Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to mention one more thing. This is somewhat personal, but also I think important for the American public as well. That is that just this weekend, March 28, marked the 25th anniversary of the American Brain Tumor Association, an organization devoted to funding brain tumor research and providing information to patients and families about their health care options. I know a number of Members of Congress died suffering from brain cancer and my own father-in-law, Andy Hospodor, passed away 3 years ago in March as a result of a brain tumor. I wanted to say that at the time when my father-in-law was suffering from a brain tumor, we received a lot of help from the American Brain Tumor Association. We received help in identifying physician specialists so that he received better treatment for his particular type of brain tumor. After his death, they helped establish a memorial fund in his name. The association also provided a lot of information. Every question we had they were able to answer or find someone who had an answer. They have a network of support groups that work with the various relatives of brain tumor victims. I know that since I have been in Congress at least two of my colleagues, who I considered very good friends, Paul Henry and also Mike Synar, unfortunately died from brain tumors. I just wanted to take a little time tonight to recognize the American Brain Tumor Association for the dedication and service to patients and families with brain tumors. They provide information to their members with the latest medical breakthroughs available on brain tumor treatments. In addition, they furnish information on support services to help families deal with the issues that they face when a loved one is found with a brain tumor. While the association has done a lot, there is a lot more that can be done, Mr. Speaker. As Congress determines the fiscal year 1999 spending priorities, funding for research needs our continued support. I am committed to the doubling of the National Institutes of Health funding increase for 1999 and urge every Member of Congress to do the same. Every dollar that we commit to life-saving treatment oriented and basic research is an investment that will have an enormous return in terms of saving and improving lives, as well as saving health care dollars in the future. I just wanted to say tonight, in closing, to the American Brain Tumor Association, thank you for a job well done over the last 25 years. To my colleagues in Congress, I say, we still have a lot that we must do.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I stood in this Chamber and expressed my concern regarding the administration's certification that China had provided clear and unequivocal assurances that it was not either directly or indirectly assisting nonnuclear weapon states, and the states that I used as an example were Pakistan and Iran, in the acquisition of nuclear explosive devices. I had pointed out that this was the first time in 12 years that a U.S. President had granted such a certification. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, the administration officials in China reaffirmed their claim that China had kept its pledge. They had accepted the Chinese assurances that they have not helped Iran build nuclear weapons. They were, however, concerned about Chinese missile sales to Tehran. They also declined to discuss a foiled plan by a Chinese firm to sell Iran a chemical that could be used in the enrichment of uranium for nuclear weapons. Sources have said that the meeting between the administration and the Chinese Government was to work out an agreement to give China access to Washington's more advanced missile technology if the Chinese agree not to export missiles to Iran and Pakistan. Mr. Speaker, I must express tonight my concern regarding statements made by the administration regarding nuclear technology and China. As many Members of this body are aware, China is a major supplier of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear and missile technology. When the United States and China signed an accord in 1985 to allow American firms to export nuclear technology to China, Members of Congress were concerned over China's sales of nuclear weapons technology to third countries. In response, Congress quickly passed legislation to require the President to first certify that China has not sold or transferred nuclear technology to countries that are not subject to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. In granting the certification, the Clinton Administration has chosen to overlook China's recent transfer of nuclear technology to unregulated nuclear facilities in Pakistan and Iran. The administration has accepted so-called assurances by Beijing that it would cancel or postpone indefinitely several projects, especially secret nuclear facilities in Pakistan and a uranium conversion facility in Iran, as the basis for the U.S. granting the certification. Earlier this year, the Congressional Research Service stated that China may be continuing to violate its commitment to abide by international nuclear proliferation guidelines. Yet, the administration continues to overlook CIA findings that the Chinese have sold 5,000 ring magnets to Pakistan for its uranium enrichment facility. The ring magnets were transferred to a laboratory in Kahuta, Pakistan. The facility in Kahuta is named after the founder of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. I would like to note that ring magnets are used for the building of nuclear weapons. The administration has overlooked a CIA report that described the Chinese sale of special industrial furnace and high-tech diagnostic equipment to Pakistan. The furnace and diagnostic equipment have dual use and can be used to melt plutonium and uranium for nuclear weapons. Paul Levanthal of the Nuclear Control Institute said that the United States should be on the lookout for China providing Pakistan with heavy water to start up a military plutonium production reactor at Khushab. Mr. Speaker, I would like for the administration to outline the Chinese policy on controlling sales of missile technology. Unfortunately, they cannot. As several sources have correctly pointed out, the Chinese have not established export controls that meet the international standards. Despite the foiled Chinese plan and Mr. Levanthal's concerns regarding the sale of heavy water to Pakistan, the administration continues to look the other way. The administration will continue to support China's export of technology and ballistic and missile components to Pakistan. The administration is willing to approve China's continued support of Pakistan's commitment to build a plutonium production reactor and a plutonium reprocessing plant. These facilities are essential for a nuclear weapons program. Despite the repeated protests by Members of this body, China continues to assist Pakistan in building a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. Unfortunately, this nuclear arsenal is not subject to international inspection. I would like to remind my colleagues that Pakistan is not a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency and bans investigators from several of its nuclear facilities. Members of this body have supported, and at times insisted, that China receive U.S. peaceful nuclear technology only if China halts all nuclear exports to nations with