Marty Meehan

Mr. MEEHAN

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

Mr. MEEHAN. What is really concerning about this, Mr. Chairman, is if we look at the fact that 44 attorneys general from all across America have spent months and months negotiating on this issue of tobacco and FDA regulations, when we look at the fact that there have been literally millions of pages of newspapers all across America debating the issue of tobacco in America and what we are going to do about it, to think that we are going to limit, in the people's House, we are going to limit the debate on this major, fundamentally important issue to 5 minutes here or 15 minutes here is an outrage. America is waiting for a discussion about how we are going to protect the next generation of Americans from the leading preventable cause of death in America. We are saying that we do not want to debate this, we are going to limit debate, because it is 11:30 at night and some Members may be tired. It makes us wonder how the tobacco companies really work and when they are working and where they are working. We ought to have a substantive discussion, it seems to me, about tobacco in this country, and it seems that the majority has been running away from this discussion. Let us have this discussion and have a rule, maintain the rule, and let us get up and debate this. I just want to say that I, too, am outraged that they, the majority party, could even contemplate such a ridiculous move.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman, we are hearing limits on debates on this matter and other matters. I was wondering if the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations could shed some light on this.

Mr. MEEHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, what is of concern to me is not only the discussion that we have had tonight that would basically be a discussion that would be wasted, but I have an amendment that is a fundamentally important amendment to the future of this country regarding tobacco use in America and protecting America's children from tobacco. What I am hearing is we are going to have a rule that is going to limit debate on that amendment to a mere 5 minutes per side, which I find an absolute outrage. At 11:25 in the evening, I am getting word that a bill that fundamentally affects the ability of this country to regulate tobacco use among children is going to be limited to 5 minutes, an absolute outrage. If that is what is going on at the Committee on Rules right now, I would suggest that the Members of the majority party get their act together. Because if we have a 5-minute debate on a rule that would limit debate on amendments that affect tobacco use specifically, an amendment that I have that would allow the FDA to enforce rules and regulations that are on the books all over this country, if we are going to limit debate after waiting all day for this amendment to be offered, then I think the majority party better think and act very, very cautiously. Because I as one Member would be outraged if we get a rule and this Congress is asked to pass that rule tomorrow and limit debate on fundamentally important issues of tobacco use.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, last week two of America's most respected and distinguished senior statespeople, Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker and Vice President Walter Mondale, visited with several bipartisan reform leaders on Capitol Hill, including myself and several of my fellow cosponsors of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 1997. The purpose of their visit was to discuss an open letter they wrote to the President and to Members of Congress on the topic of campaign reform. For my colleague Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut and myself, I enter Senator Kassebaum Baker and Vice President Mondale's letter into the Congressional Record. An Open Letter to the President and the Congress of the United States From Nancy Kassebaum Baker and Walter F. Mondale, Washington, DC, June 18, 1997. Dear Mr. President and Members of Congress: In March, the President asked that we help in the cause of campaign finance reform. Since then we have observed closely the national discussion of this issue, which we believe is central to the well-being of American democracy. We would now like to report about our initial recommendations, with a plea, in the best interests of our political process, that the Executive and Legislative Branches commit themselves to a course of urgent debate leading to early and meaningful action. One of us is a Republican. The other is a Democrat. We are inspired by the bipartisan efforts of Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold, and Representatives Christopher Shays and Martin Meehan, to achieve campaign finance reform. The bipartisan effort of new members of the House, led by Representatives Asa Hutchinson and Thomas Allen, is also a foundation for hope. We are mindful that no change will occur unless there is a consensus in both parties that reform is fair to each. We also believe the imperative task of renewing our democracy requires that we all look beyond party. Guided by basic lessons from our Constitution and national experience, we must identify specific measures and commit ourselves to action where agreement is within our grasp, even as we identify other questions for further consideration. The Constitution, in this as in all public affairs, is our first teacher. It directs that the Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has provided substantial guidance how that command applies to campaign finance laws. Whether any of us might wish that the Court had decided particulars of prior cases differently, our national legislative task is to give full honor to its free speech decisions. The Constitution also enshrines political democracy. One of its central purposes is to ensure that every individual has the right to participate fully in the electoral process. As Madison said of the Congress in The Federalist Papers (No. 52), ``the door of this part of the federal government is open to merit of every description, ... without regard