Marty Meehan

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, 5 million kids who are now under the age of 18 are likely to die from smoking-related illness. Decisive Federal action is needed now to address the historically high levels of smoking among our Nation's children. Yet, this Congress is on the verge of waiving the Federal Government's portion of the tobacco settlement monies to the States without ensuring that any of these funds be spent to protect our kids. We are simply closing our eyes to the number one preventable cause of death in America. That is unacceptable. Frankly, I am not surprised. Big tobacco gave an astonishing $4.5 million in soft money contributions to the Republican party during the 1997-1998 elections cycle, effectively killing the leading tobacco reform legislation. The fact of the matter is that public health groups simply cannot compete with big tobacco when it comes to soft money contributions. The pro-tobacco language in the supplemental bill is just another example of what happens when we allow big money to talk louder than kids' lives on Capitol Hill.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the following in the Record. Today, I have the privilege of reintroducing legislation that honors the legacy of Paul E. Tsongas, one of the outstanding leaders of our time from Massachusetts. I must commend a good friend of mine and former colleague, Joe P. Kennedy II, for sponsoring this legislation in the 105th Congress. In the 106th Congress, I commit myself to ensuring the passage of the Paul E. Tsongas Fellowship Act to serve as a lasting memorial to this great man. Always a visionary, Paul Tsongas dedicated himself to strengthening our nation's economy through technological innovation and protecting the environment for future generations. As the inheritor of Tsongas' seat in the House of Representatives, I can think of no more fitting tribute to his legacy than to establish in his name doctoral fellowships for the study of the global energy and environmental challenges of the 21st century. Many in Congress remember Paul Tsongas as an often solitary voice of caution, warning about saddling our children and our children's children with a mountain of debt. But his vision did not begin and end with budget deficits. In announcing his candidacy for the Presidency in 1992, he outlined a much broader conception of intergenerational responsibility, saying ``Just as we reach back to our ancestors for our fundamental values, so we, as guardians of that legacy, must reach ahead to our children and their children * * * That sense of sacredness, must begin with a reverence for this earth. This land, this water, this air, this planet--this is our legacy to our young.'' Paul spent much of his career in public service making this vision of resource conservation a reality. He not only restored a run-down neighborhood park in our hometown of Lowell, Massachusetts, but he also established the first urban park in our city. He also led efforts to preserve the historic lands and water of Walden Woods and helped to create the Cape Cod Commission, which is dedicated to protecting our open space. Paul's concern for the environment did not end in Massachusetts, however. He was a national leader in securing the enactment of the Alaska Lands Act of 1980, a law that essentially doubled the size of our National Park and Wildlife Refuge Systems. Tsongas understood the value of investing in human resources, as well. He often articulated the need to foster scientific achievement and innovation, which he saw as critical to keeping our nation's economy strong. Our nation needs a pool of scientists and engineers with the intellect of Einstein and the public spirit and vision of Paul Tsongas to surmount the environmental and energy challenges posed by the 21st century. Towards that end, the Paul E. Tsongas Fellowship Act would allow aspiring physicists, chemists, mathematicians, and computer scientists to enhance their skills through graduate education so they may become the pioneers of tomorrow. Furthermore, I am convinced that the fellowships in Tsongas' name will elicit a strong sense of intergenerational responsibility among the recipients. Mr. Speaker, Paul Tsongas serves as a great inspiration to individuals who will dedicate their lives to advancing technology and environmental protection. A wise investment in our country's future, the Paul E. Tsongas Fellowship Act honors the memory of one of the finest persons ever to serve this institution.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I insert the following letters into the Record. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, April 15, 1999. Ms. Carol Shestok, Norman E. Day Elementary School, Westford, Massachusetts. Dear Ms. Shestok: Congratulations on being honored as one of the top teachers in Massachusetts. This is a well deserved reward for your special ability to really make a difference in the lives of your students at Norman E. Day Elementary School in Westford. Too often, talented teachers go unrewarded for the valid work that they do. That is why I am so pleased that you were deservedly honored for all the attention, care and dedication that you have given to your students. Again, congratulations on your recent honors. Sincerely, Marty Meehan, Member of Congress.