Marty Meehan

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the motion to recommit from my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett). What we are trying to do here is condition tax relief that is in this bill for 527 organizations on their making simple disclosure as to where money comes from. Now I understand that there are some people that think we should not be doing this in this bill; we should have a campaign finance reform bill to deal with 527s. We did, and we passed the bill and abuses have continued. Let me remind the Members how we got a vote on campaign finance reform this year and in the last session. We walked over here, and we signed discharge petitions, and we got attention from all over the country from public interest groups. That is how we move campaign finance reform on the floor. Now what we are attempting to do here is look at how the Internal Revenue Code defines a 527. It is an organization that accepts contributions or makes expenditures for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election or appointment of an individual to any Federal, State or local public office. By definition, these self-527s exist to influence elections, and yet somehow opponents of reform insist that these ads funneled by these organizations, that mention candidates' names, that criticize their voting records, that are aired on the very heels of elections are not subject to disclosure laws. Now many of us debated campaign finance reform on the floor of this House and many of the opponents of reform, I recall the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) articulately coming down to this floor and saying disclosure is what we need; any ads that are meant to influence election, we should simply have disclosure. What have we seen happen across the country over the last several months? We have seen an explosion of these stealth 527s spending literally millions of dollars; and we do not know, the public does not know, where the money comes from. This is not a partisan issue. Just look at what happened to Senator McCain when his campaign started taking off across the country because people wanted reform, because people wanted change. What happened? Well, just as his campaign took off, these ads popped up questioning his environmental record, precisely at the time when he faces key primaries in New York and elsewhere. Was it just a coincidence that an issue discussion on his environmental record seemed to take off exactly when his candidacy was taking off? No, it was not a coincidence. This is an abuse, an abuse of the campaign finance laws. If we do not want to be partisan about it, we do not have to. Let us, both sides, agree to disclose any of these 527s, disclose where the money comes from. The problem is, under the law, they are not being disclosed. This is an abuse of the system. The time for action is now. At a minimum, and this motion to recommit by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) is a bare minimum, we should deny tax relief to 527s that do not disclose. It is as simple as that. Let us deny the tax relief to those who will not disclose.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) not only for his motion to recommit, but his commitment to this issue, as well as the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), who has done great work on this. What we are trying to do here is to get Members from both sides of the aisle to come together and at least say we are not going to give this tax break to those 527s. Now, I do not know why anyone would be confused or puzzled or nonplussed as to why we would use any opportunity in the rules to bring this to the attention of the Members. We cannot get a vote up or down on this. This is an abuse of the campaign finance law that we are seeing every day abused. This is our opportunity to do something about it. It is not good enough for Members to say we are all for disclosure. Talking the talk is not good enough. Walking the walk is what is required. In this instance, there are 527s that will not disclose where the money comes from, and it is our responsibility to make sure that they do, and that is why we need to pass this law and pass it now.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and I do so with no illusions about China's records on human rights, worker rights, and environmental protection. I will not pretend that China is where it should be on any of these fronts. In terms of economics, this is a one-way deal. We get significant reductions in barriers that stand in the way of the sale of American products in China. We give no greater access to America's markets for Chinese products than were provided for years and years. Economic benefits for the United States are not the only reality that confronts us today. Another reality is that isolating China will do not a thing to bring about a more just economic or political order there. The answer is not turning our back on China. The answer is pushing our democratic values upon China through commerce and communication with its citizens. This engagement will steer forces of individual inspiration and aspiration and initiative in China that will, in the long run, no authoritarian government can ever contain. There is a claim here that we have to choose between American prosperity and Chinese human rights. I say choose both. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 85th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. The actual date the anniversary will be observed is April 24, but I rise today while we are in session to pay my solemn respects to the innocent fallen and add my words to history's record of one of the most terrible tragedies known to mankind. On April 24, 1915, a group of Armenian religious, political, and intellectual leaders were arrested in the city then known as Constantinople, taken to the interior of Turkey, and murdered. What followed from there was nothing less than the systematic deprivation of Armenians living under Ottoman rule of their homes, property, freedom, and lives. The tragic toll of its dark period in world history includes the death of 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and children and the deportation of 500,00 others. Before their tragic deaths, countless Armenian women were subject to unspeakable cruelties, in the form of sexual abuse and slavery. History is not condemned to repeat itself. We can prevent future tragedies by acknowledging, remembering, and commemorating yesterday's tragedies. Unfortunately, the Turkish Government still refuses to admit its involvement in the Armenian Genocide, and even the current U.S. administration has not fully acknowledged the extent of the wrongdoing between 1915 and 1923. That is why we must make our voices heard. History's record must reflect the truth of what the Armenians experienced: mass murder and genocide. If it does not, only then are we condemned to a future littered with more instances of unspeakable wickedness and cruelty. My congressional district contains a large and vibrant Armenian- American community, which has contributed so much to the Merrimack Valley's economic vitality and culture. When today's Armenian-American community commemorates the Armenian Genocide, they convey the message to the world that only the continued vigilance of people of good conscience stands between peaceful human coexistence and another instance of genocide. My respect for my Armenian-American constituents and for their commitment to remembering past tragedy and preventing future tragedy compels me to rise and speak today. It compels me to add my voice to those who speak out against hatred and fear. It should compel us all to remember past horrors, lest they happen again.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Gun-Free Hospital Zone Act.'' A bill that will provide protection and peace of mind to doctors, nurses, patients, and administrative staffs of hospitals throughout the country. The need for this legislation was brought to my attention by my constituent, Bernadett Vajda, whose father, Janos, was tragically murdered at the Holy Family Hospital in Methuen, MA. Janos was simply visiting a hospital patient, Dr. Suzan Kamm, when he was attacked and shot to death by the estranged husband of Dr. Kamm. It is very easy to imagine how this bill would have saved Mr. Vajda's life. Had the gunman, Dr. James Kartell, been aware of the prohibition of firearms in a hospital, he would have not carried one with him that fateful day. And when Dr. Kartell reached the fourth floor of the hospital and approached the room where his estranged wife had been admitted, he would have been unarmed. What happened next, the chance encounter between Dr. Kartell and Mr. Vajda, would still have been emotional, potentially even resulted in violence, but without a gun at the scene, it almost certainly would not have resulted in murder. Unfortunately, we witness frustration expressed in workplace violence increasingly in our country. Whether it be the tragic shooting recently in Hawaii, the murders this summer in Atlanta, or the all too numerous acts of violence at post offices, we have become accustomed to seeing the image of the emotional employee who resorts to violence. Emotions run high at hospitals on a daily basis. Life and death decisions are made constantly in emergency rooms and hospitals throughout our country. In this atmosphere of heightened emotion and decreased logic, unthinking acts of violence are more likely and less preventable. This legislation deals with a very real issue, but do not just take my word for it, look at the statistics on workplace violence at hospitals. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, health care and social service workers have the highest incidence of injuries from workplace violence. Further, health care workers rank only behind convenience store clerks and taxi cab drivers in terms of workplace risk of homicide. Emergency room physicians and nurses are at special risk. According to the Emergency Nurses Association, 24 percent of emergency room staff are exposed to physical violence with a weapon 1-5 times a year. The rate of violence is increasing annually. In 1997, 7 percent of emergency room nurses reported that they have been subjected to between 1 and 10 physical incidents involving firearms in the workplace during the past year. One nurse from the Colorado Nurses Association reported that ``no hospital unit and no hospital--large or small, urban or rural--is immune'' from violent gun attacks. It is my goal to not only to make it less likely that tragic deaths like Mr. Vajda's occur, but also that nurses and doctors feel safer to do their jobs without worrying about whether the next person to walk in the emergency room door has a gun. For that reason, this legislation is supported by the medical professionals at Holy Family Hospital who hope never to experience a tragic incident like Mr. Vajda's death ever again.