John Tierney

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to honor our Nation's fallen police officers. My bill, Mr. Speaker, would honor police officers who have been killed in the line of duty by lowering to half staff a flag over the Capitol which will then be given to the family of the officer. The Capitol Police Board would designate the flagpole upon which the United States flag shall be flown at half mast for one day whenever a Federal, State, local, or territorial law enforcement officer is slain in the line of duty. Currently, the United States flag is flown at half staff to honor police officers one time a year, on Police Officers Memorial Day. This bill provides for an additional and fitting tribute to our Nation's fallen police officers and their families. The legislation was originally sponsored by our former colleague, Thomas Foglietta, currently the Ambassador to Italy, and reintroduced by former Congressman Jay Johnson in the last Congress. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. John Larson) will be speaking in support of this bill and about a former member of his hometown police force in East Hartford, Connecticut, who was recently killed in the line of duty. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join together with me in honoring our Nation's fallen police officers.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I shall be voting against each of the articles of impeachment. I am convinced that impeachment is not in the best interest of the country and its citizens. President Clinton's conduct--inappropriate and wrong as it was--does not reach the threshold necessary to constitute the kind of high crimes and misdemeanors envisioned by the founding fathers and subsequent interpreters of the Constitution. I have reached this decision after reviewing applicable law and precedence, after considering the views of academics, and after weighing the comments of constituents. A vote for impeachment ought to be a matter of conscience, but it should also not be unmindful of the strong opinion of the governed. Impeachment in this case would essentially undo the results of two popular elections. As my colleague Howard Berman has stated, ``That the President's conduct is not impeachable does not mean that society condones his conduct. Rather, it means that the popular vote of the people should not be abrogated for this conduct--when the people clearly do not wish for this conduct to cause the abrogation. * * * Conduct that may not be impeachable for the President * * * is not necessarily conduct that is acceptable in the larger society.'' Indeed the President is not blameless for the sorry state of affairs now before us. His actions were, as he admitted, indefensible, and his obfuscation of facts has been ``maddening.'' It would be entirely appropriate, I believe, for either or both bodies of Congress to strongly rebuke the President for his conduct and his lack of judgment. It is regrettable that the leadership of the majority party, in the face of overwhelming public sentiment not to impeach--and in defiance of a fair number of its own party who have said that impeachment is not the appropriate course--has seemingly chosen to politicize this most serious matter. There is reason to believe that enormous pressure has been exerted on rank and file members of the majority party to support impeachment. The Republican leadership has compounded the situation by refusing to allow for a vote on the motion to censure the President-- something that again its own members have said should be permitted. Leading members of the majority would have us believe they are acting out of conscience. Yet they would deny other members that same right. This sets the stage for bitter and needlessly divisive recriminations in the months ahead as the 106th Congress begins to confront the issues on our national agenda. This country and its citizens will pay the price for such a course. While the President must bear responsibility for his role in allowing this scenario to develop, we cannot undo the past, and the Republican party must bear responsibility for prolonging a situation that most American rightfully want to be brought to a close. The accusations against the President are serious. So too are the consequences of subjecting the nation to a Senate tribunal. To those who argue that the President should not be treated differently than others accused of similar misdeeds, let them be reminded that the President would still be subject to prosecution once out of office. It should be noted there is a large body of opinion that the statements in question made under oath by the President are not generally pursued criminally given the context in which they were made. However, the history of Ken Starr's relentless pursuit of William Clinton suggest that the President might stand little chance of receiving an objective analysis on the question of whether or not to prosecute. The world may ask--how did it come to this? The answer may well rest in a combination of factors--blatant partisanship, unreasonably strong personal animosity toward the President, a righteousness by those who appear to have lost any capacity for forgiveness, and a total disregard for the larger issues at stake. There are those who may truly believe that the facts do, in fact, require impeachment. However the process by which any such determination might have been made was deeply flawed and strained credulity. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde said at the outset that successful impeachment would require bipartisanship. By that standard alone, the results are a failure. Unfortunately, the House Judiciary Committee chose to follow the lead of so-called Independent Counsel Ken Starr, and utterly failed to develop any facts of its own that would bear on the allegations. The Committee made a mockery of the responsibilities that come with consideration of impeachment and debased the Constitutional criteria by which impeachment is justified. From the outset, I opposed the process pursued by the Committee. As members of the Committee noted, the majority proceeded from allegations to a conclusion, ignoring fact-finding or rational inquiry. In short, the process was unfair. By denying the House the opportunity to vote on censure, and by introducing raw partisanship into a vote of conscience, the majority has compounded that unfairness. Attempts to inflict the maximum amount of pain on the President by insisting on impeachment-- the ultimate ``scarlet letter'' as Mr. McCollum put it--risks putting this country through an experience it need not endure. In view of the strong reasons not to impeach, and the strong public sentiments against such action, the partisan march toward impeachment is truly regretful.