Marty Meehan

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, you have to sit back and ask yourself, why in the world would the Republican Party submit this kind of proposal. It has been condemned by every public interest group that has been fighting for campaign finance reform in America. Condemned by Common Cause, condemned by Public Citizen, United We Stand, every group in America who is trying to change the way Congress does business through reforming the campaign finance laws is against this proposal. Why in the world would they come forward with such a proposal that they may not even get the votes for? Well, it comes right from the top. That is where it comes from. Because when the Speaker of the House, if you look at this chart, Newt Gingrich, testified before the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight on November 2, he made the preposterous statement that, One of the greatest myths of modern politics is that campaigns are too expensive. The political process in fact is underfunded. It is not overfunded. That is what the top, the Speaker, said. When he was asked to testify on how to reform a system that everyone agrees needs to be reformed, a system that everyone agrees there is too much money involved, that is what the Speaker said. So what happened after that? The Speaker got together with Republican leadership, and they came in with a proposal that increases the influence of special interest money. Americans who have been fighting for campaign finance reform all over this country recognize this bill for what it is, and that is a sham. It is nothing but a sham. Now why in the world would Republicans go along with a bill that codifies the soft money loophole in the Federal election law? This legislation will allow special interests to continue setting the Republican agenda without restriction, and all we have to do is look at the headlines across this country under this Congress. Last year the Republicans raised more than $33 million in unrelated soft money contributions; 82 percent of these contributions came from businesses, 17 percent came from individuals, and less than 1 percent came from labor unions and single donors. Now who are at the top of the Republican donors by industry? It should be a surprise to no one that the tobacco companies, big tobacco, donated a whopping $2.4 million in 1995; securities and investments, insurance, gas, the pharmaceuticals, the telephone utilities, telecommunications reform; all of them rank within the top 10 of donors to the Republican Party. This should not be a surprise as to why we have a bill that increases the influence that these special interests will pay. They will pay, and they will play, due to the increase in money because they are the ones. The Republicans are setting the agenda. Now two of the top individual contributors to the Republican Party: Philip Morris and R.J. Nabisco. No wonder the Republicans are adamantly opposed to regulating tobacco companies. This bill is a sham.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, there comes a time in a legislator's life when he or she has to be held accountable. On the issue of campaign finance reform that day has arrived. We have been talking about reforming the way Congress does business for this entire Congress. Fundamentally, there is no more effective way to change the way Congress does business but than to change our campaign finance laws. We have cajoled. The Republican leadership has delayed this issue, played games with this issue. We were supposed to deal with it last week, now we are going to deal with it this week. And what do we have? We have a group of us who have worked in a bipartisan way, 21 Democrats and 20 Republicans, in a bicameral way, working with Members of the U.S. Senate to come up with a bill that will do two things: first, voluntarily cap how much money is spent in elections and, second, curb the influence of special interest PAC's. The President is waiting at the White House for that bill and he is ready, willing, and able to sign it. But that has the Republican leadership nervous, so we have a rule before the House that does not allow the bill, the bipartisan bill, which has more editorial and public support all across America than any legislation on campaign finance reform that we have dealt with in recent years. What do they put in its place? They put in a bill that is such an embarrassment to their own membership that, when we were debating 1- minutes this morning, not one Republican came to the floor to defend that phony, foolish piece of legislation called campaign finance reform. There are no spending limits. It codifies the corrupt soft money loophole. It doubles the aggregate amount that an individual can contribute to parties and Federal candidates without capping the contributions. There are so aggregate limits. This bill that they have submitted is a sham. This debate is a sham, and the American people are going to call it for what it is.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Actually, if the gentleman will yield, I would never believe that the majority party would come in with a bill like that. I just never would have believed it. Let me just say there are a number of Republicans who are committed to campaign finance reform. I have worked diligently, day in and day out with the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith]. They are fully and totally committed to campaign finance reform. Mr. Speaker, the problem is with their leadership. The problem is when the Speaker of the House testifies before a congressional committee that there is not enough money being spent in the political process, that in fact we need to raise the limit, more than double the limits of what individuals can contribute. Then the problem is with the Republican leadership. That is what the American people are responding to. How is it that we have a leadership that promised to change the way Congress does business, has an opportunity to fundamentally change the way Congress does business? The President has been asking for this bipartisan bill all year long, challenging the Congress to pass limits on how much money is spent, challenging the Congress to set some limits on special interest money. We lost by six votes in the bipartisan bill over in the U.S. Senate. If the House could pass real bipartisan campaign finance reform, I believe that it would result in action in the other body. But instead, we have a bill that even Members of the Republican party are embarrassed about, totally embarrassed. Some of my colleagues read the Dear Colleague letter that was sent around by, I believe, 10 Republican Members, Republican Members who want to see real campaign finance reform. They are embarrassed and they are appalled. What do we do? We say, All right, if you guys are embarrassed, if you guys are appalled, we'll do nothing. Let's take it up later. That never ever should have been done. We should have known it was coming when the Speaker testified before the congressional reform committee and said: Hey, look, we do not need to limit how much money is spent. We need to increase it so we can compete with Coca-Cola and the major companies. We are talking about elections in a democracy. We are not talking about selling away to the highest bidder. We are talking about how we elect people to the U.S. Congress and whose interest they are going to represent. We are not talking about competing with Motorola or competing for billions of dollars in advertising on the television set. Absolutely the wrong message. We should have known this was going to happen as soon as the Speaker said he wanted to see more money in the process. Mr. Speaker, I guess we should not be surprised, but I have to admit I am surprised that just 2 weeks ago the press releases were going out about reform week. And here we are, Wednesday at 10:30. Everyone is going home tomorrow at 4, and we have done nothing on reform, absolutely, positively nothing.