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Conyers- Nadler-Meehan-Berman substitute bankruptcy amendment. There have been debates on bankruptcy reform both last session and this year. I have been alarmed by the rise in the number of consumer bankruptcies in this country and have been convinced that changes need to be made in the bankruptcy system. We can all agree that debtors should be obliged to pay more of their debts to their creditors. I fully support the concept of means testing to determine which debtors can pay at least some of their debts. In fact, last year I offered a means test amendment to the bankruptcy bill that would have done just that. Today I am a cosponsor of this substitute bill, which includes a key provision, an improved means test, over the one used in the underlying bill. The means test used in H.R. 833 uses an elaborate standard in tests to determine which debtors would be shifted to Chapter 13 and which would remain in Chapter 7. In all of those convoluted and exacting calculations, the test leaves out one fundamental element: Fairness. The bankruptcy system was designed to provide a fresh start for those who have fallen on hard times, frequently through little fault of their own. Let us look at who is declaring bankruptcy. In 1997, 280,000 older Americans filed for bankruptcy, two-thirds due to an unsuspected illness or job loss. 300,000 bankruptcy cases involved child support or alimony orders, as women could not collect what they were owed or tried to stabilize their post-divorce economic condition. We can all agree that these debtors are entitled to a fresh start and should not be forced to repay their debts for the rest of their lives and beyond by leaving debts for their heirs. This substitute provides fairness by including a realistic means test which takes into account the real world circumstances of the debtor. Yet the amendment ensures that debtors who can repay their debts will repay their debts. Unlike the underlying bill, this amendment also understands that blame should not be solely shouldered by the debtors. This amendment considers the fact that the increasing availability of consumer credit corresponds with the increased number of bankruptcy filings. Moving more debtors into repayment plans, even if done correctly, is not the sole solution to the increased number of bankruptcies. Credit card applications with large limits are routinely sent to the poor, to college students, to family pets, and even dead people, and this significantly contributes to the number of bankruptcies. In 1997, over 250,000 Americans filed for bankruptcy before their 25th birthday; 250,000. How can people so young have a line of credit so large that they cannot repay it? Because credit card companies are sending them all kinds of promises for spring break if they put it on a credit card. Mr. Chairman, let us have fair bankruptcy reform.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 84th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide that took place this past weekend at points across the country. The events that took place between 1915 to 1923, when 1.5 million Armenian men, women and children were systematically mistreated and killed, represent one of the most dark and the most devastating chapters in human history. Armenians were tortured, had their property confiscated, and thousands died from malnutrition and starvation during long, forced marches from their homeland in Eastern Turkey. Tragically, the 20th century is now finishing much like it started. The Armenian Genocide not only foreshadowed the nightmare of the Nazi Holocaust, but now shows dangerous parallels to the situation unfolding in Kosovo. Like the Armenian before them, ethnic Albanians are struggling for their dignity and their lives. That is why it is more critical than ever to revisit history, to listen and learn from the Armenian experience, and to honor the victims of the first genocide of this century. I am amazed that the Turkish government still refuses to admit its involvement in the atrocities, while at the same time our own government has yet to acknowledge the full extent of the genocide that occurred. When a tragedy of this magnitude takes place, it is our duty to face all the uncomfortable truths and to ensure that the story is not forgotten. History holds valuable lessons for us as we enter the new millennium. ``Who remembers the Armenian?'' asked Adolf Hitler as he unleashed his wrath upon the Jews. This collective amnesia proved devastating. Fortunately, the answer is clear. We remember the Armenians. We remember the suffering of their people and will not allow their memories to fade. I proudly represent a large and vibrant Armenian community in my district in Massachusetts. Every year survivors of the Armenian Genocide and their descendants make public and vivid the hidden details of the Armenian Genocide as they participate in commemoration ceremonies in Boston, Lowell, and other areas in the Merrimack Valley. These same Armenian-Americans have made great contributions to society through a wide range of professions, and have significantly enriched the cultural life of the 5th District. Out of respect for them and for Armenians all over the world, let us renew our commitment here today that the American people will oppose any and all instances of genocide. We refuse to once again watch from afar, as the ethnic cleansing and genocide that ravaged the Armenians now plagues the people Kosovo. Our unified voices and actions must be strong and unequivocal. Violence born out of hatred and fear will never again be tolerated.