Marty Meehan

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) who has been a leader on the committee on this issue in fighting for women and children for child support and alimony.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just respond that the screening method that he described, according to CBO, would cost taxpayers $200 million. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, on a final note, let me just say in response to the argument from the other side of the aisle, the child support and alimony problem does not begin and end with sections 141 and 142 of H.R. 3150. The means test and other parts of the bill contribute to the problem as well. A letter from the National Partnership for Women and Families put it best. Several provisions increase the credit card's ability to pressure debtors into reaffirming credit card debt by threatening the debtor with repossession or litigation. Through reaffirmation, even more credit card debt becomes nondischargeable in bankruptcy. In other words, aggressive creditors can use the leverage that they receive under this bill's means test to force debtors to agree to let their debts survive bankruptcy. So we once again have debtors entering the post-bankruptcy world with large amounts of credit card debt hanging over their heads in addition to their support and alimony obligations. There is simply no way to fix the child support and alimony problems with this bill other than to delete the new exceptions to the discharge of credit card debt and rewrite its means test along the lines of the Nadler-Meehan-Berman substitute. We should support this substitute and defeat this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to myself.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a leader in the committee and in the subcommittee.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a leader in the Committee on the Judiciary, a person who is always first to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Nadler-Meehan-Berman Democratic substitute, and I do so as a strong supporter of bankruptcy reform and a strong supporter of means testing. The choice before us today is clear: We can means test in a manner that takes debtors who can truly afford to repay their debts and places them into stable Chapter 13 repayment plans. Or we can means test in a way that affords aggressive creditors the opportunity to inflict protracted, contentious, and expensive litigation upon debtors of all income levels. Unfortunately, H.R. 3150 embodies the latter approach. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, ``H.R. 3150 would inject numerous opportunities for adversarial hearings in the course of a consumer bankruptcy . . . it is reasonable to anticipate that in some instances, debtors who cannot afford creditor- initiated adversarial litigation will acquiesce in reaffirmation agreements, unreasonable repayment schedules, or just opt out of the bankruptcy system.'' To make matters worse, H.R. 3150 flat out exempts a large amount of credit card debt from discharge through bankruptcy, even though this credit card debt was not actually incurred by fraud. The net result of these policies is that a substantial amount of credit card debt currently discharged through bankruptcy would now survive bankruptcy. This means that there would be a significant increase in the number of credit card lenders competing for portions of a debtor's limited postbankruptcy income and assets against women and children owed alimony and support, victims of intentional torts committed by the debtor, and a debtor's student loan creditors. Mr. Chairman, I have not yet heard even a remotely compelling public policy rationale for making it more difficult than it is already for women and children to collect alimony and support. Instead, a Dear Colleague letter was circulated this week that tells us that the concerns about alimony and support collection are ``rubbish.'' How interesting. First we hear there is no child support and alimony problem. That is what we were told in committee. Then we hear the Committee on the Judiciary fixed this once nonexistent problem and that the remaining complaints are ``rubbish.'' Now we are told that certain floor amendments fixed the initially nonexistent and supposedly solved problem. It kind of makes one wonder who is really spewing the ``rubbish.'' The Nadler-Meehan-Berman substitute would address debtor abuses without dramatically reducing the scope of debts covered by bankruptcy. It would means-test without permitting aggressive creditors to file motions against debtors who simply cannot afford to stick up for their bankruptcy rights. And it strikes the new exceptions to discharge for credit card debt that have no legitimate public policy justification and threaten alimony and support collections. The substitute is the type of reform that the Senate could accept and the President would sign. I urge my colleagues to support the substitute. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I come before the House today as a supporter of bankruptcy reform. It will enable creditors to collect some debt that is currently being discharged through bankruptcy and that would channel debtors who can afford to pay a substantial portion of their unsecured debts into Chapter 13 repayment plans. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, let me now say that I come before the House today in opposition to this bill, H.R. 3150. There is nothing inconsistent about supporting pro-creditor bankruptcy reform and opposing H.R. 3150. The fact is, you can means test eligibility for Chapter 7 without relying on rigid IRS expense standards to evaluate a debtor's ability to pay his or her debts. You can means test without permitting aggressive creditors to target low and moderate income debtors with expensive and protracted and contentious litigation over their bankruptcy rights. You can address manipulation of the bankruptcy system by high income debtors without simply declaring large amounts of credit card debt to be exempt from discharge. In short, you can replace H.R. 3150 with the Nadler-Meehan-Berman substitute. The result will be a balanced bankruptcy reform that enhances creditor recovery without drastically diluting the fresh start for financially strapped debtors or impeding alimony and child support collection. On the other hand, voting yes on an unamended version of H.R. 3150 would send to the conference committee an unbalanced bill, and the Senate wants nothing to do with that and the Clinton Administration will veto this bill. That route is dangerous for the most vulnerable debtors and dangerous for the prospects of prompt bankruptcy reform. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and support the substitute and reject the unamended version, this bill, of H.R. 3150.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who has been a leader in the effort to fight for campaign finance reform, and a leader in our bipartisan effort to support the Shays-Meehan bill.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would remind the gentleman from Texas that last week he voted to amend the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and a recognized constitutional expert within this body.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. MEEHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this has been a very interesting and lengthy debate about the first amendment implications of spending limits, and I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for all of their input into the constitutional implications of spending limits. But, Mr. Chairman, let me make one thing very, very clear. The Shays- Meehan bill does not include spending limits. I have a sneaking suspicion that reform opponents have contrived a debate here today that is nothing more than a red herring. Their message is that any campaign finance reform is impossible without amending the United States Constitution, and nothing could be further from the truth. According to the eminent constitutional scholars such as John Miekeljohn and Thomas Emerson, the core principle underlying the first amendment is that voters should have the ability to tap into the vast marketplace of ideas so they can draw their own conclusions about political issues and candidates. Nothing in the Shays-Meehan legislation precludes their ability to do that. In fact, I firmly believe that the bill would enhance political dialogue by increasing disclosure. Now, Supreme Court decisions have affirmed that reformers stand on solid constitutional ground when we argue that campaign finance reform and first amendment rights are not mutually exclusive. The Court has repeatedly recognized that Congress possesses a broad ability to shield the political process from corruption and the appearance of corruption. In the landmark case of Buckley v. Valeo, the Court ruled that Federal contribution limits ``do not undermine to any material degree the potential for robust and effective discussion of candidates and campaign issues by individual citizens, associations, the institutional press, candidates, and political parties.'' More recently, in 1989, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed that position in Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce, ruling that the current ban on corporate treasury contributions and expenditures serves to combat ``the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of corporate form * * *'' It is clear to me and the majority Members of this Congress that support the Shays-Meehan bill, that it is time to move forward with this debate. Legitimate constitutional concerns must be addressed, but the first amendment shell games should not be used any longer to postpone debate on reform any longer than they already have. Let me also state that tomorrow marks an anniversary. It is the three-year anniversary that the Speaker of the House and the President of the United States met in New Hampshire and shook hands in agreement to get real comprehensive campaign finance reform to a vote in this Chamber. The three-year anniversary. Can my colleagues imagine? It has been three years and we still have not had a vote on a comprehensive, bipartisan, bicameral McCain-Feingold Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform legislation. Tomorrow morning when we take the well, it will be an anniversary of sorts. I would encourage Members from both sides of the aisle to come to this well and mark that third-year anniversary with a renewed call for a vote on campaign finance reform. The public has had it. This vote is long overdue. Let us mark this anniversary with a vote on real campaign finance reform and pass the Shays-Meehan bill.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I have never taken PAC money in the history of my election. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has played such a great leadership role working with both sides of the aisle to bring real, true, bipartisan campaign finance reform to a vote on the floor of this House.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), who has been a leader in the bipartisan effort to get campaign finance reform, and a leader on Shays-Meehan. (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 50 seconds to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers).