unregulated nuclear facilities. Last year, a letter was sent to President Clinton by Members of this body stating that China has not earned or behaved in a manner that warrants such certification. The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency's annual report to Congress stated that while the administration could not stipulate a violation, questions remain about contacts between Chinese entities and elements associated with Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. Last week I cosigned a letter with Members from both sides of the aisle, authored by the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), that urged the President to prevent the delivery of reactors and nuclear technology to China. Many of my colleagues share the same concerns that I have outlined today. We are concerned that the Chinese Government has not held true to its promise. Many of my colleagues share the same concerns that I have outlined today. We are concerned that the Chinese Government has not held to its promises in stopping the spread of its own technology to countries that are trying to develop nuclear weapons. Mr. Speaker, the Members of this body have continued to send a message that we will not turn our heads away and accept the Chinese nuclear weapons relationship with Pakistan and Iran. We cannot accept the assurances made by the Chinese government when it has failed to be a responsible member of the international nuclear proliferation community.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, the Republican leadership had planned to bring up its sham campaign finance reform legislation today, but we learned this morning that they had pulled the bill. Today's New York Times editorial describes the reasons for Speaker Gingrich's retreat. It says, ``In a brazen repudiation of his own promises, Newt Gingrich has yanked campaign finance reform from the House agenda. The Speaker's action yesterday came after a frantic but fruitless effort by his aides to round up the votes to block genuine reform legislation on the House floor. Mr. Gingrich's allies are now reportedly plotting to reschedule consideration of reform bills next month, but only under rules requiring a two-thirds vote for approval. These desperation tactics are an abuse of power reminiscent of conduct Mr. Gingrich himself deplored for years.'' Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) tried to foist a sham bill on the Members of this House with an antiunion provision, unacceptable to the Democrats, tied to a procedural rule designed to prevent a vote on genuine reform. The Speaker's tactics clearly backfired, and I am glad that they did.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to put a smiling face on this effort to hurt the American worker and talk about it in some kind of legalese because they are a bunch of lawyers. But nobody is going to be fooled around here. There are a lot of lawyers over the years that tried to hurt the unions, and nobody is going to be fooled by what they are saying on the other side of the aisle here. I remember a time when there were Republicans, particularly in the Northeast, who supported the average worker. But this Republican leadership is at war with America's workers. And since I consider workers the backbone of America, I think it is fair to say that the Republican leadership is at war with America and what it represents. The Republican bill will allow employers to discriminate against people they suspect of trying to organize their workplace, and the employer can refuse to hire them, or fire them if they have already been employed, because of their union ties. If this country adopts the principle that union organizing is somehow against the public interest, then we are in serious trouble. America's strength is its middle class, and that middle class will dry up without organized labor. We will start to see lower wages, fewer pensions, and less health care benefits for workers. Mr. Speaker, let us stop the union busting. If we do not provide the ability of workers to organize, we will be in serious trouble as a nation.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Maybe we could talk a little bit, because I know the gentlewoman from Connecticut mentioned about how Democrats have fought for tax relief, in the time that we have left this evening. We have been basically fighting for families that really need the relief, those with children who are trying to save for their kids' education and their own retirement. As the gentlewoman from Michigan mentioned, thanks in large part to Democratic efforts, the Federal tax burden on families in the middle-income distribution and below has fallen since 1984. There is an analysis by the Treasury Department that found that the average Federal income tax rate for a median family of four in 1988 will only be 7.8 percent, down from 10.3 percent in 1984. This is the lowest income tax burden for a median family since 1966. These historically low income tax rates are as a result of Democratic policies. If I can mention a few, some of them have already been alluded to, and that is the expansion of the earned income credit in 1993 that cut taxes for millions of families with children; the $500- per-child credit the Democrats ensured would be available to moderate- income families. In addition, Democrats proposed the HOPE education scholarship tax credit to help families afford postsecondary education for the children. And in 1988, Democrats had proposed expansion of the child care tax credit to increase the amount of the credit from 30 percent to 50 percent of expenses and make it available to more families. So Democrats also support efforts to reduce the marriage penalty. We are trying to reduce and we have been successful in reducing the tax burden for families in middle-income families with children who have to pay for education expenses, who have to pay for child care expenses. These are the kinds of tax reforms and tax cuts that we need to continue with. I am very proud of the fact that we, as Democrats, have emphasized those targeted tax credits rather than the kind of crazy schemes that we are hearing from the other side. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. PALLONE. You know, I have to say another thing too. It is very difficult for me to trust the fact that these other taxes are going to go away and this new sales tax is going to take their place. I mean we do not have a national sales tax, we never had a national sales tax, and I would be very reluctant to suggest that somehow now all of a sudden we are going to allow this door to open where this whole new Federal tax is going to come into play, but we are going to assume that the Federal income tax and all these other taxes somehow are going to disappear. So it bothers me to think that a precedent is even being set of establishing a new type of national tax that we have not had before, because it opens up a Pandora's box essentially, and I would be fearful of that in itself, just based on historical precedence.

Mr. PALLONE. Is it not also true, the way I understand this sales tax, this national sales tax, that the 30 percent sales tax will also be attached to goods and services that local and State governments purchase? So is it not likely that my local property taxes or even my local--you know, my State taxes are also going to go up another 30 percent because of the fact that this national sales tax is added.