Mr. MEEHAN. I compliment the gentleman for having this hour on campaign finance reform.

Mr. MEEHAN. That is exactly right. It was a bipartisan bill. I worked with Senator McCain who did an outstanding job working this bill and trying to get Members of the Republican Party to support this bill. What happened? The Republicans killed that bill in the U.S. Senate. I worked diligently with Senator McCain on that. He did a great job. But the Republican majority in the Senate killed that bill. I testified before a Senate committee over there. The fact of the matter is that the increases in campaign contributions that the Republican Party are enjoying at this point I think prevents any real campaign finance reform. Just for the record, that bill over in the Senate that the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] mentioned is a bipartisan bill. It is not about Democrats or Republicans. I recognize the fact that we cannot get a bill to the President without Republican support. That is why I went out and worked with the Republicans to get a bill that we could agree on, a bipartisan bill. But it has to limit how much money is spent. Otherwise, it is not real reform. I am delighted to have had this opportunity to speak out about my bipartisan bill and the really sorry state of affairs that we are faced with here on Reform Week, day 3, I guess. We are going to leave tomorrow, I guess, not doing anything in terms of any of the reforms that were advertised, including campaign finance reform.

Mr. MEEHAN. If the gentleman will yield further, obviously we are finishing up our debate. The gentleman had a question, and it was a great question, ``Should we not blame the Democrats?'' The truth was the bill in the 103d Congress had bipartisan support, it died in a Republican filibuster, and never got to the President. Clearly President Clinton would have signed that bill had it gotten there on time.

Mr. MEEHAN. Neither part have had the audacity to submit to the Congress a bill that increases limits.