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, the easy way out is not an avoidance of a censureship motion. That is the way to end the partisanship here. The correct way, the way to show some fairness, is to allow a vote on censure; not to make some excuse that because it is not mentioned in the Constitution, we cannot have that vote. Take the weight of conscience out. Do not deprive our right to vote our conscience so you can ram something through here. Spare us all the righteous condemnations, spare us all the assertions of your desire to uphold the rule of law, and do a fair act here; put on this floor a motion for censure, because certainly the fact that the conduct of the President is not impeachable does not mean it is being condoned. We have an argument here that he can stand for trial if it is decided that is what should be done after he gets out of office, and we do not need impeachment to teach our children the difference between right and wrong. Do not sell our parents short, do not sell our children short, do not sell the minority here short and do not sell the American people short. Give us the right, give us the fairness of a vote on censure, so the American people can have their way.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, we should not be here today in the position where we are being asked by the Majority to embark upon an impeachment inquiry unlimited in scope and unlimited in time. On September 11, 1998, this body referred to the Committee on the Judiciary the responsibility to review the communication received on September 9, 1998, from the Independent Counsel; to determine whether sufficient grounds existed to recommend to the House that an impeachment inquiry be commenced. Nothing in that Resolution directed the Committee on the Judiciary to recommend to the House that an impeachment inquiry on matters extraneous to that September 9, 1998 communication be pursued. In fact, the Independent Counsel indicated that, in his view, as soon as information came to his attention which he believed necessitated a referral to the House, it was his duty (in his mind) to make that referral immediately. By inference, then, we can assume that after four years of investigations and over $40 million in expenditures of public funds, there was no other referral forthcoming on any other matter. Further, Mr. Speaker, the appropriate order of business for the Committee on the Judiciary, if it was to make a recommendation, would be to first, define the standard of what constitutes an impeachable offense. Then, secondly, the Committee should have measured the narrative of the Independent Counsel against that standard. Only then could the Committee properly determine whether or not to recommend that an impeachment inquiry be commenced. That was not done, despite the four weeks that have passed since the House sent the matter to the Committee on the Judiciary. The American people want this matter resolved. They want this matter resolved fairly and promptly. They have important issues demanding consideration--educating their children within an invigorated and innovative public education system; they need sufficient health coverage for all members of their family; they need job security; they need assurance that people moving from welfare to work, folks going from school to work, and workers displaced who need to go back to work, are adequately trained and educated to be able to support their families well above the poverty line; and, they need retirement security. These are all matters foremost on their minds. The American people know we must deal with these serious issues, but believe the last four weeks have produced little, except clear partisanship and a seeming unending willingness by the Majority to put salacious material before our children and the American public--unnecessarily. Despite the comments of the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary--that he hopes to end this inquiry before the end of the year, and hopes it will not be expanded in scope--the reaction of the Majority side of the House, and statements by many of its Members, indicate that is not the prevailing desire or attitude. That is why it is important, at the very least, that we support the Democratic Motion to Recommit the matter to the Committee, and instruct the Committee to recommend an inquiry limited in scope and time, establish a standard of what constitutes an impeachable offense, and determine whether or not the narrative of the referral meets that standard. Innumerable constitutional scholars and experts have already given their opinion that, even taken in the light most unfavorable to the President's position, the assertions in the Independent Counsel's narrative do not raise to the threshold of an impeachable offense, as defined by our founding fathers, and which has, by history and precedence, been established. If, in fact, that threshold is not met, then we owe it to the American people to determine just what action is appropriate to address the President's acknowledged personal misconduct. Perhaps more in line with the interests of the American public would be an alternative that allows us to vote and embark upon a process which sets about determining what action would be appropriate to address the President's conduct so that other business of Congress can be pursued. This is not a parliamentary system, but a presidential system, Mr. Speaker. This should not be a system where the dominant legislative party can decide that a person running the country is a bad person and get rid of him. Persons holding themselves out as Speakers of this body have admitted not telling the truth in several venues, and have met a punishment short of being dispossessed of their elected position and have even, in at least one instance, been re-elected by the members of their political party to the austere position of Speaker of the House. Thus we know that other remedies are available. Impeachment is really a remedy for the Republic. It is not intended as a personal punishment for a crime. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, made that assertion and, it is accurate. The Judiciary Committee should have been working this past month to determine whether or not the asserted conduct constituted an action undermining the Republic and/or the American people. The Committee was charged with the review of the communication received on September 9, 1998, and with determining if grounds exist for an inquiry. The Committee has not fulfilled that responsibility and it is now incumbent upon this body to recommit this Resolution so that any proceedings will be fair, limited in scope to the matters referred, and resolved quickly so that the public's business can receive the attention it deserves. The present Committee Resolution seeks to broaden and drag out this endless process. If the people are, in fact, to be represented, we need a fair process and not a political excursion.