Mr. PALLONE. If I could point out another thing that is very unclear, it seems to me, and maybe the gentleman would respond to that right now, because he mentioned sale of a home, which is included in this proposal for the sales tax. We have people, homeowners that rely very heavily on mortgage interest deductions and also in my State, and I think many States, you can also deduct your local property taxes from your income tax. It is not at all clear to me that this would continue.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this evening the Democrats plan to discuss the Republican plan to abolish the Tax Code and replace it with either a flat tax or a sales tax. I yield at this point to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. PALLONE. Reclaiming my time, I just wanted to mention, I appreciate the comments that the gentlewoman from Michigan and the gentlewoman from Connecticut made, because I think the bottom line is that you are talking about targeted tax cuts that help the average working family. I wanted to say, though, you know, that just for those who think that perhaps the Democrats do not have an alternative, we really have the only new tax system, if you will, new proposal out there that sweeps away the old Tax Code, but at the same time provides fairness. This is the one that was introduced by our Democratic leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt). It is the only major tax reform proposal that retains the progressive rate structure and ensures that this new system is fair. It is a 10 percent tax plan that has been offered by our House Democratic leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), recognizing that the Tax Code is too complex and filled with special interest tax breaks that result in higher tax rates for middle-income families. So what the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) has proposed is basically ratifying and simplifying the system and cutting taxes for 70 percent of families with children, with income between $20,000 and $75,000. Under his plan, more than 70 percent of all taxpayers would have a tax rate of 10 percent or less. This proposal by the gentleman from Missouri also eliminates the marriage penalty by making the standard deduction in tax brackets for couples double those for single people. It eliminates special interest tax breaks. Very important. You keep reading on a regular basis, particularly around April 15, about all these special interest tax rates. It eliminates them. It eliminates the role of the army of lobbyists who now dominate tax policy discussions. We see them around here. Every one of us has seen these people. This is the time of year when we see them the most. It calls for a commission to identify and recommend elimination of wasteful and unwarranted corporate tax and spending subsidies. I think this is something we should look at. This is a Democratic proposal by our leader. It stands for a tax system that is fair and simple, in the event you want to look at an alternative.

Mr. PALLONE. You know the amazing thing to me, because you started to talk about implementing this, is that we have--you know, I understand we do a fairly good job compared to what would happen with the sales tax in terms of collecting taxes now, but it seems to me you are talking about a 30 percent sales tax. You are going to get a lot of cheating, it is going to be difficult to enforce. And you know here the Republicans and Democrats alike have been talking about trying to reform the IRS, and we have actually made some significant changes because we do not want them becoming like a police force cracking down. Would you not have to do a tremendous amount of enforcement? Would not the IRS become even more, have to have more money and a larger budget in order to enforce this kind of a sales tax?

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with the gentleman more. My understanding is that we will have the opportunity to do this as a motion to recommit or some procedural way that we will have hopefully an opportunity to vote on McCain-Feingold as a substitute. I guess we are not sure, but we are hoping that we will have that opportunity sometime this week when this campaign finance reform sham bill comes to the floor. But I just wanted to add a little bit to a couple of things that the gentleman from Maine mentioned, because I think they were significant. When we talk about these issue advocacy ads, I think the average person has no idea the distinction between those and a regular campaign ad. I mean, basically these are the ads, these issue advocacy ads are ads where a particular interest group that has a particular subject that they are interested in, for whatever reason, basically puts on an ad and talks directly, usually in a negative fashion, about one of the candidates accusing them of doing something, oftentimes which is not even true. This is paid for by that special interest group that is interested in the particular issue attacking the candidate, and this is totally outside the regular campaign financing system so that it is not reported as part of the candidate's expenditure. It is not clear that it is reported anywhere at all for that matter, certainly anyplace that we can find it there is no real disclosure, and oftentimes in the campaigns these kinds of ads can be two or three times the budget that is spent on a campaign. That can be 60, 70, 80 percent of the budget, and it is all outside the reporting system that we actually have now for campaign financing. So what we are doing with McCain-Feingold is basically saying that if these ads mention an individual candidate within a certain number of days before an election, then they have to be treated in the same way as a regular expenditure. There has to be proper disclosure. We have to know who is doing it and it seems to me that is only fair.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the problem is that if we do not do that, if we do not do what is being proposed with McCain-Feingold, then this whole system of campaign laws that were basically put in place as a reform to the Watergate years and the way campaigns were financed prior to Watergate, we might as well throw out the window, because what is happening increasingly, the actual money that comes in under the traditional laws is becoming less and less of what is spent on a campaign, and all of these other expenditures that are outside the law do not come under the FEC and the FEC does not have authority to enforce or investigate are now the norm. The other thing that the gentleman mentioned in McCain-Feingold is the effort to beef up the FEC. The bottom line is that the Federal Election Commission now is like a toothless tiger. They do not have the money, the investigators, or the power to go after or look at a lot of these expenditures, because they do not come under the law that they have jurisdiction over. So we have got to change it. Otherwise, we have no system. We just have a free-for-all out there.