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am shocked and deeply saddened by the brutal assassinations of top Armenian officials this morning, as well as the continuing hostage crisis currently taking place in the Armenian Parliament. My heart goes out to the families of the victims and to all Armenians. We must not permit these senseless acts to hinder the progress made by Prime Minister Sarkisian and his late colleagues in furthering democracy in Armenian. In the face of these unspeakable atrocities, the United States must reaffirm its commitment to supporting the Republic of Armenia in her pursuit of a lasting democracy and enduring peace.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, Internet use and access is booming and competition among Internet service providers is finally beginning to offer consumers real choices. These developments make on-line communication easier, cheaper, and more reliable. Unfortunately, consumers have not yet fully realized the benefits of increased competition as was predicted with the passage of the Telecommunications Act. One way to give consumers these benefits is to let our local telephone companies enter into Internet competition. Permitting the Baby Bells to compete in Internet service will spur investment in technology by giving companies the incentive to upgrade their networks. Consumers will benefit by receiving faster Internet service through a greater choice of providers. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to consider legislation to give Internet consumers more access to the Internet.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, why in the world would anyone think it is a bad idea to have an adult with a young person that goes into a gun show to buy a gun? Why in the world would anybody think that it is okay for children in America to go into a gun show and get a gun without the requisite background checks? Why would anybody think that is okay? No one in this country thinks it is okay. Eighty-five percent of Americans say, why can we not do something about it? So I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, and the point that she brings up is just so valid. Who would ever think that was okay?

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her motion to instruct conferees in this issue. I have to say it is unacceptable, unconscionable that we have had one meeting in the conference committee as violence continues, as accidents with guns continue all across this country, and Congress does nothing. The fact of the matter is, in America today, 13 young children a day die as a result of gun violence. As I go across my District in Massachusetts and talk to students, talk to high school students, talk to young people, they say, why is it that we can have so many problems with guns in America? Why is it that we could let 6 months go by from the tragedy in Columbine High and have the Congress of the United States respond by doing nothing? We had a meeting of the conference committee, one meeting, and there was a discussion, and everybody sort of dug in. We have made zero progress. The other body stood up and took a vote on gun safety measures that are reasonable, that make sense. The time has come to enact this legislation. How frustrating it is to go back to my home district in Massachusetts and talk to the law enforcement community or to talk to the people that have been involved with the gun safety program in Boston, Massachusetts, a national model, and try to explain to them why we cannot get anything done in the Congress of the United States to send reasonable gun safety measures over to the President for his signature. I cannot help but think, Mr. Speaker, about the enormous influence of these special interests, whether it is the NRA or the other groups that are trying to prevent the Congress from doing the right thing in this legislation, and just to look to see the enormous influence that they have in making contributions to the political system that is in desperate need of reform as that issue is debated in the other body. How fortunate we could be if we could take away the special interests and make decisions based on the merits. The time has come for this Congress to take action. How many kids need to die before this Congress steps up to the plate and passes real gun safety legislation? We should be ashamed of the fact that we have let 6 months go by with the American public crying for action, crying for reasonable gun safety measures, but here we are capitulating, procrastinating, delaying. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for her motion, and I urge my colleagues to push the members of the conference committee to stop this delay and pass real meaningful gun safety legislation. All we have to do is look at the tragedies that happen across this country. How many more children need to die as a result of lack of reasonable gun safety measures before this Congress takes a stand? All my colleagues need to do is talk to the members of the school departments in their district, to talk to young people, to talk to law enforcement officials. The time has come for action, reasonable gun safety measures. So I urge the Congress to vote in favor of the Jackson-Lee motion to instruct conferees. I ask the Members of this body to move the conference committee ahead, and let us send this issue to the President within the next week or so. America is waiting for our action.