Mr. MEEHAN. If the gentleman would yield to me, I am really glad for that question because that is exactly what happened with the bill. There was a Republican filibuster. This House passed it, it was bipartisan because that is when I started working with my colleague from Connecticut, Chris Shays. Let me just say, I have worked diligently in a bipartisan way to pass campaign finance reform. I have worked with Republicans on campaign finance reform in this session since I got here. There are a number of Republicans who are committed to campaign finance reform. There are 20 Republicans on my bill who want to see a bipartisan bill pass. We have worked with both sides. The gentleman wants to ask a question, we have answered the question, and the public record is clear. This bill in the last Congress was killed by a Republican filibuster. If we want to lay blame, we will give a little bit of the blame to Democrats that are not pushing the bill quickly enough. But the bottom line to this is we have an opportunity to pass a bipartisan campaign finance reform bill, and what do the Republicans come up with? With a bill that increases how much money is spent on elections.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. I have talked to a lot of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and they say: Look, the President is going to sign campaign finance reform. There are all kinds of different versions. But if it is true campaign finance reform, this President is going to sign it. I believe that. The President is willing to compromise. If he can get any kind of limits on how much money is spent, I think he is going to sign the bill. An I think that is what they are afraid of. Mr. Speaker, what do they do? They come up with the only possible idea or notion to make the President not sign the bill. Okay, we will put more money in the process. Obviously the President is going to sign this bill. I am reminded of when the Congress rushed to pass campaign finance reform when President Bush indicated he was going to veto the bill. That bill got right over to the President's desk right away so the President could veto it, and everyone went home. But now we have a President that is over there at the White House waiting for a campaign finance reform bill, willing to sign it, pushing the Congress to try to get some kind of limits, and guess what? Congress is blinking. There is not going to be a campaign finance reform bill that is going to go to the President's desk. I will tell the gentleman that there is no greater failure of this Congress that the inability of the Congress to get a campaign finance reform bill over to the President's desk. That will be viewed in history and by the American people as the single biggest failure of this Congress, to get that bill or some bill that the President can sign over to him. Republicans have come up with the only conceivable bill that the President would not sign, a bill that increases rather than decreases the influence of money in American politics. So I give them credit for that. They have found a bill the President cannot support. It is a bill that increases the amount of money individuals can contribute.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I guess the only promise we have is that we are not going to have reform week. Let me also say one of the reasons why there was reform in terms of what happened on the floor of this House when television cameras were brought in, the American people got an opportunity to see what happened firsthand, was to get people involved in the process. I think once the American people hear the debate on this floor, they are going to respond to the fact that the Republicans have not done anything about reform week. Not only that, you mentioned the letters in your office. Clearly the American people who watch the debate on the floor here day in and day out, and there are thousands who do, who watch the debate day in and day out, will be appalled to find out that we are doing nothing on campaign finance reform. I wanted to mention one other thing, Mr. Speaker. I mentioned the tobacco industry, because I have been involved in the whole issue of trying to prevent kids in America from being susceptible to tobacco, a product that kills over 400,000 people a year in this country. One of the difficult things about that battle is the amount of money that tobacco companies invest in political campaigns and in the political parties. When I see a bill come before the Congress of the United States at a time when States all over America are increasing the tax on cigarettes, we are still providing subsidies to tobacco companies. Guess what? Every time there is a proposal that comes before the floor, it loses, to end these subsidies. The assault weapons ban. That debate that we had on the floor of the Congress on assault weapons I felt was really an appalling debate. There was a press report that shows that there were Members in the majority, the leadership are the party that made commitments to the NRA and other groups that we would have a vote to reverse the ban on assault weapons. No one in America wanted that assault weapons ban to be repealed. All of the public opinion polls were against it. Even in the U.S. Senate they did not take up this battle. Senator Dole said, ``I want nothing to do with it.'' What did we do? As a payback to over $300,000 that were contributed by these interests, the NRA and other interests, we have a debate for an entire day on repealing the assault weapons ban. Think of it. We pass the toughest, smartest crime bill, bipartisan, by the way, and Republicans helped pass that bill, as well as Democrats did. We pass it, and then in this Congress there were compliments made in the last election, all kinds of money invested, literally millions of dollars invested in special interest gun lobby money, and we spend an entire day voting to repeal the assault weapons ban. As far as I can see, Mr. Speaker, that was nothing more than payback time. I said that at that time. We had a whole day debate over it on a Friday. And here we are, trying to debate one of the fundamentally most important reforms a country like ours could ever institute, campaign finance reform. And guess what? The Committee on Rules is up there determining we are not going to debate it this week, we are not going to deal with it. They were only going to give us an hour or so on it anyway. I just think back to an entire day on repealing the assault weapons ban that was part of the crime bill, with bipartisan support. And here we are, and we cannot even get a vote on campaign finance reform. It is absolutely incredible to me and incredible to the American public, how that could happen.

Mr. MEEHAN. There is no question about that. I did get married last weekend, and I come from a large family, and my father worked as a compositor at the Lowell Sun, and my mother raised 7 children. I am very fortunate to have the opportunity to have been able to get elected to the Congress. Could you imagine a system where the political parties, the bosses in Washington, determined, well, we are going to spend a few hundred thousand dollars in the Fifth District up in Massachusetts because we do not want to see this former prosecutor get elected. I never would be here, and there are a lot of other people who would not be here if we had a campaign finance system that allowed an individual person to contribute $3.1 million to political parties all over the country, and then those parties can funnel this money into congressional races. There is no way that a lot of people would be here, and increasingly, more and more people are getting elected to Congress because of money. It is the wrong direction. The American people understand that. They feel that. They may not understand the intricacies of election law, but they know that we need less money, not more money, in the system. That is why the Republicans are going to have a lot of difficulty getting the votes on this ridiculous bill to increase the influence of money in American politics.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for just a minute, we have been working hard on this bipartisan bill. The gentleman from Connecticut, Chris Shays, and the gentlewoman from Washington, Linda Smith, ironically enough, Linda Smith and I, for example, we do not agree on very much. She is a conservative Republican and I am a more progressive Democrat. But the one thing that we do agree on is the fact that we will never get to balance the budget fairly, we will never get decisions made in Washington on the merits until we change the campaign finance laws. It is really frustrating to be here again, near the end of another session, and see all the publicity that the Republican majority got about having reform week and see it turn into nothing but a total fluke, a sham. They are not going to do it. It is just really, really frustrating. The one thing about it that I think that the American people get is that the worst thing that we could do is nothing. The worst thing we could do is to publicize a reform week and then have nothing. I think ultimately the American people will have their say. It may be a complicated issue, but they understand that we need less money, not more money, spent in the electoral process, in elections in this country. They understand we need to level the playing fields so that people of average, modest means are able to get onto the people of average, modest means are able to get onto the ballot in districts all across America; whether they are liberal or Democratic, Republican or conservative, are able to get on and run for Congress. That is what democracy is all about. As long as we have the corrupting influence of millions and millions and millions of dollars being spent on these campaigns, the American public is going to be suspicious of decisions that have been made. I think ultimately, maybe it will not be this Congress, but I think ultimately the American people are going to demand the type of reform we have been fighting for.