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if I could comment on the special effects, I have to say the fish analogy is close to home. I represent the Jersey shore, and I appreciate the drawings that the gentleman from Arkansas made about the fish and the fish swimming through the money. I think that the problem here is the way the gentleman has identified it. In other words, we have the tremendous outpouring from the American people that we should have campaign finance reform and that we should cut back on the amount of money that we spend in politics. But the Republican leadership, I think the gentleman rightly said, is so used to accumulating all of this money and basically relying on it when they run, that they cannot conceive of a situation where we actually cut back on the amount of money that is spent. It is true, I think all of us have said that we know that there are Republican colleagues that would like to see a good campaign finance reform bill come to the floor and would probably be willing to vote for it. But so few of them are willing to stand up to the leadership. The leadership tells them, ``Look, we want you to support us and we want you to vote for this sham bill,'' and not enough of them are willing to come forward and essentially defy the leadership on this issue. I noticed in The New York Times editorial that the gentleman from Maine made mention of before, it actually says at the end of the editorial, it says that ``The Speaker's trick can be defeated if the Democrats stand firm and at least 15 Republicans join them in voting against Mr. Gingrich's anti-reform scheme.'' And it says, ``There used to be a tradition of enlightened moderation among northeastern Republicans.'' These are the Republicans in my area: New Jersey, New York, other northeastern States. ``But we will be watching to see if it can be revived enough to offset the party's more recent tradition of falling behind Mr. Gingrich's darkest impulses.'' That is essentially what we have here. We do not have enough. Hopefully we will by tomorrow, but it is unlikely that we will get enough Republicans who will stand up and say this is a mockery and that we need to have a real campaign finance reform bill come to the floor of the House. I thought it was particularly interesting what the League of Women Voters said about that. I know where I am, and I think around the country, the League of Women Voters is pretty much a bipartisan group that is not necessarily Democrat or Republican. In my area, there is certainly as many Republicans that are Members of the League of Women Voters as Democrats, and they are perhaps even more critical than anybody in this news release where they say that the Gingrich approach is to package together several of the worst ideas on campaign finance reform. The bill is a complete travesty. It says the so-called Paycheck Protection Act is completely unbalanced. It seeks to curtail wide- ranging political activities by unions. A real ban on soft money and closure of the sham issue advocacy loophole would apply equally to both unions and corporations. They use very, very harsh language in basically bringing up how fraudulent this effort is. We know what happened. My colleague mentioned in terms of what the Senate did. Basically, the pressure was on Speaker Gingrich to do something a few months ago. He promised a vote 5 months later. Now we have a vote, but he is rigging the vote. That is essentially what we have.

Mr. PALLONE. Is it not also true, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I think the gentleman told me, if an individual does not want to participate in anything but the collective bargaining aspect of the union, they always have the option themselves of simply contributing their dues for the collective bargaining aspect and not for anything else. So that option is already there. It is just that they are imposing an additional written requirement now in every case. That is the thing that inhibits free speech and the ability to participate.

Mr. PALLONE. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, because I know we have our colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas, here, I just find that this poison pill, if you will, this worker gag rule, so objectionable, because I know in my district the unions are very active on election day. They go out, they knock on doors, they put up signs during the campaigns. They do a lot of grass roots activity. But the idea that individual members of a union cannot pool their resources, if you will, and have to have this extra restriction, if you will, have to individually sign for any contribution that they put forward, it just flies in the face of really the whole organizing effort, if you will, of the union. Unions are meant to organize working people. If they cannot organize working people effectively for political action, then that takes away an important part of their existence. It makes it that much more difficult for them to be involved in the political process. It just irks me so much, because this is just purely partisan. There are Republicans in my home State in Congress who are supported by the unions, so they are not strictly Democrat. But more often than not they support Democrats more than Republicans, and that is the reason this is being proposed, because the unions, certainly in the last few years, if not historically, have been more supportive of Democratic candidates. That is not a reason to gag them. That is not a reason to not allow them to exercise their right to assemble and to participate fully in the political process. That is not what the democracy is all about.