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas on that. I guess the best evidence that I would present is the Boston gun safety tracing program that even the opponents of gun safety measures in the conference committee brought up the Boston program and said that is a model. Let us just enforce those laws that are on the books. The reality is that there are States, and Massachusetts is one of them, that are taking the initiative to go beyond what the Federal has. They have not waited for the Congress to act. Because if they waited for the Congress to act, under the Massachusetts gun safety laws, we would not have been able to institute the gun safety measures in Boston where guns that are used in the commission of a crime are being traced and those tracing those guns have enabled them to pull in more arrests, to reduce violence in Boston, to reduce violence in any of the jurisdictions where they have undertaken these gun safety projects. But we need to provide the tools for law enforcement to take those models across the country where they have worked to learn from those areas of the country where we have all actually been able to reduce violence with guns and use those procedures and use those law enforcement techniques across the country. One of the things we want to see in this bill passed is the resources to implement the tools of those areas where they are working so effectively. I heard members of the conference committee on both sides of the aisle talking about the areas of the country where gun safety measures have worked with law enforcement working with the schools and working with prosecutors, working with the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI. And I would suggest that that effort in Boston, a national model where violence with handguns and violence with guns have dramatically been reduced as a result of it, that is all we need to look at. The fact is, Massachusetts has enacted gun safety legislation that Federal law enforcement officers have been able to use to make that program so effective. So I think that if we look at those national models, then it is clear to see that we have an enormous opportunity to reduce gun violence measures simply by giving law enforcement the tools that they need.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Jackson-Lee amendment. If passed and enacted, the class action bill is going to provide significant protections to corporate defendants against class action lawsuits and no industry will benefit more than the tobacco industry. I think it is somewhat ironic that here we are today and the Justice Department has announced that they are filing a civil lawsuit seeking billions and billions of dollars' worth of damage for the taxpayers of this country, the attorneys general from around the States have negotiated a settlement worth another $250 billion, the courts are going in the direction of holding the tobacco companies accountable for decades of duplicity; and what are we doing in this House? We are going in the opposite direction. We are saying, that is okay when it comes to big tobacco. The tobacco companies win whenever there is a debate in this House, but the people in America lose. And when we go into the courts, the only place where we have been able to level the playing field, the sponsors of this legislation want to give a special carve-out to the tobacco industry. Currently, most tobacco class action litigation occur in State court since the plaintiffs' claims against the industry typically involve State law claims. However, this bill would allow the tobacco companies to remove these cases from State courthouses all across the country, giving the industry back-door immunity from lawsuits. Not surprisingly, the tobacco industry has long sought to remove State class actions from Federal court. The industry knows the rules of the games of certifying classes and maintaining class actions are more favorable to corporate defendants in Federal courts than in State courts. So the tobacco companies want to have their way. They want to be able to go into Federal court and defeat class actions on procedural grounds. Now, in the last Congress, the tobacco industry sought a complete ban on class actions and these provisions were widely criticized by the public health community and rejected in the Senate. By severely limiting State class actions, this bill will provide the tobacco industry with special protection from civil class action liability, which is exactly what the Congress and the health community has already rejected. Even if we support the changes to the class action laws that are in this bill, it makes sense to make sure that the tobacco industry is held accountable. We are at a pivotal point in time in our history in terms of holding the tobacco company accountable. It is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. Over 400,000 people a year die as a result of tobacco-related illnesses. The least we can do, the least we can do, is give the American people who have been victims through negligence of the tobacco companies their opportunity to join together and fight big tobacco. The fight against big tobacco is not going to be won, unfortunately, on the floor of this House. But Americans across this country, at a minimum, should have the ability and the right to go into court and State class actions to hold these tobacco companies accountable. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee).

