Marty Meehan

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Councillor Bill Pike for his lifetime contributions to the newspaper industry, the City of Haverhill and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Councillor Bill Pike was a lifelong resident of Haverhill, Massachusetts, a highly respected political activist and a longtime newspaper reporter. Bill also served on countless boards, including a recent appointment by Governor Jane Swift to the Massachusetts Workforce Investment Board--a business-led, policy-setting board that oversees workforce development initiatives throughout Massachusetts. Bill demonstrated his passion for the City of Haverhill through his participation in countless social, civic, religious, professional and political associations. He was an active member of St. James Parish, the Lodge of Elks and the American Legion. He also served as former Chairman of the Haverhill Republican City Committee and was an active Board Member of the Haverhill Boys Club. He established a highly successful professional career as a newspaper reporter, working as a correspondent for the Boston Globe and a reporter for the Beverly Times, Manchester Union Leader and Haverhill Independent. He also dedicated 29 years of service to the Daily Evening Item in Lynn where he retired. He further demonstrated his love for the city by working as a former Editor of the Haverhill Gazette. Bill is survived by his loving wife Patricia, his four sons William, Robert, Michael and Jeffrey, and his three daughters, Kathleen Jaggers, Elizabeth Shanahan and Sandra Faraci, as well as sixteen grandchildren and several nieces and nephews. Bill was truly a magnificent man who cared about his community. His memory will live in the minds and hearts of his loving family, and his legacy will leave the City of Haverhill a far better place.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my concern about continuing serious violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Kazakhstan, including substantial noncompliance with their Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) commitments on democratization and the holding of free and fair elections. Kazakhstan has been a participating state of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) since 1992 and has freely accepted all OSCE commitments, including those concerning human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Kazakhstan has affirmed that every individual has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, expression, association, peaceful assembly and movement, freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention, torture, or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, and if charged with an offense the right to a fair and public trial. And, Kazakhstan has committed itself to build, consolidate, and strengthen democracy as the only system of government, and is obligated to hold free elections at reasonable intervals, to respect the right of citizens to seek political or public office without discrimination, to respect the right of individuals and groups to establish in full freedom their own political parties, and to allow parties and individuals wishing to participate in the electoral process access to the media on a nondiscriminatory basis. Nevertheless, President Nursultan Nazarbaev dissolved parliament in 1993 and again in 1995, when he also annulled scheduled Presidential elections. He has also refused to register opposition parties, and has exited opposition figures and forced members of the media out of the country. On January 10, 1999, President Nazarbaev was reelected in snap Presidential elections from which a leading challenger was excluded for having addressed an unregistered organization, ``For Free Elections,'' and the OSCE assessed the election as falling far short of international standards. Finally, on June 22, 2000, the Kazakhstan parliament approved draft legislation designed to give President Nazarbaev various powers and privileges for the rest of his life. In March of this year, President Nazarbayev imprisoned two of his leading political rivals, Mssrs. Mukhtar Ablyazov and Mr. Alymzhan Zhakiyanov, and former Prime Minister Akezhan Kazhegeldin remains in exile. Additionally, the Prime Minister of Kazakhstan recently admitted that more than one billion dollars of Kazakh public monics had been transferred to off-shore bank accounts in President Nazarbayev's name. President Nazarbayev's family owns and controls all major media outlets in Kazakhstan including television, radio and newspapers. The independent media in Kazakhstan, which used to be fairly free, has been pressured, co-opted, or crushed, leaving few outlets for the expression of independent or opposition views, thus limiting the press's ability to criticize or comment on the President's campaign to remain in office indefinitely or on high-level corruption. I urge this Administration to make a more concerted and stronger effort to raise with President Nazarbayev at every opportunity, the concern about serious violations of human rights, including noncompliance with Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) commitments on democracy and rule of law. Kazakhstan needs to come into compliance with OSCE commitments on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, specifically the holding of free and fair elections that do not exclude genuine challengers, to permit independent and opposition parties and candidates to participate on an equal basis with representation in election commissions at all levels, and to allow domestic nongovernmental and political party observers, as well as international observers. I also encourage the Administration to raise with the governments of other OSCE participating states the possible implications for OSCE participation of any participating state in the region that engages in clear, gross, and uncorrected violations of its OSCE commitments on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. To that end, Voice of America and Radio Liberty should expand broadcasting to Central Asia especially into Kazakhstan, as needed, with a focus on assuring that the peoples of the region have access to unbiased news and programs that support respect for human rights and the establishment of democracy and the rule of law.