to poverty or wealth.'' Our campaign finance system must respect, and do everything it can to bolster, the constitutionally rooted primacy of individual citizens in our political democracy. In applying constitutional values to campaign finance, we do not have to start from scratch. We have had a century of debate and legislation about several essential matters, including what we now describe as ``soft money.'' From early in the twentieth century, federal law has prohibited contributions from corporate treasuries to federal election campaigns. Starting in the 1940s, this bar has been applied equally to contributions to federal election campaigns from union treasuries. The basic principle of these constraints, upheld by the Supreme Court, is that organizations which are granted special privileges and protections, provided by federal or state law for economic advantage, should not be permitted to leverage that advantage to cast doubt on the integrity of our national government. In the 1970s, in response to the constitutional crisis that began twenty-five years ago this week, the Congress established limits on individual contributions to candidates and political parties, and barred large individual contributions to them that threatened to undermine governmental integrity in reality or appearance. Though it subsequently invalidated several other reform provisions of that time, the Supreme Court sustained this central element of our campaign finance law. At the end of the 1970s, the Federal Election Commission began to erode these important protections. The Commission authorized national party committees to spend the proceeds of a new category of contributions which we now know as ``soft money.'' This allowed previously prohibited corporate and union treasury contributions, and also unlimited contributions from individuals, to the national political parties. The theory has been that if contributions are not used directly in a federal election, federal campaign finance laws do not limit them. At first, the amounts of soft money involved were relatively small. But as happens with cracks in dikes, the power behind the breach has overwhelmed all defenses. The resulting flood of money to the national parties and their campaign organizations now threatens the credibility of our entire electoral process. We believe that Congress, as a matter of high priority must stop, unambiguously, all ``soft money'' contributions to the national parties and their campaign organizations. The Congress should also prohibit the solicitation of soft money by those parties and organizations, any federal office holder, or any candidate for federal office for the seeming benefit of others, but in truth to circumvent the prohibition of soft money to the national parties. These interrelated acts would do much to reinvigorate the basic concept of the Federal Election Campaign Act: that, while we must remain mindful of the political parties' needs for resources to perform their vital role in the political process, it is individuals, subject to contribution limits established by Congress, who are the heart of the system of private contributions for federal elections. The prompt end to soft money solicitations by presidential candidates, among others, would also assure that the public gets full value for its investment in publicly financed presidential elections. A recurring observation about the 1996 and other recent federal elections is that candidates have lost control of the conduct of their campaigns. Indeed, many candidates are at risk of becoming bystanders to campaigns waged by others in the name of ``issue advocacy.'' As a result, the accountability of the candidates for the conduct of campaigns is seriously compromised. Part of the problem is the need to sharpen definitions, that may have worked twenty years ago, to distinguish campaigning for candidates from a more general public debate of issues. Another part is the need to update the disclosure requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act. Progress on both counts is necessary to assure that our political process achieves the substantial benefits that should result from an end of the ``soft money'' system. First, it is essential that Congress establish, on the basis of the experience of recent elections, an appropriate test consistent with the First Amendment for distinguishing advocacy about candidates from the general advocacy of issues. The purpose of this test should be to identify for consistent treatment under the Federal Election Campaign Act significant expenditures for general communications to the public, at times close to elections, that are designed to achieve specific electoral results. The Supreme Court has said that Congress may regulate federal campaign activity to avoid corrupting influences or appearances. In doing so, the Congress should look at reality, not the self-applied labels of partisans. Our objective should be to assure that comparable expenditures are treated comparably. The gains from ending ``soft money'' will be incomplete if money currently spent by parties is only redirected into so- called issue advertisements, including those by surrogate organizations established to circumvent campaign finance laws. A tightened, realistic definition of statutory terms will not foreclose communications to the pubic on behalf of the interests of business enterprises and unions even up to Election Day, under regulations evenly applied to their political action committees. It will mean that communications to the general public in periods close to elections that are designed to achieve electoral wins or losses are financed through the voluntary contributions of individuals, such as to their parties, political action committees, or candidates. Second, disclosure is an essential tool because it allows citizens to hold candidates accountable for the means by which campaigns are financed. On election day voters can only express themselves about candidates on the ballot. Even candidates, however, may not know the true identity of entities that dominate the airwaves during the closing weeks of a campaign with electoral message patently targeted