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bid farewell to one of the most ardent champions of the less fortunate, my friend and colleague, Joe Kennedy. Mr. Speaker, whether it is fighting to close the terrorist School of the Americas, or improving low income housing, or assuring that America's poorest families receive low-cost heating through the LIHEAP program, Joe continued his father's legacy by speaking for those without a voice and has left his own incredible mark on history. Joe Kennedy has dedicated his tenure in Congress to improving the lives of the less fortunate and the quality of living for today's consumers. When studies indicated that credit unions had a poor record of lending to minorities and low-income members, Joe took steps to ensure that credit unions adhered to the same fairness regulations as banks and savings institutions. When the American Medical Association reported the extent of heavy binge drinking among young people, Joe Kennedy introduced legislation to provide incentives for colleges and universities to develop and implement alcohol abuse prevention programs and would establish new requirements for alcohol advertising that targets young audiences. When more and more Americans became burdened by credit card debt and sky-high interest rates charged by creditors, Joe Kennedy introduced legislation which would protect consumers from the unreasonable practices of creditors that result in higher fees and interest rates for consumers. In fact, one of the first opportunities I had as a congressman was to join Joe in a forum in Boston dealing with that very issue, and he has been a leader on that and so many other things. I could go on, but I am sure there are others here tonight who will have much more to say, as did the gentlemen from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and (Mr. Moakley). We can take faith knowing that Joe will continue his work on behalf of low-income families because he is going to focus his efforts on the Citizen's Energy Corporation. I know that under Joe's guidance, many low-income and elderly individuals will not have to face another brutal New England winter without low-cost heating. The Massachusetts delegation in the House of Representatives is losing one of its most valued colleagues, Mr. Speaker. One of its strongest advocates for low-income and elderly individuals, and for all things fair in this country. When people talk about values, whether they are out in their districts or here in Congress, they need only look at the principles and the causes that Joe Kennedy has stood up for time and time again. It makes us all proud, Mr. Speaker, to be from Massachusetts. It makes us proud to be a friend of Joe Kennedy. It makes us proud to have him campaign with us and for us, on occasions, to speak on the floor for the things that we believe in. Mr. Speaker, if I can address the gentleman from Massachusetts directly for a moment, against our usual decorum, Joe, I wish you the best in your future endeavors, you and Beth, and I speak for everyone in this Chamber when I say that you will be sadly missed. Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase our Irish ancestors, ``May the road rise to meet you, may the wind always be at your back. . .and until we meet again, may God hold you in the palm of his hand.''

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, and I would first like to thank my good friend from Maine, Tom Allen, for his work to end the gouging of prices for prescription drugs by pharmaceutical companies. We have heard horror stories about seniors forgoing food, electricity or other necessities in order to pay for their monthly medications. In some instances, seniors will choose one medication of the other, alternating each month, because they simply cannot afford to be buying everything they need. We have seen the profits of pharmaceutical companies skyrocket to nearly $20 billion a year. And there profits will continue to grow, at the expense of our nation's seniors. It is time to end this cycle of discrimination. In Massachusetts, we are fortunate to have a number of safety nets in place to help seniors with their prescription drug needs. Our state Medicaid system, MassHealth, protects the poorest of the poor. Our State Pharmacy Program provides up to $750 a year in prescription drug coverage. The State Legislature even passed a law in 1994 to require all Medicare HMO's to provide an optional prescription drug benefit. Approximately 75 percent of the 211,000 beneficiaries in the state enrolled in Medicare HMO's benefit from this option. However, there are many who fall through the cracks and for reasons beyond their control, are not eligible for any federal or state assistance. For example, Georgia LaPine from North Andover, MA is a 74 year old retiree who is completely dependant on her monthly Social Security check. She is on numerous medications, including three different asthma inhalers, thyroid pills, nitroglycerine for a heart condition, and Lorazepam for her nerves. She cannot afford to purchase all of these medications each month. Subsequently, she was forced to forgo her heart medication, and has had trouble affording groceries. Georgia tries to put money aside each month to buy the medication she needs, but each time she foregoes any medication or doesn't eat properly, he condition worsens. She constantly worries about her monthly prescription requirements and as a result, her asthma and anxiety problems have worsened. And it is not only the seniors who suffer. Thousands of independent pharmacies go out of business each year because they simply cannot afford to purchase certain drugs from pharmaceutical companies. Pharmacists in my district care about their customers and have told me how painful it is to explain to a senior citizen why the medication that cost $15 last month now costs $65. But, if the pharmacy doesn't stock the medications, they will lose considerable business. Jack Collins of Lynn Fells Pharmacy in Saugus, MA, stated ``They know that we will expose them and their pricing policies . . . it's independent pharmacist who will take the time to explain to a senior citizen just how they are being ripped off. We are their enemies and they are detemined to eliminate us.'' He goes on to say that, ``If you and your colleagues in Congress don't stand up to this cartel and level the playing field on prescription pricing, the people in this country paying cash for their medicines will continue to neglect filling their prescriptions, necessitating more hospital visits and further driving the cost of health care through the roof.'' It if becomes too late this session to act on legislation such as Mr. Allen's Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make this a priority for the 106th Congress. This is not a partisan issue. Every district has seniors like Georgia LaPine and independent pharmacists like Jack Collins. We constantly talk about protecting seniors and helping small businesses. We simply cannot continue to provide pharmaceutical companies with research and development funding and close our eyes to discriminatory pricing schemes that target seniors, among others, or their exorbitant price increases. This legislation that we have introduced would benefit seniors and pharmacies by allowing them to purchase low-cost prescription drugs by taking advantage of the purchasing power of existing Federal Supply Schedule prices. This is a plan that is budget neutral, and which, given the drug manufacturers' uncommon profit margins, need not adversely affect prices in general. This is an effective and much-needed solution. I urge both the Republican and Democratic Leadership to make this issue a priority for the next session.