Mr. MEEHAN. I thought we were going to be here to do reform week. I have been working for 3 years. I can just imagine my wife at home saying, wait a minute, they are not doing campaign finance reform. You told me you had to be there for campaign finance reform. But what are you going to do? The Committee on Rules just a few hours ago made the decision to block again changing the way our campaigns are financed. I guess the priest said forgiveness is important, so hopefully she will remember that when she finds out that campaign finance reform again ended up on the back burner.

Mr. MEEHAN. Could the gentleman ask a question?

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. I just ask the question, why do you think big tobacco decided to stop contributing more to Democrats and retool their efforts contributing to Republicans after Newt Gingrich and the Republicans took over?

Mr. MEEHAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I was just going to make the point that the bipartisan bill, which I have been working on with Chris Shays and with Linda Smith, would in fact limit, in fact the first provision is to abolish PAC money. The second fall-back provision because of constitutional problems is to limit PAC's to $1,000 per primary, $1,000 for general. And there are 21 Democrats on that particular bill so I think the characterization of Democrats is inaccurate.

Mr. MEEHAN. The U.S. Supreme Court has just recently ruled that one cannot limit the independent expenditures in these races. But what we do is require more accurate recordkeeping so that we know where the money is coming from and where it is going. One of the difficulties with campaign finance reform is the U.S. Supreme Court decisions which make it impossible to limit independent contributions.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. If the gentleman would yield, let me just get into a couple of specifics. These are probably the five worst things about the Republican bill. But the Republican bill vastly increases all of the-- nearly all--of the contributions set in current law. Reforming campaigns, let us face it. It is about limiting the influence of money, not expanding it. The Republican bill would also allow an individual to contribute $310,000 to campaigns in political parties in a single election cycle. That is more than 10 times the current legal limit. Now, we have already mentioned that according to the Republican bill, an individual could conceivably donate $3.1 million to State and national parties cumulatively. The Republican bill also codifies the soft-money loophole in the current law, which is how millions and millions of these dollars slip in. It is through the soft money. The Republican bill also vastly increases the role of national parties in local elections. That is a move that would clearly benefit the Republican parties because, as they are in the majority, raising millions and millions of dollars, they are hoping, as we said earlier, that they can buy close elections because of all of the money they are raising. Those are five of the worst reasons, worst things about this bill, and I think the reason they cancel Reform Week, and let us be clear about this. How long have we been hearing about Reform Week? We are going to straighten everything out in Reform Week, we are going to limit how much money is spent, we are going to change the system, we are going to change the way Congress does business. Nonsense. Here we are. It is Wednesday night at 10:15 Washington time, and we do not have Reform Week. The Committee on Rules is up considering a bill that goes in the opposite direction. Newt Gingrich is one of the only people in America that thinks you reform the system by putting more money into it. It is absolutely ridiculous, and I cannot imagine the response of people in this country over the next few days when they realize Reform Week was a sham, it never happened. Maybe some day next week, maybe next month, maybe next year. I think the American people are going to respond very, very angrily to what has happened here tonight.

