Tom Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I do not know that we have talked enough about one of the conclusions of the White House Conference on Early Childhood Development, which is, and I gather there is a new report coming out that will also emphasize the importance of this particular point, home visits, prenatal and postnatal home visits are critical to helping parents cope. Let us face it, in this country today we have too many teen parents, too many youngsters who are parents at a time when they still need parents themselves. If they are going to be able to bring up their kids, parenting skills are essential. In the Bath-Brunswick area in Maine, the Bath-Brunswick child care agency has started a program of home visits. It works. It is very helpful. In the Charlotte-Mecklenburg area in North Carolina the school system has developed a series of brochures that they will give, they will do prenatal visits and postnatal visits, and a series of brochures that will help young parents sort of get some basic information about how to encourage stimulation in their kids. In Hawaii there is, I am told they have a very comprehensive prenatal, postnatal set of home visits. There is one statistic out of what Hawaii has done that just amazes me. It has to do with usefulness of home visits, not just as a matter of parenting education, not just as a matter of improving our kids' chances in life, but as a way of reducing child abuse. That number is this. As a result of this program, repeat instances of child abuse have been reduced from 62 to 3 percent. Repeat instances of child abuse have been reduced from 62 to 3 percent. That is a large part of the reason, home visits. The fact is if we are going to deal with the phenomenon of young people today growing up in the kinds of families with all the stresses and strains that modern families have, we need to focus like a laser on zero to three and zero to six and make sure that all our kids have a chance to grow up in a healthy, productive home.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, an earlier speaker on the other side said that he had a dream, and that his dream was that the President called him and he was given an authority to exercise the line-item veto. Well, I have a dream as well. I think we on this side of the aisle, we as Democrats have a dream as well, and it is to leave no child behind, and that what we need to do as a country is recognize that the Cold War is over. We have balanced the Federal budget. We look out ahead for the next 10 years and we see a Federal budget that is close to balance, either a modest surplus or a modest deficit for 10 years. It is time for people in this country to say that the great mission, the great challenge that we have as a country in the next 10 years is to leave no child behind, to make sure that children in this country have adequate health care, a solid education; that they are prepared before they ever get to kindergarten with the appropriate child care and the kind of stimulation they need, and that we are going to make this country strong for our children. If we do that, I think our prospects for the next century are very, very bright indeed, but we need the national will. Rob Reiner, who has been a leader in promoting child care, quality, affordable child care, has said what is missing today is that we do not have the national will to treat this problem with the seriousness that it deserves. I believe on this side of the aisle we are determined to do that, and I look forward to working with all of my colleagues on that.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the importance of early childhood development. A few months ago, I attended the White House Conference on Early Childhood Development. Recent research suggests that the first 3 years of life are crucial for a child's emotional and intellectual development. The formation of neuropathways in the brain is directly related to the quality of care young children receive in the first 3 years of life. Early and developmentally appropriate care and education are vital to the health and well-being of our children. But today, one-quarter of all children in this country are growing up in poverty. Teachers and principals of Maine elementary schools tell me that so many kids today lack the basic social skills that allow ordinary interaction with others. We have had lots of rhetoric about education. What is missing is the national will to leave no child behind and the resources to make it happen. I believe that a country that can support the salaries of the NBA and NFL and major league baseball can take better care of our kids.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, 89 nations agreed in Oslo recently to an international treaty to ban landmines. This achievement is the product of years of hard work by humanitarian groups in the United States and around the globe and honors the legacy of the late Princess Diana. Unfortunately, the administration has decided not to sign the Ottawa treaty. I fear we have missed an historic opportunity to do the right thing. The United States should lead the fight to rid the world of landmines. The President said that total landmine ban was a line he could not cross for the safety of our troops. Their safety is of fundamental importance, but there are alternatives to mines that can protect our soldiers. A child in Angola does not see the line between farm and minefield and does not know where she can safely cross. Every 22 minutes, an innocent civilian is killed or maimed by a landmine. Madam Speaker, I urge Members and citizens across the country to call on the President to think of that little girl, do the right thing and sign the Ottawa Treaty in December.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, those of us who are freshmen experienced the 1996 elections in a different way. There was soft money involved in those elections on a scale never before seen. Issue advocacy groups were participating in the election on a scale that has never happened before. Beginning in February, our Freshmen Task Force sat down and tried to figure out how we could pass real campaign finance reform in this session. We proposed a soft money ban. That bill is now H.R. 2183, the Campaign Integrity Act of 1997. It bans soft money, it provides new restrictions or new requirements for disclosure on issue advocacy, and it tightens up candidate disclosure. It is a good bill. It needs to come to the floor of this Congress for a vote. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Republican leadership and the other side not simply to keep investigating without legislating; bring this bill to the floor, and let us give the Members of this Congress a chance to do something besides investigate. Let us change the way we finance campaigns. Let us vote on the bill.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, the point of order just made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. McHugh] was made against section 519 of the bill, which would restrict the U.S. Postal Service's Global Package Link System. That provision does not belong in this bill. Not only is it inappropriate in an appropriations bill, but it is also bad policy. What this provision seeks to prohibit is the expansion of the Global Package Link System by the Postal Service. In changing the authority governing the Postal Service's operations, it violates the House rule against legislating on an appropriations bill. Legislation affecting the Postal Service is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, on which I serve. The committee will be looking at Global Package Link as part of postal reform, and that is an appropriate course for review, rather than through this rider. The Global Package Link, or GPL, is a valuable program that helps U.S. businesses gain new markets and opportunities overseas, which means more jobs here at home. GPL was established by the Postal Service at the request of U.S. catalog companies, who wanted a faster and better way to ship their packages to international customers. One of these customers is L.L. Bean, which is in my districts in Freeport, Maine. GPL is good for American business and good for jobs. It is innovative. Other competitors like UPS could establish similar systems and streamline their own overseas delivery service.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. That is correct. The gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] of the Committee on House Oversight has stated publicly that he will hold a hearing on our bill. We just need to encourage the gentleman to hold it this year, and not in 1998. I think that this session is drawing toward a close, and that is why we have Democrats here tonight, and Democrats standing up during the day, to say to the folks on the other side and say to the American people that this issue will not go away. The American people care about this issue. They are not going to let it go and we cannot let it go. We have to do something about it, and we need to do something about it in 1997.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I appreciate all his support in this area. I would simply say, in conclusion tonight, that I thank all of the Members who have been here to discuss this issue. This issue will not go away. This may not affect people in the way that paying for an education affects them. It may not affect them in the way that losing a job or finding a new job may affect them. It is not their Social Security payment or their tax bill. But they care about this issue. I hear about it all the time. I know the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Snyder] and others do. The fundamental problem is, we have to be able to take the issues that are of concern to people across this country and not just talk about them in the evening but vote on them during the day. That is what we are asking.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York. You have been a real leader in this field. You have one of the major proposals that ought to be debated here. This whole question of an independent commission, I think, is one that we need to look at very, very carefully. You have generated support on both sides of the aisle for your proposal. It is time, as we have said, it is time to get down to business and hold this kind of debate during the day, not during the evening.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Maloney], who is another leader in this particular area. I hope the gentlewoman will talk about her bill tonight.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Oregon as the current president of our freshman class. The gentlewoman has plunged into this issue and is helping to build support for it in these halls, and I appreciate it. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman makes an excellent point. One of the points she makes is that essentially we are going to be embarrassed if we have all of these investigations and we do not get to legislate. That is what we are here for.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Hooley].

