Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a leader in this entire effort.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps). (Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, this proposal has nothing to do with campaign reform. What it would do would be to turn back a law that we passed a few years ago. Why is it being done? It was said in a different time that money is the mother's milk of politics, but, unfortunately, increasingly there has been a poisoning of politics by money. Now, in order to thwart the effort to take the endless flow of money out of politics, to have responsibility and accountability, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) is essentially presenting a poison pill, a poison pill to bring down Shays-Meehan. He knows very well, as should anybody who votes for it, that Shays-Meehan cannot become law with this provision in it. The President has made clear his position about the motor-voter bill. It is very clear on this side of the aisle where we stand, and I am hopeful that those on the majority side who really want Shays-Meehan will say this: Look, we will argue motor-voter, but some other day. The bill before us relates to the flow of money into politics. There are endless electoral provisions, endless, that could be brought up at this point that are not essentially related to money. So what does this bill do? It essentially requires Social Security numbers on voter registration applications. Though there is question whether that is even constitutional, I think it is bad policy. You talk about intrusion by the Federal Government, and you want that requirement? You do not want to leave it to the States? Also, there is a requirement regarding photo identification. Now, look, under present law, States can provide or require that kind of identification, as long as it is done in a uniform, nondiscriminatory way and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. Essentially, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) wants to repeal this part of the Voting Rights Act. Also the provisions regarding mail-in requirements, now, I understand why some people do not like this. There are some who have made a calculus that the more who vote, the worse it is for them. But that is violative of the democratic process, in my judgment. We should all be for encouraging more voters, not less. There are also provisions here about dropping people from the rolls for not voting, and I understand there is some controversy about this, about the law that we passed several years ago. But let us take it up in a forum, in a format, that does not threaten this bill. Mr. Chairman, I would just close with this: We have an opportunity to act. Everybody sitting in this body knows better than anybody else the contamination caused by the endless anonymous flow of money. Everybody, worthy people who know more than virtually anybody else about this. And we should be the ones leading reform, not the ones waiting for an uprising. This amendment, if adopted, would kill Shays-Meehan. If attached to the freshmen bill, if that were to come up, it would kill it. I think that is perhaps why it is being introduced here. Mr. Chairman, I urge its defeat. Let us take up campaign finance reform as promised, and we will take up these other issues some other day. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time. I am pleased to join my other colleagues here in support of this resolution. Several months ago, this resolution and one by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) and myself were introduced in this body. That was before the crisis in Japan reached its present peak and before its recent election. It may well have been that several decades ago Japan may have benefited from its economic policies, its closed, sheltered, highly regulated economy. But increasingly Japan has been paying a heavy price: Its consumers because they were paying prices too high; the subduing of competition, the evolution of Japan in a highly structured way that made it hard for outsiders to enter. Increasingly, also, there was tension that rose and rose between Japan and other countries. For over 10 years, a number of us have been urging Japan to open up their economic system. We talked about a number of their sectors where there was almost an iron curtain, an iron economic curtain, flat glass, autos and auto parts, film, paper and forest products, telecommunications, insurance, medical equipment and others. Those efforts were often simply given a cold shoulder by the Japanese and often were controversial within this Chamber. But time I think has shown how vital it was for Japan years ago to shift gears from its closed economic system, its system that essentially was structured like cartels and to move to open markets. This is really the time for it to deregulate, to open up. The yen is so weak they do not have to fear a flood of imports from other countries. This is the time for Japan to act. It is not only a matter for the Japanese but for all of Asia and for this country. Secretary Rubin and Larry Summers and others representing the administration have worked diligently, as has our U.S. Trade Representative, trying to impress upon the Japanese that this is the time for courage, for boldness, for action, for the political system of that country to rise to the occasion. There is a crisis, an economic crisis in Asia today that in some respects is toned down but is in danger of flaming up again if Japan does not act. As a key Asian nation, Japan really must not only look to others but mainly to look to itself and to act. This resolution as the other one I mentioned urges the Japanese to rise to this occasion. Much of the world as well as their own economy will be affected. I rise in support and hope that this time, unlike many other previous occasions, that words from this Congress will be heard in Japan.