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Judiciary was asked on September 11 to review the communication received on September 9 to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to recommend to the House that an impeachment inquiry be commenced. We did not ask to go beyond what was in that report, but this is what the other party seeks to do. We asked them to define the standard of what was an impeachable offense and measure against that what was in that report, and they have not done that on the committee. This was to be done before we got here today. We now need a fair process, Mr. Speaker. Let us hope we can get on with that type of process.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding. In 2 minutes it is difficult to speak fully to this particular rule and to the bill that underlies it. But let me just say that I thought we all came here to Congress understanding what the needs and concerns were of our various constituents. Fundamental among them was a good educational background for all of our students, the opportunity to rise no matter what their situation in life or their family situation; an ability to help people in the workplace, to make sure that if they were displaced or if they were just entering the market, that they would have the skills and the education they need to succeed. All of these things are fundamental to this particular bill that underlies this rule. And yet, I think very unwisely, we are cutting program after program that are necessities. The School to Work Program, important in my district, helps work- based learning experiences for high school students. Yet this bill will cut $250 million or up to 63 percent of that program. How are students supposed to understand the connection between what they learn in the classroom and what their opportunities in life are without programs like this? We try to encourage college participation. Yet we are going to cut, through this bill, if the majority has its way, substantial funds, making sure 120,000 deserving postsecondary students do not get campus- based low interest loans. At a time when all people believe that teachers have to have more development and more training for their skills and work in the classroom, this would not only block grant Eisenhower but do what most block grants do, eventually end up defunding that particular program. One hundred thousand teachers will be without the training they need to educate our children. Literacy, an issue where there has been considerable time spent in my district developing so that this cycle of illiteracy does not continue, is attacked in this bill. The America Reads program is entirely eliminated. After-school learning programs, as we talk about getting children off the streets to continue their learning during the day, to have supervision, is attacked in this bill. Head Start, a tremendously successful program helping children get the nutrition and the learning skills and the societal skills they need to do well, to hold their grade level, to improve their IQ and to succeed in school, is being cut. College work-study programs, students that are trying hard and desperately to work their way through school, to contribute in that way, is cut in this program; and technologies and so on. I think we are making a serious mistake here. I urge Members to vote against the rule and against the bill in its current form.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, at this time I just want to comment on the fact they keep saying over and over again that only 6 or 7 percent of the total amount of money that is spent on elementary and secondary education in this country come from federal resources. So 93 or 94 percent of the resources come from state and local governments, but when it comes time to talk about the condition of our schools which people want to say could be much better and are not all that they should be, 94 percent of the blame gets laid at the feet of the Federal Government and 7 or 6 percent of the blame gets laid at the local and State government. The fact of the matter is every level of government has responsibility to step forward and participate in making sure that we have the best educational system we can possibly have. People in my district in Massachusetts understand that this is a responsibility that is shared. They do not want to place the blame, they want to get moving on doing some things that are going to help the educational system. Block granting, it is never on the charts when we ask people how they want to help improve their schools. They do not want to combine programs, do away with accountability, let States shift money from programs that are national priorities to other areas and then eventually defund. They state very clearly what they want in Massachusetts is for the Federal Government to step forward and play a role to help them modernize their schools because locally they do not have the resource, they have been unable to do that. So they have asked, because it is a national issue and a national infrastructure question, that the Federal Government step forward and provide funds, that when it comes time to making the classrooms the appropriate size, when instruction can best be done, they have not got the resources. They have looked to the Federal Government to target that particular area, and they have said give us some resources, and that is what this amendment does, and that is the way this system should function. We have seen time and time again through examples in Tennessee, in Indiana, in North Carolina and Wisconsin smaller classroom sizes, a smaller ratio of teachers to students, has a positive effect on the ability of those students to learn, maintain their grade level throughout, and do a better job eventually and lead to a better life and a better community. Let us stop with the politicking, let us stop with the slogans. As my colleagues know, Dollars to the Classroom is something everybody wants. It is not going to be done by defunding education through this system or anything else, it is going to be done by an effective approach.