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 193. I would like to thank my colleagues in the House from both parties, and in particular the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for his cooperation not only this year but the last session as well. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chair of the Committee on Resources; the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller); and the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) in particular for all of their efforts and continuing support of this legislation. H.R. 193 will amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate portions of the Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord Rivers in Massachusetts as ``wild and scenic.'' This designation will protect these rivers from Federal projects that would otherwise have direct and adverse impacts on the free-flowing character of those rivers. My constituents from Sudbury, Wayland, Lincoln, Concord, Carlisle and Billerica, and others from Framingham and Bedford, have invested an enormous amount of time and energy and effort in securing wild and scenic status for portions of these three beautiful rivers. With the help of the National Park Service and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, they completed a congressionally authorized study that demonstrated the rivers' exemplary characteristics and recommended them for wild and scenic designation. This legislation is a product of a grassroots movement that started over a decade ago. All eight towns bordering the rivers have voiced unanimous support for the designation through numerous town meeting votes. They have also approved the river conservation plan that will guide the rivers' management. It is important to note, as the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) has, that H.R. 193 explicitly precluded any Federal taking of private land. Mr. Speaker, the Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord Rivers have been cherished by Massachusetts residents for hundreds of years and are known throughout the New England region for their exceptional scenic, ecological, recreational and historic value. The historical significance of events along these rivers goes back to the American Revolution, as their banks served as a Revolutionary War battleground. Today, people come from all over the country to visit the Old North Bridge on the Concord River where the famous ``shot heard around the world'' was fired. This confrontation sent British troops into retreat and back to Boston in an event that would take on global significance in man's universal struggle for liberty. American poets, novelists and philosophers such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau have drawn inspiration over the years from these rivers, which were featured in many of their works. Over 100 years ago, Nathaniel Hawthorne eloquently wrote, ``Rowing our boat against the current, between wide meadows, we turn aside into the Assabet. A more lovely stream than this, for a mile above its junction with the Concord, has never flowed on Earth.'' Nowhere indeed, except to lave the interior of a poet's imagination.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bill.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, my God, what kind of country are we becoming? What kind of institution are we becoming? This process of impeaching the President of the United States has been partisan right from the start. An Independent Counsel spends 4\1/2\ years investigating a President and sends a one-sided report to the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Republican members of that committee put their stamp of approval on it in very, very partisan hearings and send it to this body. One party should not have the power to impeach a President of the other party. It's wrong. How can they do it? Both parties have to participate if we are going to impeach a President of this country. And at the same time one party is going to impeach a President of the other party, our men and women are engaged in active combat at this hour. This couldn't wait until Monday? God help our country. God help America.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, to go back to the last speaker, let me refer to Monica Lewinsky's grand jury testimony: ``No one asked me to lie, no one offered me a job for my silence.'' You do not impeach a president because of guesswork, or inferences, or what he might have said, what he could have said, who might have said something. That is the evidence. You do not impeach a president based on this lack of evidence.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, just for the Record, Judge Webber Wright ruled on 3 separate occasions that the Lewinsky matter was not relevant to the core legal issues in the Paula Jones case; 3 separate rulings, not material to the core underlying legal issues.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, if it is so clear that the President committed perjury, I wonder why the members of the Committee on the Judiciary did not tell us which words were perjurious. I am a former prosecutor. If anyone is charged in America with perjury they have to specifically say what was perjury. We did not do it in this case.