Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to follow up on my colleagues from Maine and from California, particularly the gentleman from California, who said that we have an obligation to bring up the issue of campaign finance reform, and the main reason for that, I believe, is what I experienced in the last 2 weeks in my district during our district work period. Again, as the gentleman from Maine said, so many of my constituents would come up to me and say, ``What is going on in Washington? The Congress isn't doing anything. The only thing that they're doing is doing investigations of campaigns and frankly we're not interested. We don't want the money, the millions of dollars that is going to be spent on this. Sure, you can do a little investigation if you want, you can look into it, but the main thing is you have to do something about the issue of too much money in campaigns. You've got to address it.'' And believe me, the American people feel very strongly that this is not happening right now, and the fault lies squarely with the Republican leadership of this House of Representatives. The Speaker, the Speaker has repeatedly said on many occasions there is not enough money in campaigns. Just the opposite is certainly true, and we have been here, many of us on the Democratic side of the aisle, many times over the last 3 or 4 months, including myself, saying we want this issue brought up, we are not in the majority, we cannot control the agenda. That is why we have to go to the floor in these procedural ways and ask to defeat the previous question because the Republican leadership refuses to bring it up, and do not tell me that when the Democrats were in the majority that we did not bring it up. In fact we did. It passed. I remember. I voted for it on the House floor here. But it went over to the other body, and the Senators, the Republican Senators on the other side filibustered and killed it. So there is no question the Democrats are in favor of campaign finance reform, Democrats are in favor of debate, Democrats want a bill to pass. We have said that we would like to have it happen by Memorial Day; I think the President mentioned July 4. Certainly the sooner the better, but so far no hearings on the other side, the Republicans. The Republicans have not had a hearing, they do not bring it up, they have no bill, they have no plan, they do not want to talk about it, which is why they get mad when we do. But I am telling my colleagues right now that the public will not stand for it. They want action.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman, and I think, Mr. Speaker, we increasingly see the sense of frustration that many of those on the Democratic side of the aisle fear right now over the fact that there has been no progress in terms of the Republican leadership bringing up the issue of campaign finance reform. We are just going to continue to speak out every day until they take some action on this issue. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague from California [Mr. Doolittle] say that campaign finance reform is not the issue here. I think the issue is campaign finance reform. What is happening here with this funding resolution is essentially that the Republican leadership is coming up with a great diversionary tactic where they will spend a year or perhaps 2 years at great expense to the taxpayers, essentially to do a probe of the White House, but at the same time they are not willing to open up this investigation to Democrats and Republicans in Congress. There is no question in my mind about why this is happening. For one, we have the chairman of the committee, the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, who should be stepping aside. Many of the newspapers, the Washington Post: ``Mr. Burton Should Step Aside.'' But he does not want to open it up to a full investigation that would look at congressional campaign practices, because the first person they would have to investigate is himself. So do not tell me that campaign finance reform is not the issue. They do not want to bring up the issue of campaign finance reform. Day after day on the floor of this House, Democrats, including myself, have asked the Republican leadership to bring up campaign finance reform, to have a debate on campaign finance reform, and so far there has not even been a hearing in this House on campaign finance reform. But we can spend the next year or two looking and investigating the White House in a blatant partisan way at tremendous cost to the American taxpayer. I just want to say, many of the Republicans who will vote for this resolution today came to Congress promising to shake up the institution and change the way this House does business. How can they vote for this resolution that throws up to $11 million to an investigation that no one can claim is credible, due to the fact that the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight now has his own fundraising controversy that needs to be investigated? If Members vote yes on this resolution, they are voting to waste millions in taxpayer dollars. They are voting to support the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, who all but admitted to appealing to the Ambassador of Pakistan for campaign contributions. They are voting for business as usual. If Members vote for this resolution, I would say to my colleagues, congratulations, because they become part of the problem.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 10, 1997, the first annual Chaver Award will be presented by the Highland Park Conservative Temple of Highland Park, NJ, at its donor dinner dance to Brenda and Roy Tanzman of South Brunswick, NJ, for extraordinary community service. The Chaver Award was inspired by President Clinton's eulogy to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin--``Shalom, Chaver--Peace, Friend.'' The award will be given to those community leaders whose commitment involves an emotional and personal feeling for the value of continued giving of themselves for the greater good of all--in short, those who are true friends of the community. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor and pleasure for me to join the Highland Park Conservative temple in paying tribute to Roy and Brenda Tanzman. The Tanzmans have been community leaders in many ways, having served on numerous civic and religious boards, given assistance to a wide range of projects, and led missions to Israel. They and their entire family have been excellent role models for the entire community. The list of organizations that they have led, supported, or been involved with is a long one. Roy Tanzman serves as first vice president of the Highland Park Temple. He is the president-elect of the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County, chairman of AIPAC of Middlesex County and chairman of the Middlesex County Israel Bond Organization. Among other activities and associations, Mr. Tanzman has served with the National Conference of Christians and Jews, the New Brunswick Cultural Arts Committee, the Woodbridge Township School District, the South Brunswick Democratic Committee, and as a coach for youth soccer, basketball and baseball in South Brunswick. A partner with the law firm of Wilentz, Goldman and Spitzer, Mr. Tanzman serves on the Middlesex County Bar Association, the New Jersey Bar Association, the New York Bar Association and the Middlesex County Board of Realtors. Brenda Tanzman is a former board member of the Highland Park Temple, and has chaired many temple projects, including being dinner dance co- chairwoman. She has served as chairperson of the children's holiday projects of the sisterhood of the temple. She is a former vice president and board member of National Council of Jewish Women. She is also a member of the Auxiliary of Central New Jersey Home of the Aged. A life member of Hadassah, she has been an active volunteer in the South Brunswick school system for the past 14 years, where she has served as cultural arts chairperson, and also worked on the Anne Frank exhibit. The Tanzmans reside in South Brunswick with their two children, Jill and Brett. The gala will be held at the Excelsior in Manalapan, NJ. I would also like to pay tribute to the chairperson for the event. Al and Lynn Rappaport, and Elliot and Jackie Brooks, and Ad Journal chairpersons Stuart Mitnick, Walter Rogers, Justin and Gittel Footerman and Bernie Sadof, for all their hard work in putting together what will be, I am sure, a tremendously successful event.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. The Republican majority running this House likes to portray itself as the party of fiscal conservatism. However, I would like to know how they can justify this expenditure of up to $12 million of the taxpayers' money for a fundraising investigation of the White House. The other body has already budgeted itself less money than this House, and has broadened the scope of its investigation to include congressional fundraising, fundraising abuses of both Democrats and Republicans. I should also mention that every Republican in the other body voted for a broader scope and a smaller budget. Republicans in the House, however, have decided that they need significantly more than their colleagues in the other body, but they are going to investigate less. I do not think the blatant partisanship of the Republican leadership has been lost on anyone here. They are not looking for fairness, nor are they looking to have a balanced investigation into campaign wrongdoing. They are taking up to $12 million of the taxpayers' money and wasting it on a political witch hunt. If anybody is wondering why the House Republican leadership has decided not to broaden the scope of the committee's investigation into improper acts by congressional campaigns, one only needs to look at the top. Indeed, if the scope of the committee was broadened to consider congressional campaigns, I suppose the first witness to be called would have to be the Republican committee chairman. Only yesterday the Nation learned that the Republican chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight was appealing to a foreign ambassador for campaign contributions. How can this gentleman hold an objective view and write a committee report on the alleged abuses of the White House? Anything that comes of the investigation headed up by the gentleman from Indiana will be tainted. The Republican leadership of this House will better serve the integrity of this institution if they remove the gentleman from Indiana from the chair and broaden the scope of the investigation. Without these actions, the country will rightly consider this investigation a joke. I would point out, as others have already, that already in the Washington Post today it was suggested, rightly I think, that the chairman should step down from the investigation, and in the New York Times it was very emphatically pointed out that the scope of the investigation should be broadened to include congressional campaigns, both Democrat and Republican. I think that the public is crying out to action in that regard, and that is why we should vote down this rule and we should vote against the resolution.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, last night myself and other members of the Democratic caucus gathered here to discuss the issue of campaign finance reform, and we had a good constructive discussion, I believe, about what is wrong with the present system, and we again appealed to the Republican leadership of this House to put a campaign finance reform bill on the table for us to consider. This morning, roughly about 10 hours after we concluded our special order, I picked up the Washington Post, and I read that the Republican chairman who is in charge of the partisan investigation into campaign fundraising has himself abused the system. According to the story on the front page, the chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform bullied a lobbyist for the Government of Pakistan for campaign money in the manner the lobbyist described as a shakedown. Not stopping there, the chairman then contacted the Pakistani Ambassador, complaining that the lobbyist could not raise him enough money. My colleagues, this is just the kind of abuse the chairman himself has been empowered to investigate. Originally I was concerned that these hearings would be too partisan, but after stories in this morning's Washington Post I now know that these hearings will not just merely be partisan, they are going to be a joke. How can the gentleman from Indiana hold the gavel and conduct these hearings in an objective manner? In light of today's allegations the gentleman from Indiana should, in my opinion, recuse himself from the committee's investigation, and he should also open up his committee's probe to a much wider scope than the White House and include both parties in Congress. Tomorrow the Republican majority of this House will likely ask us to vote and probably pass a $12 to $15 million budget that will be placed in Chairman Burton's hands for this investigation, and how they can do that in good conscience after today's headlines really baffles me. I want to say today our House Democratic leader, Richard Gephardt, because of his concern over the nature of this investigation and where it is going, the House Committee on Government Reform issued a statement, and I would just like to read from part of that statement. He says that the vote on committee funding scheduled for tomorrow sanctions the Republican leadership's decision to make 12 to 15 million taxpayer dollars available for a one-sided, open-ended investigation