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maine. He really has taken the leadership on this issue, and I am pleased to be able to join him tonight on this Special Order. I listened to some of what the gentleman said. I was on the way over here when the gentleman began, but it is amazing to me that here is an issue on which the American people, I believe, have basically spoken out and said that they would like to see real campaign finance reform. And the reason why they want campaign finance reform is because they think, as the gentleman mentioned, that there is too much money in politics, and too much interest, if you will, and too much ability of wealthy individuals to influence the political process; and that we have gotten away from the way this country used to be and the way this democracy used to be where politicians, and I use the term ``politician'' in a positive way, used to have to go out to their constituents. And if they were going to raise some money on the campaign, a lot of times, most of it was from their constituents, and most of it was smaller contributions. They did not have to raise $1 million or $2 million or the kind of money that we are seeing in campaigns today. In addition to that, we have all of this money that is being spent independently by the special interest groups, the so-called ``independent expenditures,'' so that if one of us were to say, I think the gentleman used the figure of $600,000, if one of us were to say that we are spending $600,000 on our congressional campaign, which is probably about the average right now, what we are not taking into account is the fact that there may be a lot of other special interest groups out there that are spending $200- or $400,000 each on ads in the races, as well, that we are not even counting that $600,000. But the message that I am getting is that there is just too much money in politics. Now, what do we get? Well, as is often the case here with our Republican colleagues, and maybe I should not say our Republican colleagues, as much as our Republican leadership, because I think that Speaker Gingrich and the Republican leadership are really the culprits here and they are the ones that control, if you will, what comes to the floor in this House. They know that campaign finance reform is something that the public wants. They know that the American people want it, but they come up with this scam, if you will, or sham, I think, the gentleman described it as; some of the editorials are calling it a charade, some are calling it a sham, whatever we want to call it, to try to bring the bill up, load it down with provisions that will make it impossible for it to pass this House, and at the same time not achieve any reform even if it did pass. And I think the biggest example of that, I do not know if the gentleman mentioned it, but talking about this idea of not allowing more money in politics, the Republican bill actually raises contributions to party committees from $20,000 to $60,000, and it raises individual contributions from $1,000 to $2,000. So for those of my constituents who think that there is too much money in politics and think that a 1,000 contribution may be a little high, now they are going to see that the contribution level is $2,000. So what the Speaker is doing, what Gingrich is doing is saying we should have more money in politics. At the same time, we have this poison pill antilabor provision, if you will, just to make sure that the bill does not pass. So either, hopefully, they hope it will not pass, and if it does, it would not actually accomplish campaign finance reform. Just to mention, this poison pill or antilabor provision, from what I understand, basically makes it more difficult for workers to organize and for the National Labor Relations Board to stop employers from violating labor laws. Democrats are going to offer a substitute bill, essentially the McCain-Feingold legislation, that provides real reform, including a ban on soft money, which I see you have the chart up there. And the gentleman talks about the amount of soft money and how it has increased so much I guess, just in the last 4 years or so, from 1992 to 1996, and our Democratic substitute, the McCain-Feingold bill, if you will, essentially gives average working families an equal working voice, I think, in the political system and limits the influence of wealthy special interests on our political process. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say, in my home State of New Jersey we have a very good example, and of course there are a lot of different ways that one could go about campaign finance reform, and we do not all agree on the ways to go about it. But we have a very good example in our gubernatorial race, which is also very similar to the presidential race nationally, whereby we allow, or we require, our candidates to raise a certain amount of money in small contributions and large individual contributions, but that has to be matched with public funds; and then we cap the amount of money that can be spent on the race. That is what I would like to see. I would very much like to see congressional races run in the way the presidential raises are run or the way our gubernatorial races are run in New Jersey where the candidate basically has to raise a certain amount of money, not a lot in relative terms, and then that gets matched with public financing, public dollars, and then there is an overall cap on the amount of money that could be spent in a race. I really think that the key is to limit the amount of money that is spent, not only by ourselves, but also by these independent organizations or independent expenditures by these special interest groups. Because if we do not limit the amount of money, then ultimately, it will continue to skyrocket and somebody will find a way to spend more and look for a loophole where they can spend more money. The bottom line is that this Republican proposal, which I guess we are going to consider tomorrow or Friday, allows more money, more influence by wealthy individuals; and it has just been rigged so it cannot pass. And nothing else really is going to happen, and then Republicans and Gingrich can just go home and say, hey, we brought this up for a vote, we failed, we tried. Thank you. At least we let the opportunity present itself to bring this up. They are really not allowing any opportunity. The way they are setting up the rules, they have rigged the system and they have made for a sham campaign finance reform bill. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for putting together this special order this evening.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to say again, I thank both my colleagues for doing this special order tonight because I think this is a very important issue. Our constituents do care about it. It is a tragedy that we are not going to be allowed to actually vote on true campaign finance reform at the end of this week, because people are crying out for it. And I see people voting less and less, the percentages of people that vote, and that cynicism really bothers me. This is my tenth year in the House, and I can see less people interested, less people coming to the polls, less people participating in every way; and that is the real tragedy that we have to turn around.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order today.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, once again, that Jim Howard was my mentor. There are so many things that I try to emulate in his life, and I am very proud to be able to present this Special Order tonight, 10 years to the day of the anniversary of his death.