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I have heard more rhetoric going around here in the last hour or so than I think is warranted by this particular subject. If we were serious about improving educational opportunities, this particular subject matter would have come up during the course of regular deliberations over the Secondary and Elementary School Act reauthorization, which is going to be next year. The fact of the matter is every time our colleagues on the other side stand up and tell us how much money is here for every State, what they are really telling us is they are authorizing a certain amount of money. But the fact of the matter is they are not appropriating that amount of money. What does history show us when things get block granted? Its shows us this is all about the ``Contract on America'' theory that if they block grant things, they can eventually defund them. No matter how much is authorized to be appropriated, in the end, when it comes to be appropriated, it has been reduced. That is what happened under Title 6. Programs were put in a block grant and they were defunded over time. It is what happened in other areas of community service block grants in different communities, and it happens over and over again. It is part of the theory of putting them in a block grant, defunding them, and moving the money to some other priority. Madam Chairman, our priority on this side of the aisle is education. We do not need to be throwing programs like technology training, programs to combat illiteracy, programs for gifted and talented children, education reform projects into a block grant so that we can lose accountability on them and fail to track whether or not the money is actually being spent in that regard and doing a good job, and then eventually having the focus shifted so they get defunded. We need to make sure that we do what the Federal Government has always done, provide the resources that are requested by local and State governments. It is the job of local and State governments to do the general, operational task of education. That is why they have 94 percent of the responsibility and they take it that way. The 6 or 7 percent of monies that are spent from the Federal resources on elementary and secondary education are targeted to programs where a request has been made that money comes down from the Federal Government for assistance. That money is for reform projects, it is for illiteracy projects, it is for technology and for teachers. If we want to move forward, we will remodel our classrooms and make sure that we have more teachers in the classroom, and we will not set up a structure to defund education.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to just associate myself with all the remarks of the colleagues who spoke previously on this issue. I want to say that this is what the clean-money, clean-election bill essentially does. It eliminates the perceived and the real conflicts of interest caused by the direct financing of campaigns with private interests. It limits campaign spending. It allows qualified individuals to run for office regardless of their own personal economic status or their access to large contributors. It frees candidates and elected officials from the burden of continuous fund-raising. And it shortens the effective length of the campaigns and deceases the cost of campaigns by forcing the broadcasters to step forward with their responsibility in return for the large amounts of spectrum they receive for very little contribution on their side. It rids of the system of the disfavored soft money. It is voluntary, giving incentives for people to get involved with the system and making sure that people find out the better alternative. It leaves no one unilaterally disarmed. It simply puts a fair playing out there, and the public gets back its elective process. The best organized candidates with the best messages win, and so do the voters. That said, Mr. Chairman, I understand, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) said, this is not a perfect world. In a perfect world this bill would come before this body, would be deliberated fully, would get the imprint of all the Members, would be perfected and would be passed, and it would become the law of this land. But right now we all saw the effort it took to get Shays-Meehan forward, and we will not in any way be seen as stepping in the path of that. We are going to make sure that Shays-Meehan goes through this House, that it gets brought over to the other body, that hopefully public opinion, individuals, as well as editorial boards, will hold them to the process of this year passing at least the Shays-Meehan ban on soft money and further disclosure for fair elections. That part will go, and then hopefully the commission under the Shays-Meehan bill will make sure that we get a chance to go where the public already is on this. Let me close, Mr. Chairman, if I would, with the words of the late senator from Arizona, Barry Goldwater. He said: The fact that liberty depended on honest elections was of the utmost importance of the patriots who founded our Nation and wrote the Constitution. They knew that corruption destroyed the prime requisite of constitutional liberty, an independent legislator free from any influence other than that of the people. Applying these principles to modern times we can make the following conclusions. To be successful representative government assumes that the elections will be controlled by the citizenry at large, not by those who give the most money. Electors must believe their vote counts. Elected officials must owe their allegiance to the people, not to their own wealth or to the wealth of interest groups who speak only for the selfish fringes of the whole community. Mr. Chairman, we should all stand behind those words, we should all move Shays-Meehan forward, we should then have the commission look at other alternatives like this Canady substitute amendment. This body, which has such genius within it, should look those terms over, add its comments to it and improve this bill and perfect it so that we have a vehicle that reflects what the people in this country want, which is clean elections with clean money and not beholden to special interests. Mr. Chairman, I thank the colleague from Ohio, and I thank all of my colleagues for speaking on this, and with the Chair's indulgence I look forward to passing Shays-Meehan through this House, through the Senate and having it become law, and in future years, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to us getting to where the public already is, clean money, clean elections.