to favor or disfavor them or their opponents. Broader disclosure of the sources of financing of campaign advertisements would contribute to the robustness of political debate. It would ensure that candidates know to whom they might respond, and that the electorate knows who can be held accountable for the accuracy or demeanor of advertisements. Additionally, we should take advantage of an electronic age in which information can be transmitted rapidly from, and updated frequently by, party and campaign officials, and made readily available to the public with equal rapidity. No limitations and no disclosure requirements are worth much in the absence of timely and effective enforcement. Indeed, the absence of credible enforcement causes damage beyond the campaign finance laws by engendering real doubts about the application of the rule of law to powerful members of our society. The American public believes resolutely that a fundamental premise of our constitutional democracy is that high elected officials, like ordinary citizens, are subject to the rule of law, and to the timely application of it. The Congress and the President need to work together to assure the public that campaign finance laws are not pretenses. The President and the Senate should take immediate action to assure that vacancies on the Federal Election Commission are filled by knowledgeable, independent-minded individuals who are not subject to the suggestion that they are appointed to represent political organizations. We say this because we need a clean break from the past, not to be critical of any former, present, or potential member of the Commission. It is within the President's power to accomplish this new start for the Commission, beginning today. We urge the President, in consultation with the leadership of the Congress, to name an advisory panel of citizens whose task would be to recommend highly qualified candidates for the President's consideration for appointment to the Commission, subject of course to the Senate's advice and consent. Congress can take further steps to protect the independence of the Commission. If commissioners were limited to one term, they would have no occasion to measure the impact of their decisions on the possibility of reappointment. The independence of the Commission can also be furthered by placing its funding on a more secure, longer term basis. The potential for deadlock inheres in the requirement that the Commission have an even number of commissioners. Because the Congress also has made the Commission the official gatekeeper to the United States courts, judicial action to resolve complaints under the Federal Election Campaign Act is impeded unless permitted by a majority of commissioners. Thus, a deadlocked Commission is an obstacle to the adjudication of meritorious claims. It is important to rely on the expertise of the Commission, but when the Commission is unable to resolve complaints, our respect for the rule of law requires that complainants have the right to a fresh start through a direct action in the United States courts against alleged violators. The law should be amended to provide for this in the event that the Commission in unable to act because of deadlock or a lack of resources. We have not attempted to set out an exhaustive list of reforms which may be attainable and would make a significant contribution. Other important proposals by members of Congress or students of campaign finance reform merit consideration, such as encouraging small contributions through tax credits, or providing greater resources to candidates through enhanced access to communications media or through flexibility by the parties in supporting candidates with expenditure of hard money contributions. Rather, our purpose is to illustrate that it is possible to identify and act on particular, achievable improvements, which should not be postponed or neglected. We very much encourage and support a larger debate about other changes at the federal and state levels in the manner in which political campaigns are financed. Additional changes will be essential to renewing American democracy. The enactment of immediate reforms may give us a measure of time to address other reforms, but should never become an excuse for avoiding them. We urge that the work of the Congress over the next few months be spurred by one overriding thought: no one would create, or should feel comfortable in defending, the campaign finance system that now exists. Public cynicism about our great national political institutions is the inevitable product of the gaps that exist between our principles and the law, and between the law and compliance with it. The trend lines, also, are all wrong. If we were unhappy about campaign financing in the election of 1996, as the public is and as members of both parties ought to be, then we should anticipate with great trepidation the election of 2000, absent prompt reforms. The challenge for this Congress is to put in place changes for the presidential and congressional election cycle that will start the day after next year's elections, a little more than sixteen months from now, to enable an election in the year 2000 in which we will have pride and the public will have confidence. Your leadership in that endeavor will serve the interests of American democracy, and command the enduring appreciation of all of us who know how needed that leadership is. Sincerely, Nancy Kassebaum Baker. Walter F. Mondale.