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Lois Capps).

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am struck as I look at the clock and it is 20 minutes past 8:00, no further votes expected, and here we are debating campaign finance reform. It is interesting. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), who has been a leader in the effort to pass bipartisan campaign finance reform, working with both Democrats and Republicans in the freshman class.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), a cosponsor of bipartisan campaign finance reform, the Shays-Meehan bill, and a constitutional law professor from California.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday's Los Angeles Times got it right: ``Voters are getting tired of empty promises'' from the Republican leadership on campaign finance reform. Weeks have passed since the Republican leadership committed to holding a vote on the Shays-Meehan bill. Each day Republican leaders have postponed reform or debate on reform, and every day they postpone it, support for our bill has grown. Grassroots organizations, ranging from the AARP to the National Farmers Union to public groups all over the country are uniting behind supporting the Shays-Meehan bill. Last week, key Democratic and Republican sponsors of the commission bill merged with our coalition in support of a single bipartisan bill. Over the past few weeks, reform-minded Members on both sides of the aisle have committed to pulling their own reform proposals off if the Shays-Meehan bill wins a majority vote. Now all we need is the opportunity to do just that. Vote on the Shays-Meehan bill. In short, to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), reform supporters are ready to move forward. Enough is enough. Let us vote on Shays-Meehan.

Mr. MEEHAN

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

Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a new Member of this institution who took the House seat of her husband, who signed onto the Shays-Meehan bill as the first bill that she signed onto.

Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has been fighting for campaign finance reform over the last few years and has been a real leader in this institution in fighting for campaign finance reform.

Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, late last night the House embarked on what will prove to be a historic debate on campaign finance reform. Over the next few weeks, we will have the opportunity to truly strengthen our democracy and respond to the 72 percent of Americans who say that there is too much money in American politics. Most importantly, this debate will clearly identify those Members who support real bipartisan reform by a vote for the Shays/Meehan bill from those who are tied to the status quo. It is a fact that undisclosed money is overwhelming our current election system. The most effective way to solve the problem is to ban soft money, the huge sums given by corporations, interest groups and labor unions. These unregulated contributions are at the heart of nearly every single investigation that the majority party has focused on this year. The other problem with our current system is the proliferation of campaign ads masquerading as issue ads in congressional races all across the country. According to a report published by the Annenberg Public Policy Center and the Pew Charitable Trust, more than two dozen organizations engaged in campaign advertising during the 1995-1996 election cycle, but because they called their campaign ads issue advocacy, they did not play by our campaign rules. As a result, nearly $150 million worth of these ads, a third of what all candidates nationwide spent themselves, went undisclosed. Nobody knew where the money came from. The Shays/Meehan bill addresses both of these issues. Some of my colleagues have suggested that in order to pass campaign finance reform, that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and I should modify our original legislation to garner additional support. However, it is important to remember that this legislation is already a product of compromise. Unlike our original bill, H.R. 3526 does not have voluntary spending limits, nor does it include incentives to abide by such limits like low-cost TV time or free mailings. Moreover, it does not include any change in PAC limits. At the same time, the bill does include new provisions to deal with the recent abuses of our campaign system, including a clarification of the law forbidding fund-raising on government property and a strengthened foreign money ban. Our legislation has six primary components: first is a ban, a complete ban on soft money; second, a clarification of what constitutes campaign advertisement; third, increased disclosure and enforcement; fourth, a ban on all fund-raising on government property; fifth, a personal wealth option; sixth, codification of the Beck decision. In short, the Shays-Meehan bill will end the soft money system, and address the growing problem of sham issue ads in Federal elections. It will increase disclosure of political contributions and expenditures, because, frankly, the public has a right to know. Finally, our measure will give the Federal Election Commission the teeth it needs to enforce existing law. In closing, I would like to take a moment to address the First Amendment implications of this legislation. In the coming weeks, I look forward to engaging in a constructive debate over the nature of the First Amendment doctrine in Federal election laws. Such a debate is important. But there are some Members who raise this issue in good faith, but I want to warn the American people that there are Members who are falsely raising constitutional concerns, because they oppose reform and support the status quo. The bottom line is clear, next month the Congress will have a historic opportunity to make a real difference in the way this institution is perceived by the people who have elected us. We will have a chance to take a step away from the well-heeled special interest and take a step towards restoring the one voice/one vote principle upon which this country was founded. I urge all of my colleagues to take a stand for reform and support the Shays-Meehan bill. Let me address a couple of other issues, Madam Chairman, if I may. It has been raised that somehow this bill lacks the constitutional basis because there is spending limits. It does not include spending limits. There is some who say that we cannot outlaw PAC spending. It does not outlaw PAC spending. Shays-Meehan does not ban bundling. There is no free air time in this legislation. I think it is important as we discuss the facts to keep that in mind. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), my colleague who has been fighting for reform since he arrived in this institution.