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I feel I need to respond to the gentleman from Wisconsin who totally misrepresented the President's grand jury testimony. He said that the President did not admit to sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. In the grand jury testimony he admitted the inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky. I wish he had done it earlier, but he clearly did it then. He did not give prosecutors all the details. The only conflict in the testimony between the President and Monica Lewinsky is when and where the President touched Monica Lewinsky. Now, let's be serious. Are my colleagues ready to send over to the United States Senate a trial on impeachment about when and where the President touched Monica Lewinsky? That is what this case is about.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, to respond to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), every single charge that is made by the majority was responded to in our minority report. That is number one. Secondly, only under this system, with the majority railroading this president, could we have a system where someone is accused of perjury, and they will not even tell us which words are perjurious. Nowhere in America could they ever charge someone with perjury and not tell them what they said. Finally, there is no judicial proceeding anywhere in this country where we would not have a witness, a material witness, come before the bar; nowhere but under their majority.

Mr. MEEHAN. Everything was challenged in the report.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to respond. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) just said that we gave the President an opportunity to call witnesses, to prove his innocence. Since when is the burden of proof in this country on the person being accused? You have the obligation to provide a case before the Committee on the Judiciary, and you did not provide a single material witness in this case. Not one witness. And then they get up before this House and say the President had an opportunity to bring witnesses to prove his innocence. You had the obligation to provide the witnesses that would have proved the charges before this House, and you did not provide one witness.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of the House's role in this dreadful process, the words I want to leave with my colleagues are those of history. Here is how one prominent historian describes the impeachment of Andrew Johnson: ``The impeachment was a great act of ill-directed passion, and was supported by little else. It was rather like an immense balloon filled with foul air, the most noisome elements of which were those most active.'' I am sick at heart today, for I fear that the words used to describe the Johnson impeachment will come to characterize what this House is about to do. Impeachment based not on reason, but on rancor. Yet it is not history's verdict alone that I fear. I also fear how our actions will shape history. Will the House now have license to engage in free-wheeling speculation about how a President's private wrongs bear upon his or her capacity to govern, and then to pursue the removal of those whom it deems unfit? If so, I fear for the very concept that Presidents are to be chosen directly by the people, not by the legislature. Will the vote over whether or not to impeach the President of the United States now display the same degree of partisan division that our votes on school vouchers and environmental riders have? If so, I fear that generations to come will view impeachment to be of no greater gravity than those lesser issues. Will censure now be derided as unconstitutional? If so, I fear that that precedent will gag the House when it desires to express its formal opinion on another subject on another day. Will an Independent Counsel's fact-finding be the sole record upon which the House votes to impeach a president? If so, I fear for future presidents of either party whose tenure in office might be threatened by the sort of overreaching that we have all accused independent counsels at one time or another. Will we now compel the ship of State in one direction while the rudder of popular opinion clearly points in the opposite direction? If so, I fear for the notion that consensus among the public counts for something when this House takes up the gravest of matters of State. I fear for our Republic on this dreadful day. I fear for America today.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and the underlying decision to strike military targets in Iraq. Since the end of the gulf war, Saddam Hussein has done everything in his power to continue to amass and produce weapons of mass destruction. He is a threat to our country, and indeed, the world. Ambassador Richard Butler has now concluded that UNSCOM can no longer effectively conduct weapons inspections in Iraq because of the obstacles Saddam has placed in its path. Clearly Saddam's defiance of the international community knows no bounds. He has left us with no choice but to use force. To my colleagues who have questioned the President's motives in the midst of this crisis, shame on them. Shame on them for breaking the longstanding tradition that leaves party politics at our Nation's shores. They have set yet another dangerous precedent. Shame on you for playing into the hands of Saddam, who clearly staged his latest act of defiance to coincide with the impeachment process. You have empowered our Nation's enemy. Instead of playing petty partisan politics, I hope my friends across the aisle heed the words of John McCain, a war hero and a leading expert on national security: I believe it was essential to support the President. Here, domestically, I think the American people have the ability to divide the two issues because they are very separate. Mr. Speaker, a majority of the American people not only support the President's decision but also discount the reckless and irresponsible accusations of an ulterior motive. I hope that we can do the same in this Chamber.