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the excellent work of Assistant United States Attorneys Paula J. DeGiacomo and Despena F. Billings and of FBI Special Agent Thomas J. Daly, Sr. in investigating and prosecuting Paul E. Lowe for carjacking, kidnapping, and transportation for illegal sexual activity. On December 10, 1995, Lowe abducted a 21-year-old medical secretary at gunpoint after helping her push her vehicle out of a snowbank at the end of her driveway in Lowell, MA. Lowe commandeered the victim's car and drove north to a remote area of New Hampshire, where he hit her in the face and sexually assaulted her. Lowe eventually returned to Lowell with the victim, at which time he threatened her with death were she to call the police. This case was investigated jointly by the Lowell Police Criminal Bureau and the FBI. It was prosecuted in the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, because Lowe was charged with carjacking, a federal crime. The case broke new legal ground in Massachusetts, as it was the first time that DNA evidence was admitted in a federal criminal case. Lowe was convicted in November 1996, and Judge Patti B. Saris sentenced him to 36 years in prison in March 1997. The investigation and prosecution of Lowe was a model law enforcement effort. Special Agent Daly, the FBI, and the Evidence Recovery Team [ERT] worked in cooperation with local law enforcement officials to apprehend Lowe and build a strong case against him. Assistant U.S. Attorneys DeGiacomo and Billings worked tirelessly at developing an extremely effective trial strategy. At the same time, they displayed a sincere and much appreciated concern for the victim. The efforts of Paula DeGiacomo, Despena Billings and Tom Daly, Sr. should not go unnoticed. Massachusetts residents are safer in and outside their homes due to the arrest and conviction of Paul Lowe. The individuals who brought Lowe to justice deserve our recognition and thanks.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that Jesuit Father and Georgetown University Law Center Prof. Robert F. Drinan has withdrawn statements he made in a New York Times article of June 4, 1996, on legislation to ban so-called partial-birth abortion. At the request of the Most Reverend John R. McNamara, regional bishop for Massachusetts' Merrimack region, I am submitting for the Record the text of Father Drinan's statement of May 12, 1997, clarifying his position on abortion. Articles that I wrote in the New York Times on June 4, 1996, and in the National Catholic Reporter on May 31, 1996, were used in ways I did not intend. I withdraw those statements and any statement that could be understood to cast doubt on the Church's firm condemnation of abortion--a doctrine that I totally support. Moreover, new information about the true nature and widespread use of partial-birth abortion renders my statements on that issue in 1996 factually incorrect. I do not believe that every moral evil should be outlawed. I do, however, see abortion--particularly partial-birth abortionas--a grave evil and can understand why Church leaders are urging lawmakers to ban it. I do not want anything to impede that effort. On the contrary, I join in that effort and stand ready to promote laws and public policies that aim to protect vulnerable human life from conception until natural death. I support the Catholic bishops in their efforts to exercise moral leadership in the fight against abortion.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that Jesuit Father and Georgetown University Law Center Prof. Robert F. Drinan has withdrawn statements he made in a New York Times article of June 4, 1996, on legislation to bran so-called partial-birth abortion. At the request of the Most Reverend John R. McNamara, regional bishop for Massachusetts' Merrimack region, I am submitting for the Record the text of Father Drinan's statement of May 12, 1997, clarifying his position on abortion. Articles that I wrote in the New York Times on June 4, 1996, and in the National Catholic Reporter on May 31, 1996, were used in ways I did not intend. I withdraw those statements and any statement that could be understood to cast doubt on the Church's firm condemnation of abortion--a doctrine that I totally support. Moreover, new information about the true nature and widespread use of partial-birth abortion renders my statements on that issue in 1996 factually incorrect. I do not believe the every moral evil should be outlawed. I do, however, see abortion--particularly partial-birth abortion--as a grave evil and can understand why Church leaders are urging lawmakers to ban it. I do not want anything to impede that effort. On the contrary, I join in that effort and stand ready to promote laws and public policies that aim to protect vulnerable human life from conception until natural death. I support the Catholic bishops in their efforts to exercise moral leadership in the fight against abortion.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, at just 12 years of age, Paul Cronin knew he wanted to serve the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Through hard work and dedication, Paul was able to achieve his dream. He served his hometown, Andover, MA, first as a Selectman and then at age 24 as a State Representative, making him the youngest elected official in the State at the time. His career in public service culminated when he was elected to represent the Massachusetts Fifth district in the U.S. House of Representatives, the seat I now hold. Paul Cronin passed away on April 5, 1997, at just 59 years old, after a lengthy battle with cancer. It was an especially sad day because just 4 months earlier another great man from the fifth district was taken from us, Paul Tsongas. Like Tsongas, politics did not consume Cronin's life. Paul Cronin gave unselfishly of himself to his community. He was particularly proud of his long association with the Lawrence Boys and Girls Club, which named its new girls' gym for his mother, Anna Marie Cronin, only after Paul declined the honor for himself. His career and personal life were marked by optimism and achievement and he faced death as he faced life, with dignity, courage, and perseverance.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, we are going to have an opportunity to vote on the underlying bill, but I rise in support of a ``no'' vote on the previous question to require a vote on campaign finance reform by July 4. That is because the leadership of the Republican Party has refused to bring this issue up. Let me also rise to highlight the Republican majority's abuse of the legislative process to block campaign finance reform. Mr. Speaker, back in January, President Clinton challenged the Congress to enact bipartisan campaign finance reform by July 4. The following week the Republican leadership responded by not including campaign finance reform on its list of legislative priorities for the 105th Congress. Soon after the cosponsors of the bipartisan campaign finance reform act sent a letter to Speaker Gingrich, asking him to work with us to set a schedule for House consideration of bipartisan campaign finance reform. We received no response. In February, the Committee on the Judiciary held hearings on campaign finance reform and on the first amendment. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and I asked for the chance to testify on the bipartisan campaign finance reform bill. We were denied that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, over the last 4 months, the gentleman from California, Mr. George Miller, has asked time and time again for a vote on campaign finance reform, for a vote to be scheduled. Time and time again his requests have fallen on deaf ears. Mr. Speaker, we have focused long enough on the problems of our campaign finance system. The question the American people ask is when will we do something about it? Why is it when the President challenges Democrats and Republicans to come up with a bipartisan bill that we see day in and day out this legislative calendar with everything but campaign finance reform on the agenda? We need to vote on campaign finance reform because this system is broken and needs to be fixed. And as long as the Republican leadership drags its feet, we will be on the floor of this House demanding a vote on this issue.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, the last action on the rule that has resulted in this time for the Republican leadership to kind of regroup is very important, because that rule was defeated in a bipartisan vote, and there is no fundamentally more important reason to defeat that rule than the fact that that rule eliminated the need for funding for the Federal Election Commission. Mr. Speaker, last February, the FEC asked for a supplemental appropriation of $1.7 million needed to address the campaign abuses from the 1996 campaign, which the Committee on Appropriations granted. Up until last night, there was every indication that the appropriation would go forward. But last night, the Committee on Rules unilaterally, and without warning, left the public hearing and behind closed doors deleted the appropriation for the bill. They did this even after the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney], the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and myself asked that the specific appropriation be included and that certain restrictions be removed. The FEC funding was the only funding deleted, and it was no accident. This, after all, was the first money that Congress would have appropriated to allow investigations into the congressional campaign abuses to go forward. Make no mistake. What we have here is a total abuse of process, a total violation of fundamental fairness. In fact, today we now have the majority really committing a double abuse. First, the majority is abusing the legislative process which we were counting on to make sure that the FEC is able to enforce the law as a small first step to clean up our campaign system. Second, Mr. Speaker, as a result, they are obstructing the FEC's ability to investigate congressional violations of Federal election law. This was a hatchet job, and it is especially outrageous in light of the Congress's alleged outrage over the 1996 campaign and its providing of millions of dollars to investigate politically charged investigations, allegations that have been ongoing over the last several months. It was interesting, because just last week, Michael Kranish from the Boston Globe reported that an organization created by former Republican Chairman Haley Barbour to boost the GOP's image wrote a fundraising plan that relied partly on newly available documents disclosed. The organization, a Republican think tank called the National Policy Forum, wound up receiving a $2.2 million loan guarantee from a Hong Kong business and then failed to repay $500,000. Since that time, the Republican National Committee has agreed to return the money. When are all of these stories going to stop, and when are we going to do something about campaign finance reform? The Federal Election Commission, and I just left a hearing before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law of the Committee on the Judiciary where officials from the FEC reported before that committee that they cannot even get to 68 to 70 percent of the cases because of their inadequate funding. I am amused by all of the dialog, the political rhetoric, the partisan rhetoric on both sides of the aisle about how we need to have these investigations by Congress, and the only nonpartisan group that is discharged with the responsibility to conduct investigations of congressional campaigns is the FEC. The FEC puts in a request for an appropriation for $1.7 million in order to get funded, and what does the Congress do? The Committee on Rules, in the middle of the night, decides we are not going to take this up. This action is outrageous, and when the Republican majority is meeting to try to figure out, they are all meeting, how are we going to get this bill passed, what they ought to do is put the request for the FEC funding into the budget. It is significantly less money than we have appropriated for literally millions of dollars for politically charged investigation. Let us let the FEC do its job, and we ought to start with this supplemental appropriations bill. Now is the time for Congress to put its money where its mouth is and provide the FEC funding to investigate congressional abuses. Mr. Speaker, it was the ax last night, nothing less than a midnight massacre, on the obstruction of the process and the ability of the FEC to conduct investigations of the congressional campaigns that were held in 1996. It is an outrage. I think the fact that this rule was defeated lends credence to the fact that we need to make sure that we fund the FEC if we are serious about conducting fair, nonpartisan investigations and giving the FEC fair enforcement power so that they can do their job. Let us make sure we include that funding.