of White House campaign fundraising. This partisan investigation flies in the face of a unanimous vote in the Senate to broaden the scope of the inquiry into improper and illegal activities in Democratic and Republican campaigns in the last election. Let me just for a moment not read from that statement anymore and explain that essentially what is happening here is that the Republican leadership and the chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform are suggesting that this investigation essentially be limited to the White House, and they are not interested in broadening the investigation, the way it was done in the Senate, to include both Democratic and Republican campaigns, congressional campaigns, Senate and House campaigns, in the last election. The budget granted to Chairman Burton is $8 million more than the Senate investigation. Further, the House investigation could go on for the duration of this Congress instead of the year-end resolution set to conclude the Senate investigation. Chairman Burton has granted himself unprecedented subpoena power and refused to provide the Democrats on the committee any resolution on the rules of conduct that would allow us assurances of the same fair and balanced process that will occur in the Senate investigation. Now the Republican leadership, as myself and other Democratic colleagues have pointed out many times on the House floor, has ruled out so far any consideration of a campaign finance reform bill, and they are preventing Congress from being included in the House investigation. Their action begs the question of whether they are truly interested in reforming the campaign finance system or merely bent on attacking a Democratic administration, and that I think is what this is all about. What the Republican leadership wants to do, what the Republican chairman of the committee wants to do, is limit this investigation to the administration, to the White House, to the Democrats in the White House and not consider what is going on in Congress on both sides of the aisle. The gentleman from Indiana has also abused his power, and the Republican leadership has been a willing conspirator by allowing him to run over the rules of the House in this investigation. Improper or illegal activity, whether it occurred in the Democratic or Republican campaign, should be included in the House investigation. Anything short of that smacks of protecting our self-interest at the expense of rooting out the abuses in the entire campaign finance system. Now in the statement that the Democratic leader put out today he also released a letter to the Speaker signed by the Democratic leadership and the Democratic ranking members serving notice that we, the Democrats, will oppose the committee funding resolution and use whatever parliamentary tools we have available to block its consideration unless he reconsiders bringing this resolution to the floor in its current form. And let me repeat. All that we are saying is that this investigation should be like the one in the Senate. The Senate one makes sense. They are not limiting it to the White House; they are including Democrats and Republicans and congressional campaigns as part of the overall inquiry. Announcement By The Speaker pro tempore.

Mr. PALLONE. Excuse me; thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now the problems that I mentioned with regard to the gentleman from Indiana and the reason that we are gathering here tonight, or the reason that I am here tonight, and some of my colleagues, is because we want to see campaign finance reform. Again the Republican leadership is missing a great opportunity here because there are some serious proposals that have been introduced by Members of the House on the campaign finance reform issue. We may discuss a few of them tonight. On the Democratic side we have formed a campaign finance reform task force in order to review all legislative proposals for reform and to try to develop a consensus position, and I want to stress that many of my colleagues, including some of the Republicans, some of the rank and file Republicans, have introduced some good proposals in this regard. There are bills out there that address spending limits, the role of political parties, political advocacy, tax-exempt organizations, contribution limits, greater disclosure, FEC enforcement, soft money, free commercial broadcast time, public financing, and the list goes on. But the bottom line is these bills mean nothing unless the Republican leadership of this House, which is the majority party, sets the agenda and decides to act. I would like now to yield, if I could, to one of my colleagues who is here tonight to talk about some of the same concerns, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. He has really been very modest, because the fact of the matter is that he knows this issue very well, and that his legislation is very well thought out and very specific about what we should be doing. I think what the gentleman is saying, and I think we all agree, is that there are a number of bills out there. There is not necessarily any miracle cure. We have some areas where we agree and others where we do not. But the bottom line is that we are in the minority and we do not control the process here. Unless the Republican leadership and the chairmen of the committees have hearings, let legislation come to the floor, set a deadline when we can consider these bills, nothing is going to happen. All we have really been doing for the last month or so on the floor here almost every night or every other night is to demand that some action be taken, and that the Republicans allow some of these bills to come up. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate the comments the gentleman made. I know that our time is running out, because we want to yield for another special order tonight, but there are going to be a lot more opportunities. We are going to be here every night, if necessary, to make the point that we want campaign finance reform to come to the floor, and that the Republican leadership has an obligation to make sure that that happens in this session of Congress and as soon as possible. I thank the Members again for joining with me. This is just the beginning of a lot more discussion on this topic.