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, this debate is as important for what it is not about as for what it is about. It is not about whether to conduct an inquiry. Both the Democratic and Republican resolutions would initiate an inquiry. It is not about who has been more faithful to the Watergate precedent. Neither side is pure on that subject. What this debate is about is whether the Committee on the Judiciary will take up Whitewater, Travelgate, and Filegate, without a shred of paper from the Independent Counsel on this subject. It is about whether the committee will commence a fullscale impeachment hearing without asking itself, as a threshold matter, whether even Ken Starr's best case compels impeachment. If Members can somehow convince themselves that after 4\1/2\ years and nearly $50 million in taxpayers' money, that Ken Starr has been less than aggressive in pursuing Whitewater, Travelgate, and Filegate, then Members should vote for the Republican resolution which authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary to take them up even without a referral from Kenneth Starr. If Members believe that the committee should avoid the question of whether even Ken Starr's best case compels impeachment, and, instead, plunge blindly into a month-long evidentiary fiasco, then they should vote for the Republican resolution. How is it in our Nation's best interest to initiate an impeachment inquiry which willfully blinds itself to the numerous constitutional scholars that say that even Ken Starr's best case does not compel impeachment? At this time of global political and economic turmoil, it is in our Nation's interest to deal with the Lewinsky matter fairly and expeditiously. Only the Democratic alternative would do that. So please, let us put the national interest above partisanship. I ask Members to vote their conscience, vote for the Democratic alternative, and against the Republican resolution.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the stirring and insightful remarks of Lowell Police Officer Gerry Flynn at a White House Rose Garden event yesterday, on the importance of preserving and strengthening the Federal Brady Law. Officer Flynn spoke eloquently about the price we pay as a society when guns find their way into the wrong hands and the need to extend the Brady five-day waiting period. I congratulate Officer Flynn for the honor bestowed upon him in being invited to speak at the White House in front of the President, and I congratulate him upon seizing that opportunity to do the entire city of Lowell proud. I am submitting Officer Flynn's White House remarks for the Record, so that his words may remain with all of us. Statement of Lowell Police Officer Gerry Flynn at the White House on the Brady Handgun Law Good morning. As National Vice-President of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers (IBPO) and President of the Lowell Police Patrolmen's Association, it is truly an honor and a privilege to be here with you this morning. On behalf of those of us in law enforcement, it gives me great pleasure to speak in support of an issue of such enormous importance as ``The Brandy Handgun Law.'' Robert F. Kennedy once said, ``It is a responsibility to put away childish things, to make the possession and use of firearms a matter undertaken only by serious people who will use them with the restraint and maturity that their dangerous nature deserves and demands. For far too long, we have dealt with these deadly weapons as if they were harmless toys. It is past time that we wipe this stain of violence from our land.'' Yet, thirty years after his death by a handgun, we are still attempting to wipe the stain of violence from our land--except the stain of violence has now spread into the classrooms occupied by our children. Today, in every city in this country, there are children in schools with handguns. Children who are exposed to violence on a daily basis, children who feel they need protection more than they need an education. Children who should be enjoying life rather than taking one. ``The Brady Handgun Law'' provides hope for these children and their families. For those who say that ``The Brady Law'' infringes on the rights of the American people to keep and bear arms; ask them what right does any American have to go into ``The House of the People'' and kill two brave men. For those who say that ``The Brady Law'' is too costly to the American taxpayer; ask them what price would they pay to ensure that their families would not have to endure what the families of Capitol Police Officers Jacob J. Chestnut and John Gibson have endured. For those who say ``The Brady Law'' is too confining and restricts would-be gun owners; ask them if they believed restrictions are more confining than the one Jim and Sarah Brady deal with on a daily basis. In closing, I concur with Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL.) when he states, ``We cannot allow the gun lobby to override those in law enforcement and endanger American families.'' We must continue to have a mandatory waiting period which allows local police departments throughout the country to conduct their own background checks. Currently, over 95% of this nation's