Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support House Concurrent Resolution 304, which expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should publicly declare that it considers there to be probable cause that Slobodan Milosevic has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The resolution urges the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to promptly review all information relating to Milosevic's possible criminal culpability with a view toward issuing an indictment. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution Mr. Speaker, there is no justification for the massacre of hundreds of ethnic Albanians in Kosova. The pattern in Kosova is tragically all too familiar. The Serbian Army shells and burns villages. Among the dead are innocent men, women and children. More than a quarter of a million people in Kosova have already been driven from their homes since February. In addition, the U.S. government has received first- hand reports that Yugoslav military forces are separating males and females in villages and refugee groups in Losova and taking the men and boys to unknown sites. This brutal, indiscriminate, disproportionate and unjustified use of violence must end. What Mr. Milosevic is about in Kosova, as in Bosnia before this, is ethnic cleansing on a massive scale. It is important that the international community stand united against death and destruction inflicted on Kosova by Serbia. The crisis in Kosova is not--as some have described it--an ``internal affair'' of Serbia. We must speak loudly and clearly. More than that, the time has come to back up words with actions. If the United States and the international community fail to take effective action to stop the violence in Kosova, the likelihood is that the conflict will grow and spread. I urge the President and Secretary Albright to take a hard line against Slobodan Milosevic's repressive policies. To that end, I recently joined more than 80 concerned Members of the House in writing a letter to the President that said, ``It is time to send a message to Milosevic that NATO will intervene if Serbian forces do not stop attacking ethnic Albanian citizens and destroying their villages.'' Experience has shown that we cannot rely on Slobodan Milosevic's words. We must judge him by his actions and hold him accountable. House Concurrent Resolution 304 is an important step in that direction. It should by no means be the last step. The horrendous killing and shelling of civilians must stop. I urge all my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 304.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor two outstanding individuals, Kimberly M. Cahill and Albert L. Lorenzo, and one remarkable family, the Petitprens, of Macomb County as they are honored with the March of Dimes ``Alexander Macomb Citizens of the Year'' Award. Kimberly M. Cahill is a a highly respected attorney and a dedicated community activist. Ms. Cahill is the president of the law firm of Schoenherr & Cahill, P.C., and is the past president of the Women Lawyers Association of Michigan. In 1997, she received the Macomb County Bar Association's Civility Award and was named by Crain's Detroit Business as one of the 40 top metro Detroiters under the age of 40. Ms. Cahill has used her influence to incorporate more women and minorities in the legal profession. In addition, she has devoted her time and energy to such important issues as public health and parenting programs for pregnant teens. Albert L. Lorenzo has been an outstanding president of Macomb Community College since 1979. Under his inspired leadership, the college has grown to become one of the nation's largest multi-campus community colleges and the fourth-largest grantor of associate degrees in the United States. His background in teaching and educational administration has afforded him opportunities to contribute to more than two dozen books and to author articles for national journals. Dr. Lorenzo was selected as one of the country's top 50 community college CEOs, and he has been the recipient of the national ``Tom Peters Leadership Award.'' In addition to his responsibilities at the college, Dr. Lorenzo serves on the Governor's Workforce Commission and other organizations involved in health care, banking, research and human service. The Petitpren family have combined business experience and community responsibility to make their business, Petitpren Inc., a Macomb County success story. The company contributes to more than 60 cultural and charitable organizations, including Habitat for Humanity and sponsors programs to discourage underage drinking. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate these outstanding residents of Macomb County for the leadership, caring, and commitment to their communities highlighted in this esteemed award.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Evelyn and Lester Burton, who are being honored at a Gala Celebration by the Michigan Region of the American Committee for the Weizmann Institute of Science on September 10, 1998. The Weizmann Institute in Rehovot, Israel is one of the world's foremost centers of scientific research and graduate study. Indeed, humankind has benefited from the Institute's advances in methods of fighting disease and hunger, protecting the environment, harnessing alternative sources of energy, and developing advanced technologies for science and industry. Evelyn and Lester's commitment and dedication to the ideals of the Weizmann Institute have been invaluable. Working behind the scenes, never seeking the limelight, they have been an important part of the Institute's progress. Together, they have hosted scientists in their home, organized science forums in the general community, and facilitated in fund-raising for the Institute. I met Evelyn and Lester Burton more than forty years ago when we were active in establishing the Berkley Council for Better Schools, an organization founded to preserve and maintain the highest educational standards in the Berkley School District. In the following years, they have both gone on to serve in organizations, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society and others too numerous to mention, but always working to make this world a better place. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Evelyn and Lester Burton, two private people who have untiringly promoted the public welfare. I wish them, their children and their grandchildren, good health and happiness as they continue to lead such exemplary lives.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kucinich amendment. Some of my colleagues oppose this amendment because they believe it is a fig leaf for protectionist impulses. Others support the amendment because they believe it is necessary to preserve basic American values from encroachment by an evil international trade bureaucracy. These attitudes are typical of the way we debate trade in this town. We choose up sides, either as ``free traders'' or as ``economic nationalists,'' and throw epithets. But it's never that simple. This amendment raises a legitimate issue. We visited this issue during negotiations on the World Trade Organization. A major impact of the creation of the WTO was that the United States, and all of the other members, lost what was in essence a veto power over decisions of WTO trade panels. At the time, we raised questions about the relationship between federal and state law in the context of our membership in this trade organization. This amendment focuses on the impact of the WTO on state efforts. These are not simple issues with simple answers. They deserve our thorough and thoughtful consideration. But an amendment to a funding bill does not provide an appropriate forum for this reasoned discussion. The implication of the amendment is that state laws affecting trade and international trade agreements are immune from action by federal authorities. While there has never been such federal action in the past, it is not wise--without very serious discussion--to immunize state laws, whatever their nature, from any such challenge in the future. Would our next step be to prohibit the use of federal funds to implement the decision of a WTO dispute settlement panel perceived to be adverse to federal laws? Doing so nullifies our prerogatives for involvement in trade organizations. I took a lead position in trying to raise and resolve issues of interaction between WTO decisions and our federal and state laws when the WTO was being negotiated. We made some progress in protecting the integrity of American law, particularly with regard to dumping. There still remain a number of gray areas, some of which this amendment sheds light upon. But these issues cannot be resolved by simply waving banners or invoking slogans, whether ``free trade'' or any other. They require and deserve much more than a clash of polarized debate.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, we are at the moment of a major victory, not final, but major. And the freshmen have helped us move to this moment, but their proposal is seriously flawed. Let me mention a few of the provisions. It has a loophole for soft money relating to State parties. And that is not the question of the role of State parties, it is leaving a loophole for soft money. Secondly, it would increase the contribution maximums from $25,000 to $50,000. That means a couple over 2 years could contribute $200,000 overall. I think that is unnecessary and too high. But, thirdly, let me talk about issue ads. It is not a matter of curtailing free speech. It is whether speech that is really a campaign ad should be within the purview of our regulatory system. The Supreme Court said this in Buckley: ``To the extent that large contributions are given to secure political quid pro quo's from current and potential office holders, the integrity of our system of representative democracy is undermined. Of almost equal as the danger of actual quid pro quo arrangements is the impact of the appearance of corruption stemming from public awareness of the opportunities for abuse inherent in a regime of large individual financial contributions.'' The Court in Furgatch said, Ten years later, as these ads began to proliferate, ``we begin with the proposition that `express advocacy' is not strictly limited to communications using certain key phrases.'' And it goes on to say . . . `` `independent' campaign spenders working on behalf of candidates could remain just beyond the reach of the act by avoiding certain key words while conveying a message that is unmistakably directed to the election or defeat of a named candidate.'' Shays-Meehan brings campaign ads within present campaign regulations. Democracy needs it. Vote for Shays-Meehan.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, here is what the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) is proposing: Open the floodgates; if the swimmer is drowning, pour on more water; let money flow without any limit. Oh, but disclose; as the swimmer is drowning, tell him who is responsible for it. Too much, too late. Look, if Shays-Meehan were so helpful to the incumbent, why is the majority leadership fighting this bill so hard? It does not make any sense. Raising the limits, when you are running against a millionaire who has $10 million, they can raise the limits to $2,000 or $4,000 that someone can contribute to a poor challenger, and it won't help. The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) seems to have a crystal ball and he knows what the election results will be this year. But look, we have a chance in the Senate. When we pass Shays-Meehan, the spotlight will be on the other body to show up and to put it on the calendar and let the majority rule. If the majority can rule in the Senate as it does in the House, Shays-Meehan goes to the White House for signature. That is what they really are afraid of. And do not raise this big-government argument to try to hide the dangers of big money. We do not want big government in this. We want the little person, the average person's voice not to be drowned out by big money in America. The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) says give more money, open the floodgates, no holds barred for the rich, and everybody else loses. Vote against Doolittle.