Mr. MEEHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say that that is very easy.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment addresses, really, the central point of this debate: Is this a bill about banning all kinds of class actions, or is this debate really about making a change in the diversity rules? The proponents of this bill argue that this bill represents a minor change in the rules of civil procedure and has no impact on the meritorious class action lawsuits. The way the bill is drafted, however, belies that claim. Instead, it would prohibit the formation of almost all State class actions. This amendment would correct that problem by only permitting the defendant to remove a class action suit to Federal court once. If it is removed and does not receive Federal certification, then the class can go forward with their class action on the State level if and only if they succeed in receiving certification under the rules of that particular State. By ending the possibility of repeated removals, this amendment ends the merry-go-round of removals and preserves meritorious State claims actions. Without this amendment, almost no class actions would be able to form on the State level without defendants being able to repeatedly whisk them away to Federal court. The goal of this legislation is supposed to be a technical change to the diversity jurisdiction rules, not a preclusion of all class action lawsuits. Unfortunately, the way this bill is drafted clearly demonstrates that it intends to preclude class actions, not simply correct diversity jurisdiction problems. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a leader in our effort to pass campaign finance reform. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), a leader in the effort to pass meaningful campaign finance reform.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) who, when she got elected in the last session, the very first bill when she got elected to take the place of her husband in the Congress was a sign-on to the Shays-Meehan bill.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a leader in our effort to pass campaign finance reform in a bipartisan way.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. The previous speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) talked about Bradley and Gore and all of these government centrists, liberals. Let me cite from an opinion in McIntyre versus Ohio Board of Elections by a couple of real regulators, Justice Scalia and Rehnquist. The First Amendment provides that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea. The disclosure law here by contrast forbids the expression of no idea, but merely requires identification of the speaker when the idea is uttered in the electoral context. That is Scalia and Rehnquist. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers).

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each of us has remaining?

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds. Mr. Chairman, this is really the crux of the frustration with getting campaign finance reform passed. I respect the gentleman from Kansas, and the gentleman got up and said that we had a Beck decision, which was a court decision that said the unions could not use their union dues to go to political advertisements, and then he criticized the Clinton administration for not enforcing the Beck decision. Well, guess what? The Shays-Meehan legislation codifies the Beck decision. It puts it into law. So if we think the Clinton administration ought to enforce the Beck decision, then vote for Shays- Meehan, because we codify the legislation. So I think if Members, with all due respect, would look at this legislation, they would find that this is not Democratic legislation, it is not Republican legislation. It represents both sides sitting down and working together, and that is the reason why the Shays-Meehan legislation codifies the Beck decision, and that is why the gentleman from Kansas should vote for this legislation for fairer elections.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. The gentleman from Kansas was talking about those monies that go to people who are part of a union that go to campaigns and they have a right to say, we do not want it to go to those campaigns. That is precisely what it is. The gentleman complained about the Clinton administration not enforcing the Beck decision, but he should vote for Shays-Meehan. Let us make it the law of the land.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), one of the outstanding leaders of the freshman class of the last Congress.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding this time to me. Members of the House have a unique opportunity today to make a real difference and to pass campaign finance reform, legislation that is long overdue. As my colleagues know, we have had lots of disagreements between Democrats and Republicans about how to determine tax policy, what to do with the surplus, a patients' bill of rights, education reform and what to do to improve education across our country. Finally today we have an issue that Democrats and Republicans can agree on. There were 50 to 60 Republicans who supported this legislation in the last Congress. We got 251 votes from Members of this House in the last Congress. This is our opportunity today to pass real comprehensive campaign finance reform, to make soft money illegal, illegal because it is a loophole that came out of the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1974 and has had a corrupting influence on presidential elections in this country. Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough to just stand up and have hearings and spend millions of dollars talking about the abuses in the last campaign and then do nothing about it. It is just not good enough to have hearings and create an environment where Democrats attack Republicans, Republicans attack Democrats, on the abuses in the last campaign and then do nothing about it. Today is the day. Today is the day when the votes are going to be counted and we are going to determine who is for campaign finance reform and who is not. During the course of this debate there are a number of what we call ``poison pill amendments,'' amendments that are designed to do nothing but kill this unique coalition that has been established. I urge the Members of this House to see through these amendments and recognize them for what they are, nothing more than an attempt by the opponents of campaign finance reform to kill this legislation. Let us kill these amendments, and let us pass comprehensive campaign finance reform today.