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 87th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide and pay my solemn respects to those who lost their lives because of their ethnicity. The Armenian Genocide was a terrible tragedy that must never be forgotten. On April 24, 1915, hundreds of Armenian leaders were murdered in Istanbul by order of the Young Turk regime of the Ottoman empire. The Young Turks were a dictatorial regime that orchestrated the systematic destruction of the Armenian people in the Ottoman empire. This genocide occurred through forced labor, concentration camps and death marches. By 1923, the Ottoman empire had killed 1.5 million Armenians and deported 500,000. However, the present day Turkish government has not yet admitted its involvement in the Armenian Genocide. This denial disrespects the memories of the victims of the Armenian Genocide and compels its survivors and all of us to remind the world of this terrible tragedy every April 24th. Only by raising our voices together will these crimes be known, condemned forever, and--hopefully--never repeated. Today, I beseech the Turkish government to finally acknowledge its role in the Armenian Genocide. In attempting the systematic annihilation of the Jews of Europe half a century ago, Adolph Hitler asked ``Who today remembers the annihilation of the Armenians?'' We answer: we remember. And it is long past time for the Turkish government to join us in remembering. I proudly represent a large and active Armenian community in my Congressional District in Massachusetts. Every year, survivors 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 parts of Massachusetts's Merrimack Valley. The commemoration offers participants an opportunity to remind the world of the tragedy that befell Armenians of the Ottoman empire. To conclude, I am honored to add my voice to those of my colleagues today in commemorating the Armenian Genocide. We will never forget the truth.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, today, the House voted on H.R. 3762, the Pension Security Act. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of the Democratic substitute authored by Representatives Miller and Rangel and against final passage of H.R. 3762, the so-called Pension Security Act. I would have opposed H.R. 3762, the Republican proposal, because it would have done little to prevent future ``Enron'' scenarios, where executives and pension administrators withheld financial information from the employees of that company. Without the necessary information about the financial status of the company, Enron's non-executive employees then lost the bulk of their retirement sayings when the value of the company's stock fell through the floor. H.R. 3762 fails to require anyone to alert employees when company officials begin dumping company stock, as Enron executives did just before the value of Enron stock dropped dramatically on the market. H.R. 3762 also fails to hold fiduciaries of pension plans accountable if they violate the law. Furthermore, under H.R. 3762, employees would not have the option to fully diversify their stock in a timely manner, nor would they have a voice in the administration and protection of their retirement savings. Combined, these failings would leave future workers vulnerable to the same type of financial disaster facing Enron's employees today. I would have supported the Democratic substitute to H.R. 3762 because I believe it would go a long way towards preventing a future ``Enron'' situation from occurring. The Democratic substitute to H.R. 3762 would arm employees with the same access to information as corporate executives, giving employees the tolls they need to make informed investment decisions regarding their pension plans. Moreover, H.R. 3762 would give employees representation on the boards that manage pension plans and a say in the administration and protection of those plans. I would have also supported the Democratic substitute because it would require executives to notify the pension plan when they are selling large amounts of company stock, and it would give the employees the right to diversify their investments as soon as they are vested in the funds. I was unable to vote for the Democratic plan and against H.R. 3762 because of a compelling obligation in my Congressional district occurring at the time of the votes. Former Mayor of New York City Rudolph Guiliani is giving remarks in Lowell, Massachusetts today-- which is located in my Congressional District. Mayor Giuliani demonstrated superb and heralded leadership immediately following the September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City. Tragically, 30 of my constituents lost their lives in those attacks, as they were on the American Airlines jet which was one of two airplanes that crashed into the Twin Towers. Their families continue to mourn the loss of parents, children and siblings and every day feel the pain that terrorism has visited upon them. Mayor Giuliani has provided unique comfort to families who lost loved ones on September 11th because of his boundless compassion, tremendous leadership in the face of unspeakable tragedy, and unstinting efforts to help these families overcome the financial and emotional difficulties caused by this terrible event. I have accordingly arranged for the Mayor to meet privately with these families at my residence and will miss these votes to attend that gathering. As I was unable to vote for the Democratic substitute today, I am looking forward to having the opportunity to vote for a balanced and effective pension reform bill that I hope will be the result of a House-Senate compromise on this critical issue.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, I agree with the underlying bill as well. I congratulate the bipartisanship of the Committee on Ways and Means for coming together to put together a good bill; but, unfortunately, there is a provision in this bill that even if Members disagree with it, should not be part of a suspension. Madam Speaker, just 2 weeks ago the President signed into law the most comprehensive rewrite of this Nation's campaign finance laws in a generation. It is an enormous step towards cleaner elections and a better democracy. The ink on this new law is barely dry, and we are already debating a proposal to add back the loopholes. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights bill is a good bill, but it includes several provisions that will torpedo key disclosure requirements for so-called stealth PACs. These disclosure requirements were put in place by a law that this Congress passed 2 years ago to shine sunlight on organizations influencing Federal elections without disclosing a dime of their expenditures or contributions. This bill would exempt State and local PACs from Federal disclosure requirements even where there is not adequate disclosure at the State level. What does that mean? How do we know that States are going to require disclosure of every single contribution. We cannot have guarantees; that is why we needed a stealth PAC legislation. There are so-called sham issue ads that disguise themselves as real issue ads. They influence Federal elections. This bill is a loophole, the beginning of what many of us are afraid will be a series of loopholes designed to undermine campaign finance reform that this Congress passed and the President of the United States signed. This bill would permit State and local PACs for which Federal office holders raise soft money, Federal office holders raising soft money to qualify for this exemption from Federal filing requirements. That is why this provision should not be in this bill. All Members should be proud of what we have accomplished on campaign finance reform. It was a historic effort by both sides of the aisle to pass meaningful disclosure requirements, to rein in sham issue ads, and to bring some accountability back to our Federal campaign finance system, or any ads meant to influence a Federal election. We should not be taking steps backwards after taking major steps forward. Let us work together, as our colleagues on the other body have said, and they have had a dialogue about this in a bipartisan, responsible way to fix the 527 law. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) has been on this issue for some time. In fact, the gentleman warned many of us 2 years ago when we were debating this legislation that there might be a loophole. Let us do this the right way and not undermine the wonderful work that this Congress has done on campaign finance reform.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Let us be clear: the vote on this amendment will tell us whether this is a bill aimed at giving Federal courts the chance to deal with class actions that they currently cannot, or whether this is a bill aimed at just shutting down all class actions. That is what this is about. Under this amendment, a class action originally filed in State court could still be removed to Federal court. But let us say that a Federal court will not certify that class. That is where the rubber meets the road. The failure to get class certification in Federal court does not mean that the suit lacks merit. It does not mean this case will be decided on the merits. It simply means it does not meet rule 23. But the sponsors of this bill would shut down class actions right there, just shut them all down, whether they have merit or whether they do not, saying that if it is refiled in State court, it gets shunted back out to the Federal court that has already said it will not hear it. So what is the result? There is a merry-go-round that begins. It is nothing more than a merry-go-round. Justice is delayed, and then it is denied. So this bill goes beyond giving Federal courts a chance to hear and use their powers to consolidate class actions that they currently cannot touch. It blocks class actions that were capable of being certified under State law. This amendment would stop the merry-go-round by letting that class action, sent back to State court, move forward on the merits. There was a letter by a well-known outside group in support of this bill in 1998. This is what the outside group said. I think it kind of gets to the meat of what we are talking about here: ``This bill would enable class action suits filed in State courts to be moved to Federal court, where such wasteful lawsuits can easily be dismissed.'' That is what an outside group said. We should not let that happen. If this is a bill about taking any kind of lawsuit and saying that they are all wasteful and dismissing them early, then let us say that is what this is about. That is what the group said earlier. This amendment allows the framers of the bill, the authors of the bill, to get their way in terms of having Federal courts to deal with these, but lets the State courts hear these actions on the merits if they do not meet the technical definition of a class action suit. We should not let this happen. We want to support this bill. This bill should not be about killing class action. Support this amendment.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, last night, the House passed H.R. 2356 as amended, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. I would like to speak today to provide guidance to the Federal Election Commission regarding its future interpretation of one of the provisions of H.R. 2356. H.R. 2356 sets forth a definition of ``electioneering communications'' in Title II. Certain exceptions to this definition are set out in Section 201(3)(B) of the bill, and include (i) news distributed by broadcast stations that are not owned or controlled by a candidate, (ii) independent expenditures, (iii) candidate debates and forums and (iv) ``any other communication exempted under such regulations as the Commission may promulgate . . . to ensure appropriate implementation of this paragraph.'' Specifically, I wish to address some questions that have been raised about the purpose of the fourth exception. The definition of ``electioneering communication'' is a bright line test covering all broadcast, satellite and cable communications that refer to a clearly identified federal candidate and that are made within the immediate pre-election period of 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary. But it is possible that there could be some communications that will fall within this definition even though they are plainly and unquestionably not related to the election. Section 201(3)(B)(iv) was added to the bill to provide the Commission with some limited discretion in administering the statute so that it can issue regulations to exempt such communications from the definition of ``electioneering communications'' because they are wholly unrelated to an election. For instance, if a church that regularly broadcasts its religious services does so in the pre-election period and mentions in passing and as part of its service the name of an elected official who is also a candidate, and the Commission can reasonably conclude that the routine and incidental mention of the official does not promote his candidacy, the Commission could promulgate a rule to exempt that type of communication from the definition of ``electioneering communications.'' There could be other examples where the Commission could conclude that the broadcast communication in the immediate pre-election period does not in any way promote or support any candidate, or oppose his opponent, Charities exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code are prohibited by existing tax law from supporting or opposing candidates for elective office. Notwithstanding this prohibition, some such charities have run ads in the guise of so- called ``issue advocacy'' that clearly have had the effect of promoting or opposing federal candidates. Because of these cases, we do not intend that Section 201(3)(B)(iv) be used by the FEC to create any per se exemption from the definition of ``electioneering communications'' for speech by Section 501(c)(3) charities. Nor do we intend that Section 201(3)(B)(iv) apply only to communications by section 501(c)(3) charities. But we do urge the FEC to take cognizance of the standards that have been developed by the IRS in administering the law governing Section 501(c)(3) charities, and to determine the standards, if any, that can be applied to exempt specific categories of speech where it is clear that such communications are made in a manner that is neutral in nature, wholly unrelated to an election and cannot be used to promote or attack any federal candidate. We urge the Commission to exercise this rulemaking power consistent with the time frame specified in the bill for the promulgation of new regulations to implement the provisions of H.R. 2356. We also expect the Commission to use its Advisory Opinion process to address these situations both before and after the issuance of regulations.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for the purpose of a colloquy.