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the gentlewoman, because I think she really encapsulated the way I feel and the way many of us feel. I have to say last weekend when I was in the district, I had people come up to me and talk to me about the amount of money that is going to be spent by these committees on investigation, and people were literally outraged by the millions of dollars. But the amazing thing is that this funding resolution that the House Republicans expects us to vote on tomorrow would spend $8 to $11 million more than what is being proposed in the Senate committee, and yet limiting it exclusively to the White House, not even discussing congressional activity on the Republican or the Democratic side, and yet it is $8 to $11 million more. Again, I did not want to dwell on the fact of what the chairman is doing here, but I have to conclude that the chairman himself, based on what was in the Washington Post today, clearly he does not want this investigation opened to deal with congressional activities, because maybe it will implicate him perhaps. That is what is really an outrage here, that they are trying to make this so partisan, just the White House, all of this money, and refusing to deal with any investigation of activity on either side of the aisle in the House of Representatives and in congressional campaigns; then at the same time saying we will not consider campaign finance reform, we will not bring it to the floor, we do not have a deadline, we do not have a proposal. Fortunately for us, we have someone here with us tonight who does have a proposal and has been out there talking about us and has concrete ideas and has put them in bill form. I would like to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr].

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am very honored to represent the city of Asbury Park, NJ, which this week is celebrating its 100th anniversary. If you mention Asbury Park to anyone in this country under the age of 45, they will often recognize it as the city Bruce Springsteen put on the map. I am a great fan of Bruce Springsteen whom I consider a true musical talent and whose album ``Greetings from Asbury Park,'' did indeed familiarize millions with our city. But I am quick to point out that Asbury Park was a famous seashore resort for almost a century before Bruce Springsteen entered the musical scene. In fact, Asbury Park was attracting great musical talent starting perhaps in 1904 when Arthur Pryer, a member of the John Philip Sousa band, began a series of concerts on the boardwalk. According to a history compiled by Florence Moss, ``Men in white straw hats and women in white-linen bustled dresses, carrying lace-trimmed umbrellas, would promenade the length of the mile long boardwalk.'' Founded decades earlier by James A. Bradley, a developer with great foresight, and named after Francis Asbury, the father of Methodism in the United States, Asbury Park changed from sand dunes and forests to an exclusive seashore resort during the latter part of the 1800's. Until the rail line was extended farther south, wealthy residents of Newark and New York would take the train to Long Branch and then be picked up by horse and carriage and transported to Asbury Park. The twenties was a rip-roaring era at the Jersey Shore featuring a rather booming and lucrative prohibition period. This in turn was followed some years later by the big bands and the likes of Count Basie and Frank Sinatra and other music greats. During World War II, the British Navy took residence in the Monterey and Berkeley Carteret hotels and the British Army inhabited the Kingsley Arms Hotel. This presence enabled local residents to survive gas rationing and other wartime shortages. On the nearby boardwalk, the Casino and Convention Hall were utilized for other purposes. Since the twenties, entertainers performed and trade shows and folk festivals were held in these massive structures which were designed by architects Warren and Wetmore, who also designed New York's Grand Central Station. Asbury Park can also claim the distinction of being the first seaside resort in the country to adopt a sanitary sewer system and its trolley system was only the second electric system built in the United States. Mr. Speaker, while Asbury Park has suffered from a loss of revenues in recent years and the relocation of many stores to the shopping malls, it still boasts wonderful beaches, a great boardwalk, wide streets, historic architecture and a corps of dedicated citizens and public officials dedicated to its rebirth. In my mind, the restoration of Asbury Park to its position as a premier vacation and cultural center is well within our grasp and I pledge to work hard to see that this dream of ours is realized.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the front page of today's Washington Post shows why the Republican leadership wants to limit the scope of investigation of alleged campaign finance abuses to the White House while avoiding any action on campaign finance reform. According to the story in today's Post, the Republican chairman of the committee charged with investigating campaign finance laws pressured lobbyists from the government of Pakistan to contribute money to his campaign in what the lobbyists describe as a shakedown. I understand the chairman in question has canceled a hearing scheduled today. In light of today's allegations, the gentleman from Indiana should recuse himself from the committee's investigation. He should also open up his committee's probe to a much wider scope than the White House and include both parties in Congress. The country has been reading and hearing an awful lot about foreign money in campaign committees, and here we have the gentleman charged with leading the probe writing a letter to a foreign government. This same chairman is now looking to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on a one-sided partisan probe of campaign finance, and issuing subpoenas. It is this kind of hypocrisy that makes the American public so jaded about our entire campaign finance system, and it shows why we need campaign finance reform.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in opposition to the rule. Mr. Speaker, the Republican comp time bill is yet another attack on America's workers. This bill puts too much power in the hands of employers to overwork their employees and deny them their legal right to time and a half overtime pay. The bill provides no penalties to employers who manipulate their workers into accepting compensatory time off when, in fact, that employee would rather have their pay. Republicans claim comp time legislation will provide workers flexibility to spend time with their families; however, the bill does not allow workers to take comp time when they need it. It forces workers to take comp time when employers want them to take it. This is not family friendly, it is employer friendly. Comp time is simply an excuse to allow employers to avoid paying overtime to workers who deserve it. The 40-hour workweek has provided workers with a benchmark schedule to which they live their lives. Comp time legislation will destroy the 40-hour workweek and force working men and women to lead lives without normalcy. Children will have to come home from school not knowing if their parents will be home or will be forced to work overtime. This bill, and I stress, is not family friendly. It is actually more disruptive to the lives of our workers, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it. (Mr. NETHERCUTT asked and was given permission to speak out of order.) Free Diabetes Screening Test Offered Today In Rayburn House Office Building