law enforcement officers use this system on a voluntary basis because we know the waiting period provision contained in the original ``Brady Law'' saves lives! However, this November an amendment sponsored by the NRA, shall mark a change in ``The Brady Law's'' waiting period. For those of us on the Lowell Police Department this November shall also mark the hollow 20th anniversary of the last Lowell Police Officer killed in the line of duty. He too was killed by a handgun, while responding to an armed robbery at a pharmacy. So, Mr. President, Members of Congress, on behalf of slain Lowell Police Officer Christos G. Rouses and my two fallen brothers from the Capitol Police, we urge you to support this legislation in order to extend ``The Brady Law's'' waiting period. Thank you and God bless the United States of America.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, let me first of all say to my colleague from California (Mr. Farr), it seems like it was not that long ago when you and I came to this House, and one of the first things that we did was sat down and worked on campaign finance reform. And if one looks at over a period of the last few years, we have spent literally hours upon hours, days upon days, that have become weeks upon weeks, months upon months, trying to work out a bill that we would be able to get a majority for. I just want to compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) for his commitment on this issue, his unwavering commitment. I know that as we are on the verge, I hope today, of passing campaign finance reform with the Shays-Meehan bill, I want to make it clear we would not be here at this point in time if it were not for the commitment that the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) has had to campaign finance reform. The legislation that I cosponsored, I voted for, I believe my colleague from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has voted for this legislation on occasion, is an important comprehensive piece of legislation. Many of the provisions that are in the bill are provisions that were in the Meehan-Shays, Shays-Meehan comprehensive bill, when we talk about trying to find incentives, voluntary spending limits, to keep the cost of Congressional elections down. The way that this bill would do it would be to provide incentives through low cost television advertisement and provide low cost mailings. The money for the low-cost mailings would come from franking, not allowing franking during election years. The money we would save there would help pay for congressional campaign mailings to go out. This is a good bill and it is a strong bill. It is a bill that I have always supported. It is a bill that has been an integral part of all of the conversations and dialogue that we have had over the last few years about campaign finance reform. The great thing about the Shays-Meehan legislation is that the commission bill that has been added to the Shays-Meehan bill is a great vehicle for us to push forward with many of the comprehensive ideas for reform that we have. Specifically, when are we going to do something about the high cost of running congressional campaigns in this country? This is a great opportunity for us to do that. We cannot deal with the expensive cost of running for political office if we do not deal with the cost of television. We have passed telecommunications legislation, we have passed a number of bills that will mean big money for television networks, and they use the public airways. There is no reason why we cannot come to an agreement of a system to provide low-cost television for those candidates who are willing to agree to spending limits. I think that is what the American people are looking for, I think that is what most of the public interest groups that have been fighting for campaign finance reform believe in, and ultimately, I believe that this is the type of system that we are headed to. I believe that the support of the gentleman from California (Mr. Sam Farr) and others have us at a point in time where we are on the verge of making a historic vote today, a vote that could result in the passage of campaign finance reform. However, I also think it is important that we have this discussion and dialogue today, because when it comes time to make the further improvements that we need to make in our election system, we have to look to this legislation and its provisions on capping, voluntarily capping the amount of money that is spent for limiting political action committees. I think this goes a long way towards where we need to move as a country. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Sam Farr) for all of his commitment to campaign finance reform. Some people will never know how much time has been put into this effort.