May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5487

to it so that these cutbacks in funding

levels produce a leaner and more effective set of programs.

I am convinced that with better management and more cost-consciousness,

these cuts can be absorbed without

major harm to our overseas interests.

We have allowed the Administration

a great deal of management flexibility

to make these program changes.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman for the responsible bill he has

brought to the floor and urge its adoption.

(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was

THE AMERICAN WORKER

fgiven permission to address the House

for 1 minute and to revise and extend

his remarks.)

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, Boeing Corp. needs profits. So guess what?

Boeing will get rid of 12,000 workers.

That is right. The new American economy: Companies need profits, companies get rid of American workers, companies make more money, Government

says, companies are strong, Government says the economy is improving.

Beam me up. In the words of Larry,

Moe, and Curly, thank God for Ronald

McDonald, ladies and gentlemen. These

companies are lean and mean all right,

but the problem is the American workers have liens on their homes, without

means to pay the mortgages.

Where do we go from here? Four fifty

an hour. Congress, Ronald McDonald

does not have enough jobs to take care

of the American workers’ problems in

this country. Congress better take a

look at this new economy because

there is not a job left. I only pray to

God that these companies do not have

a record year; do you know what I

mean?

fb 1015

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

MEASURES

(Mr. CLINGER asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1

minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, the

American people are sick and tired of

lopsided elections that allow politicians to return to office year after year

regardless of their performance. The

overwhelming reelection advantages of

incumbents have left many American

voters feeling that entrenched politicians are rarely held accountable to

those they represent.

Many frustrated Americans have

identified term limits as a way of

bringing Government closer to the people, but the term limits movement has

been put on hold after its defeat in the

House and the Supreme Court decision

handed down this week.

If the 104th Congress wants to address the heart of the public’s concerns, we must adopt real campaign finance reform that improves the competitiveness of congressional races.

Today, I am reintroducing a series of

bills designed to level the playing field

between incumbent and challenger. My

four bills would reduce the influence of

special interest PAC’s, ban leadership

PAC’s, reinstate the tax credit for inState contributors, and require that

residents of a candidate’s district account for a clear majority of the candidate’s contributions.

If my colleagues want to restore public confidence in the election process,

improve membership turnover, and ensure elected representatives are held

more accountable to their constituents. I invite them to join me in cosponsoring these campaign finance reform measures.

ETHICS COMMITTEE ACTION

LOOKS LIKE A POLITICAL

fCOVERUP

(Mr. POMEROY asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1

minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, when

ethics charges are filed against a Member, the public has the right to have

the absolute assurance that the

charges are investigated and appropriate action taken. Appropriate action, as I see it, could even include dismissal of the charges and sanctions

against those who filed the charges if

they were found to be frivolous and

malicious.

I, therefore, cannot understand why

the Ethics Committee, on a party line

vote, rejected the call for an outside

counsel to investigate the charges currently pending against the Speaker of

the House, the gentleman from Georgia, NEWT GINGRICH. If the charges are

frivolous, no action could dispel the

stigma which presently exists more

clearly. If the charges are serious, then

each of us, regardless of party, ought

to support the appropriate handling of

them.

In the meantime, the public is thinking, I believe, if there is nothing to

hide, what is the problem with an outside counsel. Instead, the Ethics Committee action to date begins to look

like a political coverup of serious

charges. We will not restore confidence

in Government if this troubling problem continues to exist.

MEMBERS URGED TO SUPPORT

THE AMERICAN OVERSEAS INfTERESTS ACT

(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1

minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, the House

today is scheduled to continue our

work on the American Overseas Interests Act—a bill designed to reform and

reorganize and downsize our Nation’s

foreign affairs operations so that we

can better serve our international interests in the years ahead.

This bill cuts foreign aid spending by

$3 billion over 2 years and $21 billion

over 7 years, while serving our national

security needs and international economic interests, and providing humanitarian assistance for people who have

been hit by disaster and cannot provide

for themselves.

By maintaining support for the Camp

David accords, we are signaling the opponents of peace in the Middle East as

well as radical fundamentalists working to undermine other countries in

the Middle East that are friendly to

the United States, that our resolve to

stay the course remains firm.

Our international relations measure

punishes our adversaries by cutting off

aid to countries that provide weapons

to terrorist states and that consistently vote against us in the United Nations.

It is a sound bill, in the interests of

Government reform. I urge my colleagues to support it.

A 1988 QUOTATION BY THE CURRENT SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE

f(Mr. GUTIERREZ asked and was

given permission to address the House

for 1 minute and to revise and extend

his remarks.)

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I

would like to explain why the Speaker’s alleged ethics violations require a

full and thorough investigation.

But, I do not think I can say anything original.

Someone already said it best 7 years

ago here on the House floor.

Let me first read the quote from 1988,

and then you guess who said it.

I quote:

The rules normally applied by the Ethics

Committee to an investigation of a typical

Member are insufficient in an investigation

of the Speaker of the House * * * the second-most powerful elected position in America. Clearly this investigation has to meet a

higher standard of public accountability

* * * the integrity of the House is at stake.

OK—who said it? Sound familiar?

Well, here is a hint—he is from Georgia.

And, he has got a big office.

Yes, the speaker of that quote is the

current Speaker of the House: Congressman NEWT GINGRICH.

Well, here is a chance for the Speaker

to put his money where his mouth is—

or, at least, where it was.

Simply ask your hand-picked Ethics

Committee to select an outside counsel

with broad powers, just as you wanted

in 1988.

The moral is this: You have to live

by the words you speak, even when you

are the Speaker.

EIGHTY-ONE PERCENT OF AMERICANS WANT DRAMATIC CUTS IN

fFOREIGN AID

(Mr. BAKER of California asked and

was given permission to address the

House for 1 minute and to revise and

extend his remarks.)