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. No, I am not.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I think that if we take a spending limit and we then require a small amount of donations and then we still have larger donations, individual donations and PAC's, and then we have a public mechanism to match it, that would go far toward keeping the amount of money down and also making people understand that the small donations really are meaningful in this process, which I think that they are. However, again, the issue right now for us is not what the reform is going to be, but that we need to address reform.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has his special order next, so I am not going to yield to him at this time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, for tonight's special order, the topic that I would like to address is campaign finance reform. I wanted to point out that today at a press conference that was held by several of the women members of the Democratic Caucus, they basically urged Speaker Gingrich and the Republican leadership to stop the delay on campaign finance reform, and I know that some of the Members who were at that press conference will be joining me tonight to discuss the issue. Obviously campaign finance reform is certainly not a new issue to Members of this House or to the American people. The Democrats have been leaders on this issue for several years and the Republicans, I believe, have been obstructionists. As I mentioned in my remarks to the House this morning, for the past five Congresses the Republican leadership has pulled every legislative maneuver known to the Congress to keep campaign finance reform bills from becoming law. Now of course there is a renewed interest in the issue, and of course the flaws that the campaign finance system and that the Democrats have highlighted for years are becoming more prevalent and the American people have had enough. According to one poll, 85 percent of the American people think the campaign finance system is now in a crisis state. I have to point out, though, it did not have to come to this. If reforms the Democrats have been proposing since 1989 had been in place today, the country might well have been spared the abuses and excesses that we are hearing about. Unfortunately the Republicans stopped us cold. They have delayed and filibustered and stalled in really every conceivable way on this issue. I just wanted to point out, and then I would like to yield to my colleague from Hawaii, that on the first day of this session of Congress, every single House Republican voted against requiring action on campaign reform in the first 100 days of the new Congress. That was rollcall vote No. 4. Then when the President and the congressional leaders met in February, Republican leaders rejected the Democrats' suggestion that campaign finance reform join the priority list for bipartisan action. In the agenda Republicans laid out for the 105th Congress on March 6, their stated position is the status quo, to ensure that current laws are followed and enforced and require full and timely disclosure of all campaign contributions. Specifically in the case of the Speaker who testified before the House Oversight Committee on November 2, 1995, he said, quote, he would emphasize far more money in the political process. Recently one of our colleagues from the Senate, Mitch McConnell, stated, ``We're not spending too much on politics in America. This whole notion that we're spending too much on politics is nonsense.'' Clearly again the Republicans are in the majority and they have done nothing to suggest that they will be willing to move on campaign finance reform this session. I would like to yield now to my colleague the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] who was one of the Democratic women Members who participated in this press conference today.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii and particularly in your pointing out that after all we, as Democrats, are in the minority here. What we are asking is that the majority, the Republican majority and their leadership, bring this issue to the forefront and make it a priority, and, as you mentioned, they have had several opportunities to do that: first with the President who called for this issue to come to the floor and be resolved by July 4; and then there were bipartisan meetings at the White House, and once again the Republicans refused to put it on a priority list; and now the Speaker has come forward again, and it is not on the priority list of his agenda for this Congress. All we are asking is that this be prioritized and a date certain be set when it is going to come to the floor, and, as you know already, some of our colleagues, some of our Democratic colleagues, have started to use procedural motions, motions to adjourn, on other bills to try to make this point because that is really the only avenue we have to make the point to speak out and say that it must come forward. I just want to mention one more thought that you pointed out and I think, as we have been saying, we just want to bring this issue up and we want it to be heard. We have not necessarily come up with a specific proposal about how to address it. But you made a very good point when you said that when it comes to our individual races for Congress we have very strict requirements in terms of how much money we can raise, a thousand for individuals, $5,000 for PAC's, and all of that has to be disclosed. And when you look at this report that was done by the Citizens Research Foundation at the University of Southern California, one of the points that they make in their summary, and of course it is endless and you know we are not going to be able to go through it all tonight, is that they are very concerned about the lack of disclosure for sources and receipt of money outside the confines of individual races. They talk about the issue advocacy now, the independent expenditures, issue advocacy being done by party committees, independent expenditures being done by various organizations, and in each case the biggest problem there is lack of disclosure. And I think that is one of the things that I think is almost universal. Regardless of what program or bill comes to the floor, the real problem is that one of the major problems is once you go outside of our individual races, disclosure is much more difficult, it is more difficult to track where the money is coming from and where it is going to.

