningful reform. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this, and I hope that when we have similar type legislation for similar bills in California, that Wyoming supports us as well. I hope this trail center, when you interpret it, it will be able to interpret why we have not had meaningful campaign reform here on the floor of the House in March of 1998.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I notice the gentleman from Nevada, who is just leaving the room, arrived here almost 12 hours ago and began the session today. It is now ended, we are in special orders, and it has been quite a day. This was the day we were supposed to deal with substantive debate on campaign finance reform. It is now 11 p.m. in the Nation's Capital. As I speak, here in the East they are watching the last minute of the national collegiate basketball championships. We have Members, as you heard earlier, that came back from Africa today; we had Members that spent the day in New Mexico. It has been quite a day. But I think what is so shocking to me and to many other people who spoke today is that today, with all of these other activities, was the day we were going to try to adopt in this House a comprehensive campaign finance reform bill, and we had votes on bills. There were four bills up today. They were under extraordinarily difficult procedures. No amendments were allowed, no Democratic bills, there were not bipartisan bills on the floor. A vote was taken on the Republican bill, H.R. 3581, and that vote, I think after you heard the comments, people were not surprised that that bill because what it did was, it did not do campaign reform. It tripled the total Federal limit from $25,000 to $75,000 that can be given to a campaign, it tripled the party contributions from $20,000 to $60,000, and it doubled the individual, which under present law is $1,000, and would increase it to $2,000. I think what this body saw was by putting more money into campaigns you cannot call that campaign finance reform. And so this House in an overwhelming bipartisan effort rejected that bill brought here by the leadership of the House, brought here with the idea that this was going to be the most substantive bill on campaign reform, and as the vote was tallied tonight you saw that it got 74 votes in favor of it and 337 votes against it and one abstention. I think that the tragedy is that, perhaps for a lot of people leaving tonight in frustration, was that now that we have been there and done that, that campaign finance reform is over. I hope not. The issue started in this House. It started when the President of the United States came and, Mr. Speaker, spoke right in front of the podium you are now at and asked this House to give him a complete, comprehensive campaign finance reform bill in a timely fashion. We missed the deadlines, we missed any action last year on the bill, and now we have a vote that has rejected a bad bill. Let us hope that that is not the end. Let us hope that we can do several things. One is regroup, because I think the public is going to be outraged by this action tonight and bring to the floor a true bipartisan bill or all the bills, and allow all of them that were not discussed here today to be voted on. We can do that by signing the discharge petition, and I hope my colleagues have; I know I have and many others have. But let us bring a bill that does some reform. This bill tonight had no cap or no limit on what you could spend; it had no ban on soft money. What was passed in the House were noncontroversial issues, essentially saying that you have to be a United States citizen to contribute to a campaign. I am very curious that a House that has been so concerned about unfunded mandates would pass such a comprehensive law, requiring the FEC to monitor the nationality and the citizenship of everybody who contributes to a campaign either in kind or by money, because that is going to be very difficult to do, very difficult to enforce. And so I think what we have passed here tonight is another huge unfunded mandate which may cripple the FEC, the Federal Elections Commission. The other thing we did was to pass a bill that says let us file reports in a timely fashion electronically, and obviously that had overwhelming support. But this, my colleagues, is not campaign finance reform. Campaign finance reform has not been voted on by the House of Representatives, we have not dealt with the issue in a substantive way, we have not had a bipartisan bill on the floor, and, Mr. Speaker, as I close I hope that you will convey to your leader that we may have had a day discussing some bad bills, but we have not yet dealt with campaign finance reform.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, let the record show that we have three former Peace Corps volunteers on the floor today, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), I appreciate his remarks, the Speaker pro tempore, and myself. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss probably the issue of today, which is campaign finance reform. What is happening today is that the process has been rigged. We have a suspension of democracy, not a suspension of consent items before the House. We are scheduled to vote this evening on campaign finance reform, on four bills, as the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) pointed out, all Republican bills without any Democrat input, although the Democrat bill that I authored has 106 cosponsors, the most that any campaign finance reform bill has ever had in the history of this House. I would like to speak a little bit about that history, because we have, in the past, passed campaign finance reform. In fact, if Members will go back to probably times when some of the Members here were serving, the 100th Congress, in 1987 and 1988, the House bill was introduced by a House Member from California, Mr. Coelho. It had 96 cosponsors in all. Then the Senate bill, which was S. 2, was introduced by a Democrat from Oklahoma, Senator