Mr. TIERNEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman, for the reasons stated we will not be seen as interfering with the process of Shays-Meehan.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I voted for the Shays-Meehan bill. I view that passage as one step in the right direction, an important step but a step toward where we need to end up. I voted for the Shays-Meehan bill because it will eliminate soft money and the influence of soft money but it still, even after passage, preserves an element of the status quo and the current way that we do business. The Tierney substitute amendment proposes an alternative to the private money changes. It is called the clean money option. It is an approach that has already been passed into law in the State of Vermont by its legislature there and by the main ballot referendum. Under a clean money system, a candidate who agrees to forego private contributions including his or her own and accept spending limits receives a limited allocation to run their campaign from publicly financed clean elections funds. It is not a blank check. Participating candidates must meet all local ballot qualification requirements and gather a significant number of $5 contributions from the voters they seek to represent. Clean money campaign reform is both simple to understand and sweeping in scope. It is a voluntary system that meets the test of constitutionality under the Supreme Court's ruling in Buckley versus Valeo. It effectively provides a fair playing field for all candidates who are able to demonstrate a substantial base of popular support. It strengthens American democracy by returning political power to the ballot box. Few of the other approaches currently under debate come close to the comprehensive solution because they all preserve a central role for private money. What sets the clean money campaign reform apart is that it attacks the root cause of the crisis that is perceived in our system, namely a system founded on private money that comes from a small fraction of the electorate and is dominated by wealthy special interests. As elected public officials, we should be seen only to owe our allegiance to the people who sent us here, not the largest campaign contributors. It comes down to this, Mr. Chairman: Who should be perceived to own the office that we serve, the public- or the private- money interests? The public gets it. They know what needs to be done. Various clean- money campaign reform bill ballot initiatives and grassroots movements are now in motion in more than 3 dozen communities. If we cannot act here in Washington to change the system, the voters will increasingly do it for us, Mr. Chairman. So we should all get ready because it is happening in our respective states. This proposal is sweeping in its breadth and it deserves full deliberation and full debate. It could benefit from the input of the Members of this Congress on both sides of the aisle. It is unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that we did not get a chance to go through full committee hearings to have the full input of this body so that we could make sure that we have the complete support. And we all saw how much work was done and the belaboring that had to be completed just to get the Shays- Meehan aspect through this Congress. Mr. Chairman, Shays-Meehan is a part of this bill, but we need to do more. The commission in Shays-Meehan, hopefully, will allow us to address this, to observe the work that is done in the communities, and move forward.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have been having this discussion with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) in committee now for quite some time, and I rise in support of the Obey amendment. During the past 4 months, in the Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, we have had at least five hearings. And what some have deemed to be the Clinton administration's back door of implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, we have been exposed and seen all kinds of frightening figures and numbers and portraits of devastating scenarios played out by a wide variety of witnesses on the possible effect the protocol would have on our economy and our jobs. Let me assure this body, as we have assured the gentleman from Indiana and his committee, we have no intention of trying to implement the Kyoto Protocols before they have been thoroughly researched, thoroughly explained and thoroughly voted in the Senate. This amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) makes this clear. But it is not sensible to prohibit the government agencies, that should be doing research, that should be educating themselves and the public, from doing that. As a result of the hearings in that subcommittee, two things have become clear: One is that some of my colleagues are under the mistaken impression, I think, that they are, in fact, Members of the other body and it is going to be this group that actually ratifies the Kyoto Protocol. And aside from that overly generous interpretation of their role, they are also convinced that the protocol is going to be ratified tomorrow. I think we all know that nothing could be further from the truth. We all understand the Kyoto Protocol is not going to be ratified tomorrow. We all understand that there are serious issues and concerns with its content and its intent, and that we need to explore that thoroughly and that nothing should be done to implement that protocol until the Senate, if ever, should ratify it and move forward. But the language contained in the committee report for this bill prohibits the use of the funding from being used to develop, propose, or issue rules, regulations, decrees, orders for the purpose of implementation or in contemplation of implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. The report directs the Environmental Protection Agency to refrain from conducting any educational programs that promote policies