Mr. PALLONE. Well, thank you, and I see my colleague from Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro, who joins with me on a regular basis here. I would like to yield to her. I know she has made a major point of this issue of campaign finance reform.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I did mention earlier this report on this task force of campaign finance reform that came out from the Citizens Research Foundation of the University of Southern California, and this is something that we could talk about and we probably can discuss more as we go on, but it is called New Realities, New Thinking. I think the one thing that it points out that I am thinking about a lot, because I think it made me rethink the whole idea of what we need for campaign finance reform, is it says that ``Campaign finance today is characterized by an expanding political arena in which significant amounts of money flow in new and constantly changing ways.'' This is a quote. We have gone from a process where parties ran campaigns to an area where candidates ran their own campaigns and now we are experiencing a much more dynamic, diffuse funding system in which a broad range of political entities, political parties, individuals, PAC's, issue organizations and others spend money in campaigns that candidates neither raise nor control. The report indicates that these new realities, basically, raise serious questions about accountability, electoral competitiveness, the sources of campaign funds and resources. So you are thinking new realities, and what they are saying is that the nature of campaigns have changed dramatically in the last few years, with the issue advocacy, with the independent expenditures, and I think that that is the reason why there is a need for reform, because there is so much more money now and it is going in so many different ways. We do not know where it is coming from, disclosure, enforcement, all of these things that were mechanisms that we relied upon in the past where we were only dealing with our own campaigns, this is increasingly a thing of the past. That is why the system cries out for reform. There need to be changes. We just cannot pretend that we are living with a system that we lived with 5 years ago or 10 years ago. It is not the same anymore. So that is why I think that we need to continue with our effort to say that this campaign finance reform issue has to be addressed on the floor. I just want to thank the gentlewoman again. I know this is just the beginning of our effort to make sure that this issue is raised by the GOP leadership and that we do have the time when it is considered.

Mr. PALLONE. I thank you too and, you know, I think that one of the things that you pointed out which is, I think, very sad, and of course I do not buy it, is that many people do believe, and I hear it all the time, that we are just never going to see this, it is not possible for Members of the House of Representatives to limit campaign finance reform. It is not going to happen, it is not in their interests, they will not do it. And of course I have been here long enough to know that the reality is around this place fortunately because it is a democracy, and we are representatives, that if people demand that certain action be taken on this floor, it will be taken, and I need to, you know, stress that again. I think our colleagues all understand and I think the people should understand that if there is enough pressure, if people speak out and they feel strongly that there needs to be reform, and I think that is the sentiment out there now, this House will take action, and I think that the President's proposal to have a date certain--he mentioned July 4--is really what we need. We need to set a deadline and say, OK, this is when we are going to do it, and we need to have Republican leadership basically come forward and say July 4 is going to be the deadline or whatever the deadline is. You mentioned a few things though that I just wanted to add to, if I could, when Congresswoman Mink was here from Hawaii and we talked a little bit about disclosure and the need to have disclosure. You stressed the problem of too much money in the system and the need for spending limit which I think, as much as disclosure is important, the need for spending limit is also important. And I have been very upset really to hear some of the leadership and some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about how there is not enough money in campaigns. And we mentioned before, I think, on the--in the other body Senator McConnell who stated just recently we are not spending too much on politics in America. His whole notion that we are spending too much is nonsense. That is simply not the case. We are spending too much. I mean there is a need for some kind of spending limit. I think that has to be the heart of this thing. And also again the cynicism with regard to small donors. I have people come up to me now and say, ``Well, why should I contribute $5 or $10 or even $100 to the campaign?'' You know, this is all big money now. This is $1,000, $5,000, $10,000, a million--you know, depending on whether it is going to a national committee or independents. This is big money; the little guy does not matter. That is not true and we need to dispel that. I think that a spending limit could go far to dispel that. What I would like to see, just my own view, not even in a bill form, but I really think that if we had a spending limit, and we said, say it was $5,000, which really is a lot of money, but that could be a limit, I just take it out of a hat, and then we say that we will use existing means, we can still have $1,000 for individuals and $5,000 for PAC's, but we have some requirement of small donor contributions, either small donor individuals, or small donor PAC's, and then we couple that with public financing. I know it probably is the case that the majority of the Members of this body are not in favor of public financing. I happen to be in favor of it.