Mr. MEEHAN. Each year. Absolutely, each year. Can you imagine how much money that is? So you have all of these millionaires contributing up to $3 million to the political parties, and then the parties, taking that money, using the recent Supreme Court decision and funneling millions and millions and millions of dollars into individual districts all across America from Washington to tell them in the form of 30-second ads who they should elect to Congress. It is exactly the wrong message; it is exactly the opposite of what the American public is demanding. So this bill is without--this Republican bill is a disaster, and the Democratic bill and the bipartisan bill are very, very similar in that for real campaign finance reform you have to do two things: One is you have to limit, do voluntary limits, the overall amount of money that is spent. Second, what we need to do in America is try to find a way to limit the role the PAC's are playing. Both bills do; there is no question both bills do that. Unfortunately, this Republican bill does nothing but infuse millions and millions and millions of dollars from millionaires. I mean do millionaires not really have enough influence in America? I think most people in America would say that they already have enough influence in everything we do. For crying out loud, the tobacco lobby has contributed $10 million in the past 10 years to Members of Congress. If you look at how much money they have contributed to the Republican Party since they have gotten in office, it has grown dramatically. So that is what this is all about. It is about Republican Party takes control, raises millions and millions of dollars setting all kinds of records and then says, well, we want the person with the most money to win.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, another point I wanted to make, we were new to this Congress in the 103d Congress. I was part of the largest freshman class since 1946. We did not get campaign finance reform because the Republicans in the U.S. Senate filibustered so that bill died. But I cannot help but remember the freshman Democrats running for reelection and nearly half of them lost. That is how the Republicans got control of the House. Half of the freshman class lost. There is a message there for Republican freshmen in this Congress. If this Congress cannot produce a campaign finance reform that, No. 1, limits special interests and, No. 2, caps how much money is spent, there is no question that the American people are going to respond and respond quickly and decisively in November. We have seen this in the past. We have seen an inability and the public reacts to it. I feel strongly if this Congress or this House does what it looks like it is going to do, which is nothing, then the November elections will be an opportunity for the American people to respond.

Mr. MEEHAN. If my colleague will yield, that point is right on point and exactly the truth. Since the beginning, Republican leadership has been wedded to the special-interests corporate contributions that drive their agenda. That is what they have been wedded, protecting big tobacco, sheltering corporate subsidies, promoting environmental regulation and rolling back environmental laws. These goals are not driven by the views of the American people, they are not driven by the views of the public. They are on the high-priorities list of the biggest contributors to the Republican Party. That is was this is about.

Mr. MEEHAN. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California not only for reserving an hour of time but also for his efforts on campaign finance reform. The Committee on Rules is meeting right now and taking all kinds of testimony, so you never know, maybe they will come up with a rule that will allow a debate on this bill. I think that one of the things that many on the Committee on Rules are afraid of is that the President will sign the bill. President Clinton has said when he spoke in the State of the Union address that we needed campaign finance reform and he specifically mentioned the bill that I have been working with Linda Smith from Washington and Chris Shays from Connecticut. It is a bicameral and bipartisan bill. He challenged the Congress to pass that bill. I cannot help but think that part of the reason is, President Clinton has said, I am going to sign campaign finance reform if it limits how much money is spent in congressional elections and begins the process of trying to lessen the influence of special interests. There are some times, with all respect, I think that the Republican leadership down at the Committee on Rules are afraid the President will actually sign the bill. Would that not be something?