Mr. MEEHAN

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

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment states that once the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance decides to make Byrne discretionary grants available on a competitive basis to public agencies for antigang law enforcement initiatives, she must give special priority to those agencies that have proposed, in their applications already implemented, strategies tracing the sources of those guns provided to juveniles. We all know too well the problem of juvenile gun violence. Specifically, virtually all of the striking increase in the juvenile homicide rate between 1987 and 1994 was associated with guns. A 1993 survey of male students in 10 inner city public schools revealed that 65 percent of those surveyed thought it would be no trouble at all to get their hands on a gun. An ex-gang member from Minnesota recently stated that for teenagers, acquiring guns is as easy as ordering pizza. The evidence is clear, thanks to both big-time interstate gun runners and small-time black market dealers, juveniles have easy access to guns and are using them to kill one another. Over the past few years, the city of Boston has shown us a way to make a serious dent in the illicit gun sales to juveniles and thus cut down on deadly youth violence. The Boston gun project began with a simple idea: If we want to stop kids from shooting each other, we have to get the guns out of their hands. This meant that when police recovered guns from juveniles during or after the commission of a crime, they could no longer afford to lock these guns away as evidence and forget about them. Instead, the police were called upon to work with State and Federal law enforcement agencies to trace the source of these guns. This commonsense policy yielded striking results. For example, in their gun tracing efforts, police found guns being used by gang members in one Boston neighborhood all originated from Mississippi. They were purchased there by one neighborhood student who transported those guns to Boston for illegal sales in the neighborhood. When that student was arrested, the shootings in the neighborhood declined from 91 in 5 months to the arrest of 20 in the following 5- month period. Indeed, the Boston gun project was a critical component that has achieved once unthinkable results. Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to encourage the widespread adoption of a law enforcement strategy that clearly works. My amendment requires that when the BJA decides on its own to do this, it should give special priority to the applicants, the public agencies, where they have implemented these proposals pursuant to a crime gun tracing in cooperation with State and Federal law enforcement officials. Mr. Chairman, crime gun tracing will keep guns out of the hands of our children. If we want to stop kids from shooting one another, we have to attack the supply of the gun market. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to assist in this amendment.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MEEHAN. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. MEEHAN. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the gentleman from Florida for his cooperation on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for yielding me the time and I rise today in support of H.R. 1048, the Welfare Reform Technical Corrections Act. Incorporated in this bipartisan legislation is a provision that statutorily denies Social Security benefits to a group of individuals who have been convicted of serious sex crimes. This provision is based on H.R. 237, a bill that I drafted in response to an expose by investigative reporter Joe Bergantino of WBZ in Boston. Mr. Chairman, in 1994 Congress amended the Social Security Act to close a host of loopholes which enabled prisoners and other dangerous individuals to receive Social Security benefits while incarcerated. Congress' intent was clear: Social Security benefits were denied on the grounds that these dangerous individuals sentenced to cost-free living in government institutions should not receive additional benefits. This was not a punitive action, Mr. Speaker, but a simple recognition that in an era of limited resources, prisoners and other dangerous individuals should not be able to double dip. By and large, the law succeeded. However, it had one glaring loophole. In at least 7 States, including the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, there have been a number of sexual offenders who have been committed civilly to various institutions, usually upon completion of a criminal sentence. These individuals are currently eligible for Social Security benefits because they do not technically fit into a specific classification under the 1994 law. In Massachusetts, at Bridgewater Treatment Center, for example, there are about 20 men there, hardened sexual offenders, who receive more than $10,000 a month in benefits. It is an outrage that some of the most dangerous criminals in society continue to receive payments at a cost to hard-working Americans. Today, by passing this bill, we can close a huge loophole that has been long overdue and send a message to prisoners still collecting Social Security benefits. The message is: Your benefits are denied. I want to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means, particularly the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Richard Neal, and the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Mrs. Barbara Kennelly, for their work on this legislation, and I strongly urge support of H.R. 1048.