that could be used to meet the emissions requirement called for in the protocol. Mr. Chairman, I hope we all can agree that that is overly broad and potentially dangerous. Legitimate noncontroversial practices exist, or should exist, to improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions and pollution worldwide. We should all be committed to these goals. I am concerned, however, Mr. Chairman, that this language would thwart those efforts. Reliable estimates show that the annual global market for energy efficient products and services is now about $80 billion, and that amount is expected to increase to $125 billion by the year 2015. This new technology is rapidly becoming one of our country's most effective generators of business, since small businesses can reap the benefits of available research and development assistance, such as the energy efficiency program supported by the Climate Change Technology Initiative and the Partnership for the New Generation of Vehicles. That said, Mr. Chairman, access to advice and information on these programs and energy efficient products and services is imperative to create more small business and generate more jobs, which is something we should all be working to accomplish. Here is the catch, however, Mr. Chairman. The catch is some of these programs may also reduce greenhouse gases. And we all know that reduction of greenhouse gases was a part of the Kyoto Protocol's direction. But the language in the bill forbids the EPA from conducting any educational informational programs which small businesses rely on to take advantage of energy efficient technologies. How can some of our colleagues reconcile this disparity? How can we tell our small businesses that we have founded these programs to help them utilize and benefit from energy efficient technologies, but we are not going to give them the information on how to expedite those efforts through outreach and educational programs because they happen to also promote Kyoto Protocol policies? The Obey amendment would clarify this disparity and allow the EPA to continue the educational outreach and informational seminars that are already authorized by law. But it should not allow any funding to be used solely for the purpose of implementing the Kyoto Protocol, and I think it does not do that. This will allow small businesses and other entities to continue to benefit from the advice and information on energy efficiency, which will help them expand and grow in the long run. Adoption of the amendment is imperative if we are to assure that the current EPA programs that have benefitted the economy and the environment are not jeopardized merely because they may also reduce greenhouse gases. I urge all my colleagues to support the Obey amendment.

Mr. TIERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to formally wish Howard Iverson, editor of the ``Danvers Herald'' and political columnist for Community Newspapers in Massachusetts all the best on his recent retirement. Thirty-five years of writing. That is a lot of words, a lot of ideas, a lot of opinions, and more than a few friends made. Howard, the paper will miss you and the North Shore will miss you. Enjoy your retirement, but don't be afraid to share some ideas, some opinions and some history in the newspaper when the mood strikes you. Your readers will be on the lookout, so don't keep us waiting too long.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, sometimes we hear about a commission and we wonder what more do we need to do to study what we should do to reform the way we raise money for campaigns in this country. And while I have some reservations about this, I do want to say that we do have a vote here today on the Shays-Meehan bill, and I will support that, because I think it is a step in the right direction. However, maybe it does make sense that after passing Shays-Meehan we also talk about what steps we might take in the future, and perhaps this commission is the way to address that. I view the passage of that measure, the Shays-Meehan bill, as a step, an important step, but only a step towards where we need to end up. I am going to vote for it because it will eliminate the insidious influence of soft money, but it still preserves an element of the status quo in the current way we do business. The current system is, to many Americans, broken, Mr. Chairman, and it is broken for them beyond repair. They believe it cannot be fixed and they really believe it must be replaced. I have an alternative amendment before this House that we will address within the next few weeks. Unfortunately, several weeks down the line because, as I understand it, we are not going to debate this issue next week, and then we have 2 weeks in the District. But at some point, perhaps, we will get to the alternative that proposes to end the private money chase in campaign finance. It is called the Clean Money Option. And it is just that. It is an option for those that want to continue to raise money privately and to use private resources in the campaigning. They will be able to proceed on that basis. But there is an option for those of us and the American public who believe we should do away with private resources and influence. It is an approach that has already been passed into law by the Vermont State legislature and the Maine ballot initiative. Under the clean money system, a candidate agrees to forego all private contributions, including his or her own, and accepts spending limits and a limited allocation to run their campaign from publicly- financed election funds. It is not a blank check. Participating candidates must meet all local ballot qualification requirements and gather a significant number of $5 qualifying contributions from the voters they seek to represent. Clean-money campaign reform is both simple to understand and sweeping in its scope. It is a voluntary system, as I said, that meets the test of constitutionality under the Supreme Court's ruling