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I just left the Committee on Rules. Here we are on Wednesday of Reform Week and the Committee on Rules has stated that we are not going to do any reform this week. That is right, Reform Week. This is the week that we have been waiting for for an entire year when Members will have an opportunity to try to change the way Congress does business, to try to make it, for example, illegal for a Member of Congress who is indicted and convicted directly because of their official actions from collecting a pension. This was a week when we were going to deal with legislation that would prevent the revolving door where Members of Congress come in and serve for a set period of time and then go out the door and make millions and millions of dollars paid for by special interests. This was the Reform Week, Mr. Speaker, that we were going to do campaign finance reform, the most important reform that we could possibly enact if we are going to change the way Congress does business. The American people have been demanding campaign finance reform. We have seen throughout this legislative session an increase in the amount of money that special interest PAC's are contributing to Members of Congress. We have seen the Republican National Committee and the political parties taking millions of dollars more than 2 years ago in this cycle, and we have seen a direct correlation between what is being debated on the floor of the House of Representatives and who the top contributors are to Members of Congress and to the Republican Party. Now here at the last minute on Wednesday night, we are leaving tomorrow, we are not going to do campaign finance reform, it has been delayed again. The American people are fed up and disgusted with the inability of the Congress to pass real campaign finance reform. I remember when President Bush indicated that he was going to veto the bill that was being debated in the House of Representatives, and the House of Representatives and the Senate rushed to get that bill passed and over to the President so he could veto it. Last year, last session, we saw in the United States Senate campaign finance reform die again. I have been part of a bipartisan group of Members of Congress and a bicameral group of Members of Congress fighting to come up with a campaign finance reform bill. We have 21 Democratic supporters of that bill and 20 Republican supporters of that bill. We have editorial support from every major newspaper all across the country. Now is the time to enact campaign finance reform. The President has indicated that he supports a bipartisan approach. The President in his State of the Union Address right here before this body urged the Congress, urged the United States Senate to pass campaign finance reform and specifically asked the Congress to pass a bipartisan bill. Now we see that we are not going to get any kind of campaign finance reform this week. In fact, there is no Reform Week, no Reform Week after all of the publicity and everything else that went on with this Congress going to change the way this Congress does business. Why? Because the Republicans have offered a bill that increases the amount of money that is going to be put into the process. That is right, not limits, increases the amount of money. The Republican bill vastly increases nearly all of the contribution limits set in current law. Campaign finance reform should be about limiting the influence of money on Congress, not expanding it. The Republican bill, for example, will allow an individual to contribute up to $310,000 to campaigns and political parties in a single election cycle. Think of it, that is more than 10 times the current legal limit. They want to put more money into this corrupting process. No one would believe it, but that is exactly what is before the Committee on Rules of the House of Representatives. According to the Republican bill, an individual could conceivably donate, get this, $3.1 million to State and national parties, cumulatively. Think about it, $3.1 million. We are going to open up this process so the more money you have, the more influence you are going to have. The Republican bill codifies the soft money loophole in the current law. This bill vastly increases the role of national parties in local elections. Just what America is looking for, isn't it? The party bosses in Washington are going to decide to put hundreds of thousands of dollars into individual districts all over America. That is exactly fundamentally what is wrong with the system. That is exactly and fundamentally the opposite of what Americans all over this country are demanding. This Congress should have done better. The Republican bill would vastly increase the contributions on every area. The Republican bill would actually not limit spending like the Democratic bill and the bipartisan bill would do. This Republican bill is an absolute disaster. Guess why they are not going to have it come up this week? Because there are moderate Republicans who know this is a sham. There are moderate Republicans who know that this is a fraud. They cannot get the votes for this disgusting, regressive piece of legislation that has no business on the floor of this House. I would hope that as we debate campaign finance reform for an hour coming up that we would find a way to call Members of Congress, find a way to get Members of Congress to wake up and realize that we need to change this system, and the way to change this system is not to go home tomorrow afternoon at 3:00 and fail on campaign finance reform.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, today we are debating a bill that purports to defend marriage. I have been thinking a lot about this legislation this week because tomorrow, I am getting married. My finance and I are going to vow to spend the rest of our lives together--no matter what lies ahead. For that commitment, we will enjoy all the rights and privileges the Government bestows on married couples--from tax breaks to Social Security benefits. I can't imagine that my fiance and I could make such a momentous decision to wed--and then have the Government step in and say no, you can't do that. I can't imagine that two people who simply want to exercise a basic human right to marry, a right our society encourages could be denied. I can't imagine that two people could make a commitment to spend the rest of their lives together--and never be allowed to have that commitment recognized under the law. Because, you see, for many years, gay couples have made a commitment to spend their lives together. They have spent years building a life together, through good times and bad. Yet, if a gay man becomes gravely ill, his partner is not allowed to visit him in the hospital. A gay couple can share houses, cars, bank accounts, yet one partner cannot inherit a single thing if the other dies without a will. Furthermore, no matter how long they are together, a gay couple cannot share medical and pension benefits. This bill denies a group of Americans a basic right because they lead a different lifestyle. We must be careful when we make legislative determinations on who is different. If gay people are considered ``different'' today, who is to say your lifestyle or my lifestyle will not be considered different tomorrow? This bill also challenges one of the most basic tenets of the Constitution: the ``full faith and credit'' clause. This country is great because people take for granted that the laws of one State are honored by the other States--regardless of whether or not one State likes another State's laws. We have not been able to pick and choose for the past two centuries and now is not the time to start. Our society encourages and values a commitment to long-term monogamous relationships--and we honor those commitments by creating the legal institution of marriage. If we then deny the right of marriage to a segment of our population, we devalue their commitment without compelling reasons but simply because we don't like their choice of partners. We can't have it both ways. Protecting everyone's right to make a legal commitment to another is a defense of marriage. This bill denies certain persons that right. It is an attack on gay men and women. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against it.