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I agree. The gentlewoman did mention this idea with regard to the broadcast time, and if I could just develop that a little bit more, because I think that is important. One of the proposals that has been laid out is with regard to premier time for political ads. The gentlewoman is in Connecticut and I am in New Jersey, so we are both in the New York metropolitan area. Members who live in the New York metropolitan area know how expensive the radio and TV market is for New York. If one is in New Jersey and one is running statewide for Senate, for example, one has to contend with not only New York, but Philadelphia; in both cases very expensive markets for TV time. So I think that when the President recently suggested linking free broadcast time to the stations' interest in some of the spectrum, or I guess it is this digital high definition television, these licenses that are now being put forth, I thought that was particularly interesting. There was an article in the New York Times on March 13, just a few days ago, and if I could just bring out a couple of points in that. It said, ``Supporters of free political ads have proposed a national political time bank into which every radio and TV station would deposit one or two hours of prime advertising time for each two-year political cycle.'' It says, ``Based on the $500 million and the time back, the Federal Election Commission would dispense vouchers redeemable at any station. Half the vouchers would go to qualifying congressional candidates * * * Using vouchers, candidates could buy blocks of time at any station during any program, and such flexibility is critical, because different campaigns have different audiences.'' The way I understand the President's proposal, he asks that broadcasters surrender time to candidates in exchange for new licenses to provide this digital high definition TV. The President said that the free broadcast time would take the pressure off candidates to raise money, obviously, and the time bank would reimburse stations that provided more than 1 or 2 hours worth of free time using money from the stations that provided fewer. I thought it was an interesting proposal. Again, this is something that the President put forward. We obviously can debate it. If we look at one of the reasons why so much money has to be raised, particularly I think for races in the other body, but also for many in the House, it is because of the cost of TV time in these very expensive markets. This would go far toward alleviating some of that problem.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today I would also like to address the topic of campaign finance reform. As the Members of the House know very well, the issue of campaign finance reform has been garnering a lot of attention lately. Newspapers and TV news have been very busy in documenting the excess and abuses, and there is plenty of blame to go around. However, this House needs to be more constructive. In my opinion, it would be a complete waste of our time and the taxpayers' money if we spend hours and hours on hearings and merely use them to score political points. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the solemn duty of this House to move in a more positive, forward-looking direction, and the issue of campaign finance reform is best resolved through legislation, not accusations. We can criticize and pontificate to each other, but something has to be put on the table, and quickly. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, last week the House Democrats triggered a procedural motion in order to bring this discussion to the House floor. I know there are many on both sides of the aisle who want to deal with the issue of campaign finance reform, but the bottom line is that the Democrats are in the minority and the Republicans are in the majority. It is because the Democrats essentially are in the minority and have not been able to bring this issue to the floor that it is necessary from time to time to use procedural motions to get the Republican leadership to respond to this issue. It was necessary last week, since the House Republican leadership has so far not taken up campaign finance reform as an issue. President Clinton challenged this House to bring the issue to a vote by July 4 and, instead, this House, for months, has embarked on a schedule so insipid and unambitious that even conservative pundits and rank-and-file Republicans are beginning to admonish their own House leadership. So far, essentially, the House Republican leadership has not responded. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out that when the Democrats were in the majority we were very active in trying to reform the campaign finance system, though oftentimes we were thwarted in our efforts. The very first campaign finance bill, which was passed following the abuses of the Watergate scandal, was passed by a Democratic majority. Then in 1989 the Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate passed campaign finance reform only to have the bill vetoed by then Republican President George Bush. Most recently, during the 103d Congress, with both the House and the Senate in the Democratic majority and a Democrat in the White House, the House passed H.R. 3, that year's campaign finance reform bill, by a vote of 255 to 175. The Senate then passed S. 3 by a vote of 60 to 38 after several weeks of Republican delay, including 24 separate votes on amendments. Democratic leaders of the Congress announced a compromise bill then between the House and the Senate versions, but the Republicans in the other body successfully led a filibuster to prevent the Congress from doing its work and drafting a final bill. Mr. Speaker, the habit of Republican filibusters in opposition to campaign finance reform also goes