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in this Special Order to commemorate the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Each year, I join Members of Congress from both sides of the political spectrum, representing areas from east coast to west coast to take part in this Special Order. We join together in this annual commemoration to bring awareness to a chapter in history so brutal and violent, that 75 years later, the Turkish Government still refuses to admit their involvement. Each year, as I rise to pay tribute to over 1.5 million Armenians who were killed in this tragic event, I am amazed at how easily, and how well, the news of the Armenian genocide was squelched and then hidden. We all remember the now famous question posed by Adolf Hitler at the beginning of World War II--he said ``Who remembers the Armenians.'' Well, citizens of the world, this is just the problem. When tragedies of this magnitude take place, it is our responsibility to ensure that the story does not get forgotten. Let us teach our children that we will not tolerate human tragedy of this nature. Instead, as our world grows smaller every day, we must learn to live together in a global village. We must discover and treasure the differences among peoples around the world. We must promote tolerance and understanding. Only then will we have peace. When we remember the Armenian genocide we send a strong message to our global community that violence born of hatred and fear is unacceptable. The world has the responsibility to see that the crime of genocide does not go unpunished. Genocide cannot be allowed to be a policy of our international community. A crime unpunished and unrepented is a crime which can and will be repeated. Even today, as I speak, the present Turkish Government is enforcing a blockade of Armenia blocking American humanitarian assistance from reaching that country. This aid, supported by Congress, is prevented from being transported to Armenia by land. Such a violation of fundamental principles of humane conduct cannot be allowed to continue. There are still living survivors of the Armenian genocide in my district, and the horror of this ordeal is forever etched in their collective memories. Every year survivors participate in commemoration ceremonies in Boston, Lowell, and other areas around the Merrimack Valley. The commemoration offers an opportunity to reach out to the public in hopes that the media, the educated public, and citizens around the world will not ignore--or will not forget the tragedy suffered by the Armenians at the hands of the Turkish empire. I represent a large and active Armenian community in my district. They are hard working and proud of their heritage. As Representatives to the United States Congress, it is our duty to commemorate the Armenian genocide in the hope that future generations will never allow such a callous disregard for human rights to occur again.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of Greek independence from the Ottoman Empire. March 25, 1997, will mark the 176th anniversary of the start of Greece's struggle for independence. A historic series of uprisings against the Greek's Turkish oppressors began on this day. Soon the nation would erupt into a revolution attracting international attention and support. The struggle of the Greek people against the Ottoman Empire exemplifies the remarkable ability of a people to overcome all obstacles if the will to endure is strong enough and the goal, freedom, is bright enough. Today, the United States of America represents what we know as true freedom and democracy. Although no nation is perfect in its policies, America is still considered the standard by which citizens around the world compare their own governments. People living under oppressive regimes have looked to the United States for generations to gain strength in their struggles to overcome their oppressors. The parallels between the two countries, the United States and Greece, are remarkable. American political thought was influenced just as much by Greek [philosophy as the Greek revolution of 1821 was inspired by the American fight for freedom in 1776. In fact, Greek intellectuals translated our Declaration of Independence and used it as their own declaration. The incredible historical struggles we share have created a bond between our two nations that goes far beyond present day foreign relations, trade agreements and security pacts. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent a large and active Greek community in the Fifth District of Massachusetts. As a supporter of issues of concern in the Greek-American community, I would like to recognize this population and their interests. Greek civilization touches our lives as Americans, and enhances the cultural existence of this great Nation.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, thousands of residents of Lawrence, MA, will pay a final tribute to the man who was known there as ``Mr. Mayor'' until the day he died--Mayor John J. Buckley. John J. Buckley served as mayor for 22 years, spanning three decades from the 1950's to the 1980's. During that time, he won the respect and friendship of President John F. Kennedy and countless other public figures who came in contact with this man who called himself ``a mayor for all the people.'' When he first took office at age 35 in 1951, the city had just suffered the devastating exodus south of the textile industry which resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs. He started Operation Bootstrap to revitalize the city at a time when Federal and State programs were unavailable. Thus began a 14-year term as mayor in which