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is not true. It does not limit all of our interventions in terms of the currency, but it does limit us. It would have limited us in terms of action on Mexico where there was a tremendous peso problem and there was a danger of such weakening of the peso that it was going to have major ramifications not only for the investors in Mexico, and I do not want them to come out without some pain, but people in America who were producing goods in competition with Mexico and did not want the peso to drop so much in value it would be impossible to compete. We need new rules of competition, not amendments that are piecemeal, that are potshots, that may be good populist rhetoric, and I love the gentleman's motives, the gentleman is serious about this. This is not the way to attack the problem. I oppose this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this proposed amendment, proposed proposition, puts its finger on the pulse of a problem, but it is at this juncture very much the wrong prescription. We have a new set of problems in this world economically. Fifteen years ago globalization meant our trade with Europe and Japan. In the last decade it has meant our trade relations with developing economies, and that is increasingly so since we voted on this 3 years ago. It has created all kinds of new issues. We do need new rules of competition. We are dealing with economies that are very different from our economy, and they have all kinds of subsidies, and they have all kinds of different labor market rules. They have all different kinds of rules, period. We need to face up to this, and we have not fully. But a piecemeal or potshot approach to these serious problems is not the answer. We need a comprehensive set of policies, and we do not need slogans like ``slush funds'' or ``giveaways'' or ``loans'' thrown all together. The proposition with Mexico was not a slush fund or a giveaway, it was a loan, under certain strict conditions, and the loans were repaid. We made money on them. We need to take a serious look at this. Three years ago we passed this, but a lot has changed since then. We have lots of currency problems with developing economies, a lot of them. Now Mexico is cited. Look, we need more than just a few minutes of discussion here. I am not sure history is going to judge the Mexico loan one way or another, but I will tell you, I think there is a good chance it is going to be judged as having been a good move by the United States. This is coming from someone who feels deeply about the problems in terms of competition with Mexico and what was their rigged economy and rigged labor market conditions. But to simply say we should not allow use of a stabilization fund when the currency of another country threatens to go whacky and undermine jobs in this country and because their currency becomes so weak it is tempting to export even more their way out of their problems, that is not the way to handle this. Contrary to some of the debate here, we acted on the yen to strengthen the value of the yen, not to weaken it; to make sure that they were less tempted to export their way and flood the American market with cars and other products. One gentleman from Florida said, well, the Secretary of Treasury can skirt this by $200 million every week. What kind of an amendment is this that can be skirted by the Secretary doing the $250 million a week? Now, we in Congress need to look at this seriously. This amendment is totally a piecemeal approach. It would handicap us when we need to act. Currency problems are serious problems, and this would handicap us.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Because if we are serious about giving every citizen a voice and it not being submerged by big, undisclosed contributions, and I do not care if it is from corporations or from the labor movement or from wherever it comes, if they want that individual citizen to continue to have a real voice in America, we cannot vote for this amendment. We simply cannot vote for it. Now, look, there may be some question about what the Supreme Court will eventually do. It has been 20 years since their decision. A lot has happened, including the explosion of these issue ads. One Circuit says we can regulate them. Another casts doubt on that. But we will leave that up to the courts. What we should do is do what is right in terms of our obligations. Do not hide behind your theories of the First Amendment, especially when some of my colleagues not so recently rather glibly voted to amend it. We have here a question of the future health of this democracy. I just want to conclude by reading from a nonpartisan study, the Annenberg study; and this is what it says. ``This report catalogues one of the most intriguing and thorny new practices to come into the political scene in many years, the heavy use of so-called issue advocacy advertising by parties, labor unions, trade associations, and business, ideological and single issue groups during the last campaign. This is unprecedented and represents an important change in the culture of campaigns. To the naked eye, these issue advocacy ads are often indistinguishable from ads run by candidates.'' I just want to read what the executive director of the NRA said about these. And I am not talking about the substance of their ads. I have no quarrel with them in terms of whether they should be permitted or not. That is not the issue.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), it is my understanding, and tell me if I am correct or not, that the Chair has the authority, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) has the right to request that there be unanimous consent that there be no more votes tonight, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has the right to reserve and comment on whether that would be agreeable, in which case I think we could avoid another vote on the gentleman's motion and finish the vote for tonight and go on with the debate. Does not the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) have the right to move that, even though the Chair has the right to postpone votes at his discretion?

Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his kind words. And to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) who are in the House, to all of the Republicans who have worked on this with us Democrats, I want to express my optimism now that we have a real shot at reform. That is really the issue, whether we are going to make political speeches, try to make political points, or are we going to have political reform. I had a poster here that illustrates the statement of the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers) about the Bush White House. It has an invitation in big print for big Republican givers, but I am going to forget the poster and just talk to some of my colleagues about what I think is their inconsistency. I want to join the gentleman, my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, getting up on his hind legs across the board, though, not just about one set of abuses but all abuses. And as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) said, the test will be whether one votes ``yes'' on this amendment and then ``yes'' on Shays-Meehan, or whether one votes ``yes'' on this amendment and ``no'' on Shays-Meehan. That is the test. The cynical vote is going to be ``yes'' on this and ``no'' on the bill. That would be more than clever than by a half. That would be more than inconsistent. My colleagues raise their voices, but we will see if they choke in silence when it comes to the final vote. Mr. Chairman, let us talk about millions and millions. I say this as someone who has been in this system, who has been working to change it, and all of us who have been in this system know that it needs change. How many tens of millions come in in soft money? And Shays-Meehan tries to get at it. How much in millions, multimillions comes in in issue ads, uncontrolled, without any disclosure as to who it is? So I am anxious to vote for this amendment, because we need to wipe out abuse wherever, and we have to be honest with ourselves and realize what has been happening to the political system of this country in the last 15 or 20 years.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has 2 additional minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, the Doolittle Amendment goes way beyond voter guides.

Mr. LEVIN. My colleague heard us read the ad that was used in the campaign against the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) in 1996. Was that a campaign ad?

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

Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. LEVIN. No, no, no, I will take back my time. I will tell my colleague why. I will not let him label that. That is not a defense. It is an explanation of the depth of the problem. And what happened in the Bush White House was wrong and whatever happened in the Clinton White House, if it involved the interaction of money and participation in the White House, it was also wrong, and I want to end it. Let me just finish. I also want to end this flood of money that comes in without knowing whom it comes from and without limits. So do not pin that label.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mrs. Mary Mulligan on the occasion of her retirement from the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute after 45 years of untiring and devoted service in cancer- related institutions. Mrs. Mulligan's career began in 1953 when she helped establish an office in Mt. Clemens for the Macomb County Unit of the American Cancer Society. The office provided support, guidance and medical care to cancer patients--free of charge. Her success in recruiting volunteers and aiding patients in this office, led to her involvement in the creation of 13 additional offices in Macomb County which ultimately served as the blueprint for offices that later opened in Wayne Oakland and Monroe Counties. Over time, the American Cancer Society evolved into the Michigan Cancer Foundation and eventually became known as the Karmanos Cancer Institute. Mrs. Mulligan continued her involvement in recruitment and education awareness and is retiring now as the Director of Volunteer Administration for the entire Karmanos Cancer Institute. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Mrs. Mary Mulligan for the caring, good will and effort she has devoted to help cancer patients over the many years. I wish her continued good health and happiness in the future.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, July 22, the Institute of Human Relations of the American Jewish Committee will present its Distinguished Community Service Award to two indeed distinguished citizens of Michigan, Mary Lou Simons Zieve and Mort Zieve. Each has followed their own very busy and highly successful careers in the world of communication. No matter how intensive those challenges, they always have found time to participate in a diverse range of community activities. In quite a few of these, I have been privileged to participate with one or both of them or to see them in action. The result of their efforts have always been impressive and have benefitted thousands of fellow or sister citizens. Mary Lou Zieve's broad community activities have included: President of the Detroit Historical Society (since 1994); honorary Life Member of the Karmanos Cancer Institute Board of Trustees; Chair of the Advisory Board of Wayne State University Press; a member of the Boards of the Greater Detroit Interfaith Round Table, the Michigan Historical Center Foundation in Lansing, Eton Academy and many others. She was producer of the Detroit area Jerry Lewis Telethon for five years, president of the Detroit chapter of American Federation of Television and Radio Artists; and founder and president of the Jewish Ensemble Theatre. Mort Zieve's public endeavors have included: key publicity undertakings for the Michigan Opera Theatre and board member for 25 years; director of two productions at the Jewish Ensemble Theatre; Co- Chair of Detroit's Official Annual Birthday Party; and on the Mayor's Committee to structure the 300th birthday of the City in 2001. Mort Zieve has also received the Humanity in Arts Award for Musical at Wayne State University. Mary Lou and Mort Zieve have been honored by the Karmanos Cancer Institute. In addition, Mary Lou has received the Leonard N. Simons History award from the Jewish Historical Society of Michigan and the Distinguished Alumna Award from Kingswood School Cranbrook. It is my privilege to salute my distinguished fellow Michiganders and good friends on the receipt of a recognition so well deserved.