back to the 102d, the 101st and the 100th Congress. Mr. Speaker, there should be no doubt in my mind that the Republicans clearly have no problem with the current system, which of course includes the PAC's and the soft money and the independent expenditures. Just for the record, the Republicans did put forth a campaign finance reform bill during the last Congress, but that bill received a paltry 162 votes in a House comprised of 230 Republicans. I think that was an indication of just how little the Republican leadership wanted to change the campaign finance system. The record I think is clear that the Democrats have put up serious legislation to deal with this issue and the Republicans have not. The Democrats in this House have known for years that the current system is flawed and is too easily abused, and basically what we will do, with procedural motions or however it has to be done in this Congress, is that we will continue to fight for reform in spite of whatever delays and inaction that the Republicans put forward. Over and over again in the next few weeks and the next few months until the Republican leadership agrees to bring campaign finance reform to the floor, you will see the Democrats continue out there calling for reform, calling for action. I know there are several bills out there. I know that my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], and my Republican colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp], both mentioned their efforts on a bipartisan basis. Clearly there is an effort here amongst the rank and file, I think on the Republican side, to try to come together on some kind of bipartisan bill that we can all agree on, but so far the Republican leadership has not allowed this bill or any kind of campaign finance reform to come to the floor, and I think that they have the blame at this point for not pushing on the issue.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to begin as I do every year, by thanking the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] for organizing this hour to honor the anniversary of Greek independence day. As you know, he is the chairman of the Hellenic caucus. He works tirelessly and is an outspoken champion really of Greek-American relations. I thank him for his tireless effort to strengthen the ties between our two countries. I just wanted to say, many of us here in Congress are staunchly committed to preserving and strengthening the ties between the Greek and the American people. It is very important. I think sometimes people diminish the significance of these commemoratory evenings as we are having now, but I think it is very important that we speak out and talk about Greek independence day and talk about the ties that bind the Greek and the American people. I usually try to find a quote for this occasion. And I just wanted to mention, I found one from Daniel Webster, who just 2 years after the Greek people began the revolution that would lead to their freedom, mentioned, and this is a quote, he talked about the oppression that the Greeks were having to deal with under rule by the Ottoman Empire and he said, and I quote, ``This, the Greek people, a people of intelligence, ingenuity, refinement, spirit and enterprise, have been for centuries under the atrocious and unparalleled barbarism that ever oppressed the human race.'' If you think of Congressman Webster's words in describing the Greek people, intelligence, ingenuity, refinement, spirit and enterprise, they are certainly no less apt today as they were when he said those words, I guess it is, I do not know how many years ago. I am sure it is over 100 years ago now. The other thing that I think we need to point out and we have and Mr. Bilirakis has many times is how Greece has been a staunch military ally of the United States in World War I. In War II, when Hitler's war machine was decimating Europe, Greece joined the United States to repulse perhaps the greatest threat to freedom the world has ever seen. We hear about the historic battle of Crete in which the spirit of the Greek people forced Hitler to delay his planned invasion of Russia, one of the most important battles of the Second World War. Of course, in the aftermath of the Second World War, Greece became a NATO ally and has been to this day joining forces with the United States and played no small role in preserving and protecting the freedoms enjoyed by an unprecedented number of the world's people. The other thing that I think about is the contribution that Greek- Americans have made to this country. If you think about Webster's words again, these values that have guided the Greek Americans to the top of some of the Nation's most competitive professions, law, the arts, entertainment, the sporting world, education and medicine and, of course, government, we see so many Greek-American Congressmen here tonight and in the Congress, but perhaps the most enduring of Greek qualities is that of endurance itself. The Greeks gave the world democracy, and today the world is as free as it ever has been. There are more democracies now than there ever have been, I think, historically. Four hundred years of control by the Ottoman Empire could not, as Webster observed, overcome the Greek people's determination to be free. And this is no less advisable in modern times. I just wanted to mention Cyprus, because for almost 23 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 the 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. And I believe they will, and the United States will be by their side in both the fight to secure that freedom and the celebration to mark the day when it finally arrives. I want to say in conclusion, again, to congratulate the Greek people for 176 years of independence, thank them for their contributions to American life, and thank the gentleman again, Mr. Bilirakis, for making sure that we do this special order every year on a regular basis.