he brought 70 new businesses and 12,000 jobs into the city. After a one-term hiatus, Mayor Buckley regained the office in 1971 to serve his eighth term. He urged the citizens of Lawrence, the ``Immigrant City'' to embrace the influx of Hispanic immigrants just as their parents and grandparents had been welcomed in the early part of the century. During his time in office, the city built a new post office, public library, police station and boys club. Mayor Buckley came roaring back in 1983 after two defeats for his 17th and final run for mayor. This last hurrah and victory capped off his 22-year career as chief executive of the city of Lawrence. But even during the periods when he was out of elected office, he devoted himself to the public through service organizations and appointed positions. In later years it was not uncommon to see John Buckley strolling Lawrence's main street as citizen after citizen greeted him with ``Good morning, Mr. Mayor.'' He loved the city of Lawrence and it indeed loved him. This weekend, I will join with my friends in Lawrence to pay a final tribute to John J. Buckley, who died last Monday at the age of eighty, leaving the city he loved with a legacy of accomplishments.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the minority rules package, specifically the rule requiring prompt House action on campaign finance reform. As my colleagues know, we have heard a lot around here about the 1996 campaign and how it proves once and for all that our electoral system is out of control. But it is only the minority package, the Democratic rules package, that requires the House to deal with campaign finance reform. Today make no mistake about it. The minority plan being offered by the Democrats would require this House to act on campaign finance reform because as we get down the road here there are going to be efforts to get around this one way or the other like that we had in the last session. We have a chance right now to set the record straight and debate campaign finance reform and require it. However, the majority has offered a rules package that does not make that requirement.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, the most fundamental way that we can reform the way the Congress does business is to pass campaign finance reform. The Republican leadership today will renege on that promise to offer real, substantive campaign finance reform. It will happen today. We had an opportunity. We were going to have reform week, and we have nothing. Now we have the Republicans presenting a bill before this House, calling it reform, that is a phony fraud. Campaign finance reform is up, and not one Member of the Republican Party got up before this House in one-minutes to defend their piece of fraud legislation. Does that not speak volumes about today's debate? Not one of them would get up and defend the campaign finance reform bill that they are going to present before this House today. It is a disgrace. We need to change our campaign finance system and we cannot get a bill to do it. They want to increase influence. Not one of their Members will come down and defend their bill. America is watching today, and Republicans will pay the price in November.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 20 Republicans who signed on to the bipartisan bill and thank all of the Democrats who signed on to the bipartisan bill, thank the thousands of people all over America who have been calling up for campaign finance reform; the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, United We Stand, Common Cause. And let me just say we will not let this travesty that happened on the floor today hold us back from real campaign finance reform because the torch goes on and we will continue this fight. What we saw on the floor of the House today will result in outrage all across America because Americans are committed to changing the way we finance campaigns in America. So there will be a response, we will be back, and we will have real campaign finance reform after the November elections.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, when I came to the Congress of the United States, I looked to a senior Member to help me in my efforts to work on campaign finance reform. He taught me that we have to work in a bipartisan manner if we are going to get real campaign finance reform passed. That was Mike Synar, and he introduced a bill that I signed on to, that Republicans signed on to, to have real campaign finance reform in a bipartisan way. That is why I have worked so hard in this session in a bipartisan way to get real campaign finance reform, in the history and tradition of Mike Synar. The gentleman from California has introduced a piece of that bipartisan bill. It involves disclosures and making sure when people make independent expenditures, like the independent expenditures that were made against Mike Synar and many other Members, that the American people have a right to know where their money comes from. The American people have a right to know who is funding this. And guess what? Both Democrats and Republicans behind this bipartisan effort, every public interest group in America supports this language: the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, Public Citizen, United We Stand. There is not anyone in the country who is fighting for campaign finance reform that does not support this language. Let us have a tremendous opportunity to take a bad bill and make it a heck of a lot better. Let us send this bill back with this provision, in the history of bipartisan reform, in the tradition of Mike Synar, in the tradition of good Democratic politics.