Mr. ALLEN. I just want to also say that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], for those who may not know, has been in that chair almost all day today; he has been in this House chamber dealing with the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. The fact that the gentleman would stay here in this chair into the evening to speak out on this issue is something I want to commend the gentleman for and say we admire his leadership, and we know he is going to be back in that chair again tomorrow. We will try to keep this going with Members from Wisconsin. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Johnson].

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. As the gentleman well knows, there are a number of bills out there, and a number of different approaches to this particular set of problems, and certainly the freshmen are not saying there is only one answer. In fact, we are even saying that the bill that we have drafted is only a partial step toward more complete campaign finance reform, but it is a step in that direction.

Mr. ALLEN. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey. The gentleman has been around for a while, and has been through several periods of reform.

Mr. ALLEN. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, we have heard during some of the 5-minutes a bit earlier about the topic of campaign finance reform. I want to put that on our agenda tonight for a conversation among Members on the Democratic side of the aisle. I want to begin by drawing a contrast. This Congress is spending millions of dollars and months of activity to investigate alleged abuses in the 1996 election. The question that people across this country need to ask is will this Congress not just investigate, but will this Congress legislate, will we start to do something about the problems of our campaign finance system? I believe those problems are clear and apparent. We know what they are. Those problems are highlighted and I think many of us in this Chamber could come up with a campaign finance reform bill. The problem would be that those bills would differ greatly from one another and in fact they do. We have over 80 campaign finance reform bills in this legislature, in this House right now. So the question is, how can we come together? How can we reach a conclusion and get to some success? One of the problems in our campaign finance system, one of the problems, is that soft money goes to the national parties in unlimited amounts, it goes from corporations, it goes from unions, and it goes from wealthy individuals. There are no limits to the soft money that can be contributed to the national parties. I will come back in a moment to the bipartisan freshman bill which addresses soft money and a couple of other matters, because I do believe in that freshman bill. I think that it is the major bipartisan effort in this particular Congress. I want to say at the beginning, this issue is becoming a partisan issue and Democrats are rising up and demanding that we have a vote on campaign finance reform before we go home in the fall. But it does not have to be a partisan issue. In fact, the freshmen showed on a bipartisan basis with six Republican freshman and six Democratic freshmen that we could develop a proposal that would cross party lines and represent significant reform. Let us step back just for a moment and look at what happened in the last cycle: $240 million in soft money contributions were made to the national parties. The way that money is used now is different from the way it was planned when the law was first introduced. When this law was first introduced, this money, soft money, was to go to party-building activities, the kinds of activities that involve grassroots activities, that encourage the participation of the people across this country. I know that during this last campaign, I had a letter from one of my constituents, he sent me a $20 check, and he said, ``I hope when you get to Washington, you don't forget the people from the grassroots who sent you there.'' A $20 check. I believe that soft money, $100,000, $500,000, million-dollar contributions diminish the role of every small contributor and every voter. If we look at what is happening to our campaign system in this country, there is too much money in politics, the amount of money is growing too fast, and this institution is becoming more and more affected by money. We have to change that. We cannot do it all at once, but we need to turn back the clock and start to make a difference. I think that is what we are here for tonight. I am happy to talk about some of the proposed solutions. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Snyder].