in Buckley vs. Valeo that effectively provides a level playing field for all candidates who are able to demonstrate a substantial amount of popular support. It strengthens American democracy by returning political power to the ballot box. None of the other approaches currently under debate or that will be under debate come close to this comprehensive solution because they all preserve a central role for private money. What makes the clean-money campaign reform different is that it attacks the root cause of the crisis, namely, a system funded on private money that comes from a small fraction of the electorate and is dominated by wealthy special interests. As elected public officials, we should owe our allegiance to the people who sent us here, not to the largest campaign contributors. It comes down to this, Mr. Chairman: Who should own the office in which we serve, the public or the private-monied interests? The public gets this issue, Mr. Chairman. They know what needs to be done. Various clean-money campaign reform bills and ballot initiatives and grass root movements are now in motion in at least 3 dozen states across this country. If we cannot act here in Washington to change this system, the voters will do it for us. Get ready. Because if it is not happening in the states of my colleagues already, it will be; and this is in fact the wave of the future. Mr. Chairman, the clean-money reform has solutions to particular problems. There are 4 major complaints that voters have about the current system. One is that political campaigns cost too much money and last too long. The solution in our bill would be that campaigns have strict spending limits that could only begin once the money is disbursed. Another problem cited is that special interests have too much influence and certainly the perception of that. The solution is that participating candidates could not receive direct contributions from private sources. People complain that candidates spend way too much time chasing campaign contributions. The solution in the bill would be that there would be no need for that fund-raising. Candidates can focus on the issues and the public concerns if they choose, although they have the option to continue the private-money chase if they like. The fourth complaint is that good people cannot win. The solution is that the clean-money option would create a level playing field and encourage more people to run. This clean-money option, Mr. Chairman, is not a pipe dream. It is the law in two states and the subject of budding grass roots advocacy campaigns in nearly 40 others. Four states and localities, Arizona, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New York City, are poised to place similar initiatives on the November ballot. Moreover, extensive polling has found public support in around 2-1 across all social and demographic groups, even among the self-described conservative Republicans. Newspapers from around the country have editorialized the support of clean money, including U.S.A. Today, The Boston Globe, St. Louis Post Dispatch, The Minneapolis Star Tribune, and many, many others. Mr. Chairman, this is the direction we go. I hope the commission brings us closer to that point.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one note before I yield to the gentleman from Maine. We are hearing a lot of comment, people wanting to know how much is too much and talking about whose interests are being concerned. The perception of the American public is clear. They are upset about what is going on in politics and they have the clear perception, whether or not it is reality with respect to each and every Member here. The perception is that money is a corrupting influence and that money is having an impact, so much so that when Bill Moyers spoke recently to a group, he did an interesting exercise. He had an entire group stand up and asked a third to sit down and identified that that third of the group represented those people who do not bother to register anymore. Then he had a second third sit down and identified that that was the group of people in this country that while they may bother to register, they do not bother to go out and vote. So the remaining one-third of people represented just that small portion of people in this country that actually are voting now and, in effect, are electing their representatives. Whatever the reasons are that the other two-thirds are not voting, one clear reason that people express as one reason is that they have the definite perception that money is adversely impacting this system. Mr. Chairman, one of the speakers earlier talked about Mr. McCarthy running for President. Senator McCarthy, as a liberal, talked about the fact he did not have a campaign unless he had large contributions. Let me turn that around for a second and speak of what a well-known conservative, the Senator from Arizona, Barry Goldwater had to say. The fact that liberty depended on honest elections was of the utmost importance to the patriots who founded our Nation and wrote the Constitution. They knew that corruption destroyed the prime requisite of constitutional liberty: An independent legislature free from any influence other than that of the people. Applying these principles to modern times, we can make the following conclusions: To be successful, representative government assumes that the elections will be controlled by the citizenry at large, not by those that give the most money. Electors must believe that their vote counts. Elected officials must owe their allegiance to the people, not to their own wealth or to the wealth of interest groups that speak only for the selfish fringes of the whole community. The American people no longer believe that that is the case, and that is one of the problems that we have, and the perception one of the reasons that we have to address campaign finance reform. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), who has asked for some time on this.