Boren. That bill was filibustered by the Republicans for a record of seven cloture votes, and it was defeated by the Republican filibuster. In the 101st Congress, 1991 to 1992, again Mr. Swift, a Democrat from Washington, introduced the House bill here, which had several cosponsors, and it passed the House. It passed on a bipartisan vote, 255 to 155, including 15 Republicans that voted for the bill. Then what happened is that the conferees, because the Senate blocked the conferees, were never appointed. So, again, the second time that a bill had gotten blocked by Republican efforts. In the 102nd Congress, which is 1991 to 1992, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) sponsored the bill. It had 82 cosponsors in all. It passed the House on November 25, 1991, by a vote of 273 to 156. The Senate had a similar measure. The House agreed to the Senate measure and it passed the Senate, it was again by Senator Boren, by a vote of 56 to 42. It went to conference. The conference report was voted on by this House 259 to 165 on April 9, 1992. Guess what happened in 1992? On May 5, President Bush vetoed the bill. That is similar to the bill that I have up today, H.R. 600. There is not much difference. It became, I think, the bill, most of which is in the Shays-Meehan bill. Again, an effort by the Republicans to block campaign finance reform. Then in the 103rd Congress, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) again introduced this bill, H.R. 3. It passed the House on November 22, 1993, by a vote of 255 to 175. The Senate bill passed again, introduced by Senator Boren, a Democrat from Oklahoma, passed the Senate on June 7, 1993, by a vote of 60 to 38. The cloture failed on the motion to go to conference on September 23; and due to a filibuster by Senator Gramm, a Republican from Texas, the cloture failed on September 27. Again, in the 104th Congress I took over the work of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), I guess because both of us are Sams, and I guess the Sam Caucus sticks together. I introduced the H.R. 3505. It had numerous cosponsors. It was a substitute to the Republican campaign finance reform bill, and it failed on this floor by 177 to 243. It received bipartisan support. And the act goes on. Now we are in the 105th Congress. I have introduced H.R. 600. It had a 106 cosponsors. It cannot get out of committee. It cannot even be offered as a substitute. So history has shown that when the Democrats were in power, we were able to get bills off this floor. We were able to get more substantive bills than are being addressed today. I think what is happening today a real sham. It is a sham on democracy. It is shameful what we are doing. There is a funeral going on right now in New Mexico. Most of our Members are there. They cannot even participate in this discussion. The vote is on the suspense calendar, which requires a two-thirds vote, an extraordinary vote. The suspense calendar is for things that are automatic, that people have no debate on. They are not controversial issues. Yet, this day was the day chosen to hear this. Let me tell the Members what has been going on in this House. We ought to all be outraged because, since the beginning of this year, this session, the oversight committee chaired by our colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), and by Senator Fred Thompson have subpoenaed in the House 587 people, put 114 depositions, had 13 days of public hearings, had 33 witnesses and spent $6.8 million, and nothing coming out for campaign finance reform. This is outrageous.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. No, Mr. Speaker, I will not yield. Mr. Speaker, I will answer the gentleman's question. Nothing that they have investigated was brought for campaign finance reform. This has nothing to do with the investigation. They have not limited foreign corporations from contributing to campaigns. It has cost this House $5 million so far. What this bill says is that 1-day-old babies can participate in contributing to campaigns through their parents, but if someone is a Congressional Medal of Honor winner, if they won the Gold Medal in the Olympics, if they won the Nobel prize and they happened to be born somewhere else, they cannot contribute a dime, not even if they are a military retiree. Mr. Speaker, this is a sham. This bill does nothing to reform campaigns, and the investigation that they spent $5 million on is not even seen in this bill. This is outrageous.

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, just a moment ago it was said that we were getting too carried away. Let us look at the record of who is getting a little carried away. According to Congressional Quarterly, the Republican leadership has had the most expensive congressional investigation in the history of the House. Their investigator, they spend over $10,000 a month on his own salary. They sent five investigators to Taiwan to look at bank records. They came back and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle introduced this bill. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Pomeroy.

Mr. FARR of California

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today just to point out to the House what we have been doing this year when we have been here, both the House and the Senate when they began looking into campaign filings of the White House. This House subpoenaed 587 subpoenas. They deposed 114 people. They held 13 days of public hearings. They had 33 witnesses. The House gave them $5 million. On the Senate side figures are about the same, only the Senate gave them $3.5 million. In addition to what the House gave the committee they have now appropriated another $1.8 million, and what have we gotten for it? Nothing but a sham. These bills that come before my colleagues tonight are bills that require a two-thirds vote. Most of the Members of Congress are not even here for the debate. This is not campaign finance reform, this is a travesty on democracy.