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Largent amendment. Whatever my personal opinion in this matter, decisions about who can and cannot adopt a child should be left to the states and not the Federal government. Americans do not want the Federal Government dictating adoption laws. These matters are properly left to the states and local adoption judges. In addition, this amendment is written in such a way as to have a number of unintended and negative consequences. As has been pointed out, the Largent amendment would prohibit two nuns from adopting a child. I don't believe we should hold the District of Columbia to a different adoption standard than we do with the other fifty states. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chairman, this vote is a test of this institution, but even more it is a test of ourselves. We have heard it said the public does not care, but that misreads what the public is really saying in oft-quoted surveys, that they believe those in power do not care how the public feels or what they want done, reform of a system where money too often counts more than the public's vote or voice. The opposition has invoked in this debate first amendment free speech protections, though on other occasions they have not hesitated to vote for proposals to amend that vital part of the Constitution. Shays- Meehan does not hinder free speech; indeed, it protects the voices of regular citizens by controlling large sums of unregulated, undisclosed money now drowning out their voices. We in the political maelstrom know better than anyone else that the status quo in financing campaigns is not working. Money, once said the mother's milk of politics, is increasingly becoming its poison. Shays- Meehan is a serious effort to stem and to begin to reverse this flow. It requires our support.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I admire the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) for his persistence. This is the sixth, seventh time. Do we have to beat him again?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman from Indiana that the present FEC law where there is that kind of a communication would result in an in-kind contribution. You really are changing, with your amendment, unintentionally perhaps, present FEC regulations. I would urge very much that you take another look, because we would have to oppose this as loosening present law. I think that is clear.

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. But, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that could be 120 days before, it could be any time and something that is subject to a vote that could be a year away. So I just urge that the gentleman read the amendment. Number two, in relation to the 60-day provision, that only relates to paid advertisements transmitted through radio or television 60 days preceding an election. And if it is a notification through paid media that is truly not an effort to influence a vote but influence an election, then it should come under the same rules and regulations as all other methods of communication relating to elections and candidates.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, first of all, again, I urge that anyone who is thinking of supporting this amendment read it. It applies to all of the provisions on express advocacy, whenever an ad would be launched, whether it is 60 days, 90 days, 120 days or whatever. It destroys the entire issue advocacy provisions. That is number one.

Mr. LEVIN. My point is not that the DeLay amendment is in there. The way it is drafted, it refers to all of these sham ads, whenever they are produced, whether 60 days in advance or not. If you read section C, it applies to subsection A and B and all the provisions therein.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is once again an effort to really undermine and cancel out the so-called issue ads and all of the express advocacy and issue advocacy provisions in this bill. If you look at the language of the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), you see that there is an exception, an entire exception, to the issue advocacy provisions in case of any communication which deals solely with an issue or legislation which is or may be subject to a vote in the Senate or House of Representatives. It does not say when. It could be next year. It could be 3 years from now. It could be anything. It encourages an individual to contact an elected representative in Congress in order to exercise the right protected under the first amendment. So that once again opens the door to these so-called issue ads that attack a candidate in a clear campaign manner and does not say ``defeats so and so,'' but says, after attacking him, after vilifying him or her, after making it clear that that person should be defeated, does not use the term ``defeat'' but says, contact so and so. So, the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) goes far beyond this instance of where we may be in session and where perhaps a group is truly not trying to campaign against that person but get a message to that person or to his or her constituents about something that is immediately pending. Also I would urge that the protections we have in here are more than adequate to take care of the problem that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) says he is trying to address. This is the effort of the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), all over again to take out of Shays-Meehan the issue advocacy provisions that attempt to get at ads that proclaim or parade as noncampaign ads but are truly nothing but that. There would be no other reasonable interpretation. So this is bigger than driving a Mack truck through Shays-Meehan. This is one of these amendments that has a huge truck with a lot of poison pills in them which will sink Shays-Meehan. I think it is bad policy in and of itself. It goes way beyond its pretended purpose. The momentum is now on the side of campaign finance reform. We should defeat amendments, the purpose of which is to throw a huge barrier in front of our reaching the promised land. We can reach it. There are some in this body who want to destroy it by any means. This is one such instance. We do not have to be worried about freedom of speech, in our judgment. We have carefully drafted this. Defeat the DeLay amendment.