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago today, March 25, 1988, Congressman Jim Howard passed away. It was a very sad day for us, for his friends and colleagues, his family, and for the country, because he had given so much and was at the height of his career as chairman of the House Public Works and Transportation Committee. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say these words tonight because I wanted to make sure that Jim and his tremendous legislative accomplishments are not forgotten. As his successor, representing most of his old district, I can point to many reminders back home of Jimmy's 24 years in Congress. There is the massive Jersey Shore beach restoration project, the rebuilding of Barnegat Inlet, the electrification of North Jersey Coast Rail Line, and Ocean County Community College. There is the veterans outpatient clinic in Brick Township, the National Marine Fisheries Lab at Sandy Hook, the Computer Sciences Hall at Monmouth University, and Interstate 195 in Central Jersey, all of which carry his name as a reminder of his outstanding service to his district and to his State. His contributions nationally were broad and lasting. As Chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee from 1975 to 1981, he developed the ``Howard Plan'' which, for the first time, combined mass transit and highway legislation into one bill. It was an effort to give mass transit equal billing with highways and to better coordinate national transportation policy. As chairman of the Committee on Public Works from 1981 to 1988, he championed, with the bipartisan help of the committee's current chairman and ranking member, the critical needs of the Nation's crumbling infrastructure. He undertook a bruising, but successful battle to raise the Federal gas tax to pay for the roads and the bridges that were deteriorating at an alarming rate. He also championed highway safety, the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit, as well as anti-drunk driving and 21-year-old minimum drinking age laws that have saved many lives throughout the country. Perhaps most critical for his Jersey Shore district, he was an environmentalist who passed a tough clean water bill over a presidential veto. He set the timetable to end ocean dumping, developed a plan to end plastic floatables pollution and helped pass a comprehensive Superfund law. In many ways, particularly in the environmental area, I am trying to carry on with some of these initiatives, because they are ongoing in nature and require a constant vigilance; and I have great respect for Jimmy's legacy and for that of his family. His widow, Marlene, his daughters, Kathy, Lenore and Marie, who is here this evening and is also a staffer on the Committee on Resources, and four grandsons, Brian, Jamie, Anthony and Joseph. The love and support that Jim Howard received from his family was critical to his success in Congress and also at campaign time. He often talked about his first campaign in 1964, which was run from his kitchen table, using the entire family savings of about $5,000 at the time. His wife, Marlene, was the campaign manager, and my colleagues have to understand, this was a very risky venture for a grammar school teacher running in a district that had never gone Democratic for President and has not since that day in 1964 when Lyndon Johnson was elected and so was Jim Howard. His campaign slogan in 1964 was ``He cares about people, it's that simple.'' I think that really sums up why Jim was reelected each time against odds that often were overwhelming. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include for the record two letters which I think paint a rich picture of the human side of Jim Howard, his wonderful sense of humor and his love of life. One of the letters is from Jimmy's daughter, Marie Howard Fabrizio, and the other is from Hayley Roberts Mullan of Belmar, New Jersey, which is the town in our congressional district where Jim grew up. Hayley has many childhood memories of her Congressman, which I would like to share and I include them for the Record at this time. March 25, 1998. Congressman Frank Pallone, Cannon House Office Building, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Frank: On behalf of my mother Marlene, my sisters Kathy and Lenore, and all the Vetrano and Howard family, thank you so much for taking the time to remember and honor my father, Jim Howard, today on the tenth anniversary of his passing. Our hearts are filled with appreciation for this kind gesture. Dad served in the House of Representatives for 24 years and he loved this House. He was a liberal Democrat from a fairly conservative Republican district. First elected in 1964, he remained in Congress until his death on this date in 1988. I believe he was continuously reelected because he was respected by Democrats and Republicans alike for his candor, and willingness to listen to different opinions and learn from them. I can remember several occasions when he came home and told us that he was going to come out on one side or the other of an extremely contentious issue and it would probably mean he wouldn't be reelected. If we asked why he had to take such a stand the answer was always the same--because it was the right thing to do. Not to do so was a totally foreign concept to him. In the mid 1960's when he had only been in Congress for a short time, he came out against further U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war. A position that didn't put a young Congressman in a good light with the powerful Johnson White House nor with his district which strongly supported the war effort. It seems funny to think of it now, but his position in favor of allowing 18 year olds to vote, was an incredibly divisive issue at the time it was being considered. He told me he could not rationalize how the government could draft someone into combat but deny that person a say in who made such decisions. Of course, few were thrilled when as Chairman of the House Public Works and Transportation Committee, he pushed so hard for the 55 mile an hour national speed limit. He was most proud of that legislation because it was so immediately responsible for a large decrease in highway fatalities and incidents of paralysis, epilepsy and other medical problems resulting from head trauma. My dad used to say that next to the clergy, he believed public service was the next highest calling. He strongly believed that government was not the enemy of the people but rather an instrument to be used to make life better for those living in the shadows of life, and to foster strength within our union by embracing the diversity among all Americans. Clearly, he passed his love of Congress on to me. After 18 years of working here I can say I've been blessed with the opportunity to work for three Members who, although diverse in personality, remind me so much of the ideals I respected most in my dad. Senator Bill Bradley for his forethought; Congressman Mo Udall for his unfailing humor and ability to bring warring sides together; and Congressman George Miller for his keen intellect and unwavering courage to take on the most unpopular of issues simply because it's ``the right thing to do.'' Everyone who knew my dad, knows that he got involved in politics because of the vision of the Kennedys. When he met Senator Jack Kennedy and listened to his vision for America-- he was hooked. He remained true to that vision throughout his entire life and proudly wore his PT 109 tie pin and carried a Kennedy half dollar with him every day as reminders of where he came from. Frank, I know in your campaign office you have a rather large picture of my father with then Senator Bobby Kennedy, but