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

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. MEEHAN. This is a limited amount, $10,000. It cannot go for television ads, it cannot go for radio ads.

Mr. MEEHAN. It cannot go for radio ads. Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

Mr. MEEHAN. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, my brief answer is we believe that the million-dollar contributions, like the $4 million to Enron over a period of 10 years, the $2 million in the last election cycle, that is what we are fighting; the $2 million ends up in television ads. This is $10,000 that cannot go on television. It cannot do anything but build both parties.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a leader in campaign finance reform.

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

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, no, you cannot do that. That is illegal under the present law, and it would be illegal if this bill passed. All this says is if there are bills that come in after the deadline, you can pay those bills in accordance with Federal law. So if there was a soft-money bill that could only be paid for with soft money, you could pay it before the January 1 date. The same is true for hard money. But you could not borrow hard money and then pay it off with soft money. That would be illegal.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. This bill does not prevent any individual, any individual or any groups of individuals, from speaking out 60 days before an election. They simply have to use hard money, and the public has a right to know where that money comes from under the Supreme Court decision and under the Constitution. There is no way it stops anyone. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo). She and I came to the Congress together in 1993, and she has been a forceful, eloquent spokesperson for campaign finance reform.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, so basically the gentleman is saying all of the Members who have opposed reform, abolishing soft money, now say they want it in effect right now right away? Is that what the gentleman is suggesting?

Mr. MEEHAN. If we are going to do a campaign finance bill, the people who have opposed reform now say, well, if we are really going to do it, let us put it in effect right away?

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, if James Madison could see the $4 million in unregulated soft money that went from Enron to both political parties, if James Madison could see that 70 percent of the soft money from Enron since 1995 went to both political parties, if James Madison could see the $1.7 million in the last election cycle, he would be rolling over in his grave. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers), who has been an advocate for finance campaign reform since she got to the House of Representatives.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, what I was referring to was the principles on the concept of campaign finance reform, the principles of the concept. That is what I referred to. That is what we are debating. It is not personal, it is substantive; and we are going to debate it till 3 a.m. if we need to, and we are going to win in the end.

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

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, this legislation does not allow somebody to borrow hard money and then pay it back in soft money. In fact, no one can raise any soft money under this bill after the next election. So what the gentleman is saying just simply is not true.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. We have a historic opportunity today, a historic opportunity to pass real campaign finance reform; and I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) for the hard work he has put into this and my partner, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has worked diligently over the years. There are so many Republicans, the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) who did such a wonderful job on the floor. We are going to hear more from the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) as this debate goes on. So many Democrats who have stood together for campaign finance reform, our colleagues in the other body. What makes this unique is we understand campaign finance reform will die if we let this go to a conference committee. So we have preconferenced this bill over a period of the last year, making sure that Democrats and Republicans have equal footing, making sure that the Senate and the House negotiate in good faith so that we now have a wonderful opportunity to pass this bill and send it over to the Senate where it will still need 60 votes. Then we are going to send it over to the President, and the President has made it very clear to the Republican leadership and anyone else in this House, do not count on me to veto this bill. Why is it the President made it clear? Because this President knows what we all know, that there is a cloud over the Capitol and the White House because of this Enron scandal, and the American people are demanding that that cloud be removed by removing this soft money system that has had such a corrupting influence on the decisions that we make day in and day out, making good people do bad things. They want this removed and the President wants this removed, I am sure. I am sure that is why he will sign this bill. Let us join together today and have a good debate. But let everyone know, the other side that is trying to kill this bill does not have a philosophical perspective. They do not have a set of principles that are determining what amendments they offer. What they offer is anything they can think of to defeat this bill, anything that they can think of to send this bill to conference. It has gotten so wild over the other side that they are actually putting in a substitute that is a bill that we were working on a few years ago before we preconferenced. We have a unique opportunity. Let us join together and pass Shays- Meehan. Parliamentary Inquiry