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, let me give you a real live example of the major differences between these two bills. Twenty-five years ago one of my constituents was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. A battery of medications have been developed in recent years that can often slow the course this disease, but it is expensive. His doctor prescribed the medication, but then the HMO said, ``You need another opinion.'' The day after he went to that second doctor, he received a letter from the HMO stating no way would they pay for the drug. So my constituent called that second neurologist and he said he had not even spoken to the HMO. Then the HMO said the reason my constituent was denied access to the drug was that he was at stage seven of MS, and there was no published research about the use of this drug on stage seven MS. So even though two doctors believed that he would benefit from the medication, they were overruled by the HMO. Ganske-Dingell, the Patients' Bill of Rights Act, would help avoid situations like this. Vote for Ganske-Dingell.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I do not favor late term abortions. I believe they should only be permitted to preserve the life of the mother or to prevent serious consequences to her health. Unfortunately, the bill we are considering today, like the similar bill I opposed last year, does not protect a woman's life or serious risk to her health. I support legislation, H.R. 1032, the Late Term Abortion Restriction Act, which would ban all late term abortions, whether ``partial birth'' or by other procedures, except in cases where in the medical judgment of the attending physician, the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the woman or to avert serious adverse health consequences to the woman. I believe such a prohibition on late term abortion would pass scrutiny by the courts and be held constitutional by the Supreme Court which has ruled that during the period known as ``post viability'' states may limit abortions, except in cases where the mother's life or health are at serious risk. The positive solution to this very difficult issue is not to continue considering the same legislation, but to allow the Late Term Abortion Restriction Act to be considered on the floor of the House.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I am opposed to the Solomon resolution. I am deeply concerned about our relationships with China. They need more attention, not less. This is true of trade relations, of human rights, of Tibet, of proliferation issues. And I think the question really is whether denial of MFN or NTR will accomplish that goal in any of these areas, and I think the answer is no, it will not work. I want to spend my few minutes talking mostly about trade, but I do not view that any more importantly than I do human rights issues--I have worked on them over the years, or Tibet, our family has been deeply involved in that issue, or proliferation issues. Let me focus for a minute on trade. We have a skyrocketing deficit with China, and one can explain it in various ways. In some respects it is not as large as it seems if we look at the whole region. But look, the point is, denial of MFN will not settle the problem of the trade deficit. China is a large, burgeoning, controlled economy. They have a very different system than we do. They have State subsidization. They have control of wages and working conditions. And it raises more dramatically than any other country how this country of ours, this beloved Nation with our free market, will relate to nations that control their economies, control their wages, subsidize their industries and the like. And what is true of China is true of other nations, especially in what was once called the Third World. We need to face these issues in the negotiations over their status with WTO. We need to attack these issues directly. We need a comprehensive policy. Withdrawing MFN is not going to move us one step forward in that direction. In fact, I think it would distract from it. It would distract from it. Look, I hate the notion of isolation. I am for engagement. But there is something kind of in between. We need engagement but it has to be even more than constructive. It has to be hard-nosed. It has to be part of a comprehensive plan, and this annual discussion over MFN distracts us from arriving at this goal. So let us in this House, on all these issues, human rights and other issues, let us pledge ourselves from here on in to have a day-to-day involvement with these issues, not the once a year discussion through MFN. I oppose the Solomon resolution.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), coauthor of this legislation in the battle for reform.

Mr. LEVIN. Could I ask the Chairman once again to give us the time remaining on each side?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), surely a leader in the campaign reform effort.