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney], and I want to say I appreciate the effort that the gentleman has made on behalf of a public funding bill. I think it is one of the many interesting ideas that are out there and need to have a full debate on this floor. I have to say I am proud of my home State of Maine for passing a referendum proposal that would encourage public funding, would provide voluntary public funding for the Governor's races, all of the State Senate races, and all of the races for the State House. That will take effect in the year 2000. And I just believe this is one of those ideas we ought to have out here on the floor of the House and have a good solid debate.

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McGovern] for all his help on this issue. He certainly makes a good point. We would not have to be here in the evening speaking about this issue if we had a full-fledged debate on the floor of this House during the day. That is what we are asking. It is real simple. We have only 6 or 7 or 8 weeks left in this session, depending on how we count and how long it takes. I think a lot of us feel that this issue will not go away and we should not go away, we need to deal with it during this year in this House. Since we will keep it in the family here, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney].

Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Boyd] for all his help on that task force. He did a great job. Now we simply have to keep pushing this issue as hard as we can until we get the kind of hearing that I think we all agree we are entitled to.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his remarks. I yield now to the gentleman from Florida, [Mr. Boyd], one of the distinguished Members of the Freshman Task Force.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, campaign finance reform does not have to be a partisan affair. It can be a bipartisan affair. In fact, the freshmen of this Congress, six Republicans and six Democrats, worked on a task force and developed the Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act of 1997. It takes the biggest of the big money out of politics and it does something else: It takes the contentious issues off the table. There are those on the Republican side who simply want to do something about labor unions. But they know that is a deal breaker. There are those on the Democratic side who want to do something about candidate spending limits, but those over here think that is a deal breaker. The fact is, we can take the biggest of the big money out of politics. We need to support the Bipartisan Integrity Act of 1997, the freshman task force bill. In this Congress we should legislate, not just investigate. I urge all my colleagues, especially those on the Republican side, to join the 11 Republicans and many Democrats who support this bill.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I want to talk about campaign finance reform this morning. I want to say that campaign finance reform does not have to be a partisan issue. It is becoming a partisan issue, but it does not have to be. The question before this Congress is whether we are going to spend millions of dollars and months of time investigating and never get to the step of actually doing some legislating. I believe that we came here to legislate reform and that we ought to do it. Investigations, millions of dollars and months of hearings, are not enough. I said that campaign finance reform does not have to be a partisan issue. The freshmen have proved that. The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson], a Republican freshman, and I from Maine, have been cochairing a bipartisan freshman task force composed of six Republicans and six Democrats. After 5 months of hearings, after 5 months of negotiations, after 5 months of consultations with experts from outside this Congress, with people who represented organizations, who participated in the 1996 election in one way or another, with advocates ranging from those who want to take all limits off campaign spending to those who want to put more limits on candidate spending, after all of that activity, we came up with a proposal, with a bill. It is H.R. 2183. It is the bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act of 1997. It is truly bipartisan. What does this act do? Well, quite simply, it takes the biggest of the big money out of politics. All of the hearings that are going on on the House side and on the Senate side involve what is called soft money. These are the $500,000, the $1 million contributions to the national parties, and they did not used to be able to be used for television ads, but that is what they are used for today; that is what they were used for in 1996. We need to stop that practice. We need to ban soft money. The Campaign Integrity Act does that, H.R. 2183. We take the biggest of the big money out of politics by banning soft money. No Federal candidate, no Member of Congress, no Member of the Senate could raise soft money either for the national party committees or for State party committees. We also make sure that we speed up the process of candidate disclosure so those of us running for office would have to report our contributions on a monthly basis and do so electronically. Third, we make sure that people will not be able to run third party ads and not tell the public who they are. So there would have to be a filing with the Clerk of the House and with the Secretary of the Senate to make sure that third party independent groups identify who they are and identify how much money they are spending. As I said, this act is truly bipartisan. The question is, when will the Republican leadership of this House allow a vote on the bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act? When will it happen? We are not asking for a vote next year, we are not asking that this issue once again be put off sometime into the indefinite future. We are saying, act now, do not just investigate now. This issue will not go away. The American people will not let this issue go away, and this House should not go home, this House should not adjourn without having a vote on a bill to ban soft money. I suggest to my colleagues that H.R. 2183, the bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act of 1997, is that bill. We need a vote on that bill and all we ask from the Republican leadership is a vote on this House floor.