I'm not sure you know the story behind the big smiles they have. The picture was taken during my dad's first reelection bid in 1966. Senator Kennedy was recording a radio spot which referred to my dad as being named the Outstanding Freshman Congressman. After the recording, Senator Kennedy said, ``Gee Jim, that's pretty nice. What group picked you?'' to which my dad quickly responded, ``My staff. The vote was 6-to-4.'' His quick wit may be what I miss most of all. He tried to instill in his daughters the importance of being able to laugh at our own human foibles. I remember my first day working as an intern in a Congressional office. I must have been 16 or 17 years old and was sent to deliver something in the Senate. I was hopelessly lost when I suddenly saw several men coming my way. Without thinking, I grabbed the arm of one of the man and asked for his help. As I looked up--into Senator Ted Kennedy's face--I was mortified. He was actually being interviewed and my intrusion caused cameras to click off and writers to stop writing. As the other men laughed, the Senator couldn't have been nicer, and told me the direction I needed to go. I felt like such a fool but when I told the story to my dad, he laughted so hard that in no time we were both roaring with laughter. My dad always felt so lucky to be here and never forgot that under the many titles he amassed--Honorable, Congressman, Chairman--he was just a young, Irish kid with a head full of dreams given the opportunity of a lifetime to come to Washington with his Italian wife from Asbury Park to represent their beloved Jersey Shore. It's hard to believe that ten years has passed since I heard his voice, squeezed his hand, or kissed his cheek. An entire decade has passed since I heard him sing an Irish song, tell me he loved me, or saw the twinkle in his eye that was always followed by that crooked smile which indicated he just saw something very funny in an otherwise serious situation. How well I remember that sunny March day at St. Catherine's when you served as a pallbearer for my dad. I know he was your mentor and you worried about filling his shoes but with the work you have done here, especially with regard to the environment and shore protection, he would be proud of you. I try to keep my dad's torch alive inside of me by remembering his teachings to me to never forget where I came from, always remember that one person can make a difference and everyone must try, and to always find the humor in life and revel in it. You also keep his torch alive by continuing to represent the interests of the Jersey Shore with respect and enthusiasm. Again, thanks to you and your wonderful staff, Nancy Fatemi for this most gracious of tributes to my dad's memory. Fondly, Marie Howard Fabrizio.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has scheduled a sham campaign finance reform bill for consideration this week. The Republican bill would not achieve reform even if it passed. But the Republicans have include a poison pill, an antilabor provision, just to make sure that the bill does not pass. The GOP campaign finance charade would allow wealthy individuals to contribute more money. It would make it more difficult for workers to organize and for the National Labor Relations Board to stop employers from violating labor laws. Democrats, on the other hand, will offer a substitute bill, essentially the McCain-Feingold legislation that includes real reform, including a ban on soft money. Democrats offer real reform that gives average working families an equal voice in the political system and limits the influence of wealthy special interests in our political process.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. I would like to begin, as I do every year, by thanking the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for organizing this hour to honor the anniversary of Greek Independence Day. My colleagues, my two colleagues, are both tireless champions of Greek-American relations, and I thank them both for their leadership of the congressional Hellenic Caucus, and their tireless efforts to strengthen the ties between our two countries. Today, March 25, it has been noted, Greece celebrates its 177th year of independence. And despite the late hour, many of us are pleased to be able to take this time to praise a society that represents, in a historical sense, the origins of what we call Western culture, and in a contemporary sense, one of the staunchest defenders of Western society and values. There are many of us in the Congress on both sides of the aisle who are staunchly committed to preserving and strengthening the ties between the Greek and the American people. I would say that Americans and Greeks are growing even closer, bound by ties of strategic and military alliance, common values of democracy, individual freedom and human rights, and close personal friendships. In the early 20th century, Mr. Speaker, Greece stood by the United States in World War I. When Hitler's war machine decimated Europe in the middle of this century, Greece again stood on the same side as the United States; I might add, at great cost to the Greek people and the Greek Nation. History has shown that the historic battle of Crete, in which the indomitable spirit of the Greek people forced Hitler to delay his planned invasion of Russia, was one of the most important battles of the Second World War. Last October I joined my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pappas), who is here tonight, in paying tribute to ``Ohi'' Day, commemorating that day in 1940 when Greek Prime Minister Metakis refused Mussolini's ultimatum to surrender with an eloquent one-word answer, ``Ohi'', Greek for no. World War II's aftermath left Europe mired in the Cold War, and Greece, then a NATO ally, and a NATO ally to this day, once again answered the call. Greece showed its national valor and sense of historic mission, joining forces with the United States in preserving and protecting the freedoms enjoyed today by an unprecedented number of the world's people. The qualities exhibited by the Nation of Greece, Mr. Speaker, are a reflection of the strong character and values of its individual citizens. The United States has been greatly enriched as many sons and daughters of Greece made a new life here in America. The timeless values of Greek culture have endured for centuries, indeed, for millenia. But I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, that to this day the Greek people must battle against oppression. My two colleagues have already mentioned that for almost 24 years now, Greece has stood firm in its determination to bring freedom and independence to the illegally occupied Nation of Cyprus. Like their forefathers, who were under control of a hostile foreign power for four centuries, the Cypriot people hold fast in defiance of their Turkish aggressors with every confidence that they will again be a sovereign nation. Negotiations aimed at achieving settlement to the Cyprus issue are an important priority for American foreign policy. I just want to say that I am proud to be an original cosponsor of legislation that was introduced today by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and also the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) that asserts our strong support for a peaceful solution in Cyprus. We have to keep up this effort, as these two leaders in Congress have done, in making it clear that we want an independent and sovereign Cyprus that is united and that is free of Turkish military rule. The reelection of President Clerides and the bid of Cyprus to join the European Union also offer an historic opportunity for peace on the island. I would point out