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this year's freshman class, the Democratic freshman class, and I compliment them on their commitment to passing campaign finance reform. Here we are on the verge of this historic vote, and as I look over, I see the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Jim Davis), and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Tom Allen), and the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Bob Weygand), and the freshmen Members who have worked so hard on this bill for so long. I think of the hours that we put in debating the pros and cons of different provisions in our legislation. It is really a warm feeling to think that here we are, we are going to pass a bill. Now, I hope it is the Shays-Meehan bill, but I want to compliment the ability of the freshman class to work in a bipartisan way, the ability of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hal Ford), and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Vic Snyder), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Allen Boyd), and so many of the Democratic freshmen to work hard, diligently, to get us to a point in time where not only we are finally getting a debate and a vote on campaign finance reform, but we are going to make a real difference by advocating tirelessly for reform. The result is going to be that we are going to send a bill over to the other body, and the freshmen Democrats ought to be recognized for their outstanding efforts. I also rise today in opposition to the Hutchinson-Allen legislation, because I think we have a unique opportunity to pass a stronger bill, the Shays-Meehan substitute. And due to the structure of the debate, a vote for the Hutchinson-Allen bill would be a vote against the Shays- Meehan bill. We have a bill that would definitely end the million dollar contributions that have funneled through the parties. It would also end the sham issue ads that influence Federal elections. Why? Because our legislation would not allow States to funnel unlimited money into Federal races. Moreover, the Shays-Meehan bill reins in those sham issue ads that ought to qualify as campaign ads. Another major loophole is this whole issue of undisclosed corporate money. We can do better. The Shays-Meehan legislation will do that. Mr. Chairman, I can honestly tell my colleagues that the Shays-Meehan legislation will cut the ties between unlimited contributions and the legislative process. I cannot draw the same conclusion about the Hutchinson substitute. Therefore, I cannot, in good conscience, endorse the freshman bill. But I think it is important, as we reach this critical hour, that we recognize the Members of the Democratic freshman class who signed the discharge petition to enable us to have this debate and this vote; who stood tall with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Chris Shays), myself, and the other Democratic Members, who got an outstanding 237 majority in this House on Monday evening, and those Members who, I believe, will stand tall in sending the Shays-Meehan bill over to the other body so that we can get real campaign finance reform. I congratulate Members of the freshman class and look forward to having them join with me at the end of this debate in making sure we send to the Senate the Shays-Meehan legislation.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank my colleague from Massachusetts, another outstanding member of the freshman class dedicated to reform, for offering this alternative. In a perfect world, the Congress would pass a measure like the Tierney substitute. The Tierney proposal would provide full public subsidies as well as free broadcast time to Federal candidates. If you really look at our election system to the extent that we are able to reduce the amount of private money and remove private money from elections and instead have public funding, that is the cleanest way to have an election. The other thing that is critical with this proposal is the fact that it looks at broadcast time. If we look around the country, it is obvious to see that the reason congressional campaigns and Senate campaigns and presidential campaigns are increasing, the costs are increasing dramatically, it is because of television time. One of the things that my partner from Connecticut in working on our legislation, the Shays-Meehan bill, one of the things that we worked on with trying to get in our comprehensive bill was a way to get incentives for people to agree to spending caps and provide incentives by cutting the cost of television. So I think my colleague from Massachusetts gets directly at the heart of what is corrupting campaigns in America. I think in a more perfect Congress, all campaign finance proposals would include a public financing element, because only when we take this private money out of the system will the ties between money and legislating be conclusively severed. My colleague's substitute is also important because I think it highlights the importance of the commission made in order by the Shays- Meehan bill. There are a lot of great ideas in this House of Representatives for changes we ought to make in our campaign finance system. Added by an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell ), two other heroes of reform in this Congress, the commission provision of the Shays-Meehan bill will give the Congress an opportunity to consider other important reform proposals like the Tierney proposal for public financing, for free air time and for all of the proposals that we think may help to lessen the influence of special interests in congressional elections across this country. I know that my friend from Massachusetts has worked diligently within the freshman class on campaign finance reform. I want to say, there are so many freshman Members of this House, so many who have been so dedicated to campaign finance reform, I want to make it clear, we would not be where we are today, on the verge of passing historic campaign finance reform, if it were not for the efforts of the gentleman from Massachusetts and the other freshman Members from throughout this country who have stood with us, stood with us on reform, worked with us on proposals, supported the Shays-Meehan legislation and made it a priority. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his commitment on this issue.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to an issue of individual liberty, an issue at the heart of the amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). Specifically, I want to talk about the liberty to pursue any field of employment at which one excels. Some people around here seem to believe that this liberty should not exist with respect to gays, lesbians and bisexuals. This belief is so misguided, so contrary to our Nation's ideals, and so outside the mainstream, that its proponents have felt the need to justify it with untruth after red herring after misrepresentation. We hear that forbidding discrimination against Federal civilian workers on the basis of their sexual orientation grants special rights to homosexuals. We hear that forbidding such discrimination protects misconduct on the job. I half expect to soon hear that protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination in the workplace is responsible for global warming and ethnic conflict in the Middle East. All of these claims are designed to distract us from the key question at hand. Do Members believe it is acceptable for gays and lesbians and bisexuals who perform their jobs well to be fired from their jobs solely on the basis of their sexual orientation? I say absolutely not.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman from Arkansas's amendment. When we get a letter from the Attorney General of the United States, stating that certain legislative language would ``chill law enforcement and impede the ability of the [Justice] Department to enforce the laws that Congress has mandated it enforce,'' you would think that it would give us pause. When we get a letter from the National District Attorneys Association, calling certain legislative language ``extremely counterproductive,'' you would think that we would at least want to take the time to analyze the implications of that language carefully before proceeding. And when we get a letter from the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, characterizing certain legislative language as ``ill-conceived and unnecessary,'' you would think that we would want the committee with oversight jurisdiction to hold hearings on that language and then debate amendments during mark-up, before we passed on it. But here we are, set to pass a Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill containing far-reaching language scorned by much of the law enforcement community, and the House Judiciary Committee hasn't held a hearing or mark-up on it during this Congress! That is simply not the way to deal with the complex and controversial subject of prosecutorial ethics. If we're hearing in letters and phone calls from prosecutors that the language struck by the Hutchinson amendment would result in the disruption of multi-jurisdictional drug and gang cases and the disclosure of confidential information about ongoing investigations, then I think that the Judiciary Committee should be hearing from them in actual hearings during this Congress before we proceed. We owe at least that courtesy to the people whom we charge with putting away gang lords, drug dealers, and white-collar scam artists. Perhaps no one here has clean hands with respect to legislating in appropriations bills. But the language in this bill regarding prosecutorial ethics clearly crosses the line between the procedurally acceptable and unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to support the Hutchinson amendment.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, this bill applies to all Department of Justice employees, or those who are acting under the Department of Justice authority. In this instance, the independent counsel is both. We all know when the independent counsel seeks to expand his jurisdiction, who does he go to see? He goes in to see the Attorney General and he expands his jurisdiction. When he needs to get his budget squared away, when he needs additional resources, who did he go to see? He goes in to see the Department of Justice and talks to the employees. That is why this amendment is in order. Let me just, for the purposes of people on the other side of the aisle, provide some supporting sources in current law to support this clarification. Mr. Chairman, 28 U.S.C. 594(a) provides that an independent counsel appointed under this chapter shall have full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions and powers of the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, or any other officer or employee of the Department of Justice. Or let us take 28 U.S. 596, Section A. It provides that an independent counsel appointed under this chapter may be removed from office, other than by impeachment and conviction, by who? By only the personal action of the Attorney General of the United States. Or let us look at Section 3, the Supreme Court, in Morrison versus Olson, at 487 U.S.C. 654. It held that an independent counsel is subject to removal by the Attorney General. Or let us look at the appeals court in the D.C. Circuit, a case holding that the independent counsel is generally covered by rule XVI(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. So under the independent counsel statute there is little doubt, Mr. Chairman, that this is covered under the statute, and is wholly appropriate to be offered at this time and at this place.