to Turkey that a positive contribution by that country to both the peace process and the European Union accession by Cyprus could be a start in helping Turkey undo some of the damage they have caused with their intransigent and aggressive policies. We also have to continue to work with Greek leaders and the United Nations to secure protection for the Ecumenical Patriarchate and orthodox Christians residing in Turkey. As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) mentioned, last year we were shocked by the terrorist attack on the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul. Many of us in this Congress called on our administration to issue a strong response to this tragic, senseless act. Many of us have also staunchly opposed the transfer of U.S. military hardware to Turkey. As the cochair of the Congressional Caucus on Armenia Issues, and I know the gentlewoman from New York mentioned that before and I appreciate it, and also as a member of the Hellenic Caucus, I have consistently fought to change U.S. policy with regard to Turkey. I have sought to block the Turkish Government's efforts to pay big money for Turkish studies chairs at prestigious American universities as an instrument of spreading Turkish propaganda. The gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) has joined me in many occasions here on the floor, trying to prevent the Turkish Government and the acceptance of money by various American universities from the Turkish Government through these various Turkish studies programs or Turkish chairs that come with strings attached, that basically allow them to spread Turkish propaganda and not tell the truth about the history of Turkey or the history of Armenia or the history of Greece. Turkish leaders must understand that they will not continue to benefit from U.S. economic subsidies if they continue to flout the very values that America, Greece, and other freedom-loving nations of this world stand for. In closing, I just want to congratulate the Greek people for 177 years of independence and thank them for their contributions to American life. And I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for organizing this tonight. All of us are going to continue with our efforts to not only continue to bring up Greek Independence Day, but fight for Cyprus and fight for the other values that Greece and the Greek people hold dear.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my congratulations to the newly-elected leader of the world's largest democracy. Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee was sworn in last week as the Prime Minister of India. India's Parliament will hold a confidence vote later this week on Prime Minister Vajpayee's new government. Pending the outcome of the confidence vote, the Prime Minister is poised to lead the world's second most populous nation into the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, the new Prime Minister is a veteran political leader in India who was once introduced by Prime Minister Nehru, India's first Prime Minister, as the future Prime Minister of India. He is a member of the party commonly referred to as the BJP, which has been described as a nationalist party. While some media accounts have portrayed the party in a negative light, Prime Minister Vajpayee has shown every indication of his intent to follow a moderate course. He has already reached out to India's neighbors, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, expressing the desire to build on recent efforts to foster friendlier relations among the nations of south Asia. In fact, the Prime Minister also intends to oversee the foreign affairs portfolio. During the 1970s Mr. Vajpayee served as Foreign Minister in a coalition government and won widespread praise for helping to reduce Indo-Pakistani tensions. He has also indicated that he intends to stay the course on the free- market reforms that have transformed India into one of the world's most dynamic emerging markets. Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Vajpayee has also spoken of his commitment to maintain the secular principles of India's constitution. I had the opportunity to meet the new Prime Minister last year in New Delhi, then in his capacity as leader of the opposition in the Parliament. I also met with members of his shadow cabinet, many of whom will now assume the leadership of the various ministries. I found Mr. Vajpayee and his colleagues to be sincerely dedicated to building a better future for India's nearly 1 billion people, continuing the free-market reforms while better developing the nation's infrastructure. Given the negative characterizations of the BJP as a chauvinistic or fundamentalist party, I was impressed by the party's grassroots strategy of building alliances with regional parties representing India's many ethnic and religious groups. Perhaps most important, as a visiting Representative of the U.S. Congress, and by extension of the American people, I was very happy to hear of Prime Minister Vajpayee's strong desire to work for close ties between India and the United States. True, there have been some voices in India expressing concern about protecting India's culture from too much American or Western influence, but the leaders of India's new government have made it very clear, in my meeting with them and in the countless other forums, that they welcome U.S. trade and investment. In fact, BJP leaders often point out that their party was at the forefront of calls to introduce free-market reforms in the Indian economy. This increased trade and investment translates into additional revenues for American companies and good jobs, I believe, for American workers. It also means the prospect of better opportunities for the people of India, a growing market for American goods and services, and a long- term stability in a strategically vital region in the world. All in all, it is a win/win situation. Mr. Speaker, obviously the United States and India are not going to agree on every issue. There will undoubtedly be occasional diplomatic tiffs between our administration and the new BJP government. But the underlying relationship between the United States and India is based on shared values of democracy and a commitment to economic development. The people of India have spoken through elections in which more than 300 million people participated. While no single party gained a majority in the Parliament, the BJP won a plurality and has been given this historic opportunity to form a government. As a legitimately elected head of government, Prime Minister Vajpayee deserves our respect. Expressions of congratulations have poured in from around the world. President Clinton called the Prime Minister, and the two leaders had a 10-minute conversation that focused on continuing on the path of strong bilateral ties. I hope that those who have viewed the BJP in a critical or suspicious way in the past will join me in congratulating the Prime Minister and wishing him and his government well. I also wanted to point out that India's Parliament has elected as its Speaker G.M.C. Balayogi, a member of the TDP party. His election shows the BJP's willingness to form coalitions with other parties and to provide key positions of leadership for members of other parties. Mr. Speaker, many of our Members of the House, both on the Democratic and Republican side, are members of our Congressional Caucus on India. And we look forward to the new government's relations and improved relations between the United States and India, because we do believe it is very important to continue the strong ties and the closer relationships that have grown in the last few years between our two countries.