Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentleman from Mississippi a friendly question so we understand this, and I guess the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) will have to yield to him. As I read this amendment, it says in the caption ``prohibiting use of willful blindness.'' The word willful is there, and then later on the term high probability. In order to violate this statute, would there have to be willfulness?

Mr. LEVIN. If the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) will continue to yield, is the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) using high probability to mean willfulness?

Mr. LEVIN. The gentleman's answer is that he should have a different standard than willfulness. Now, I am not sure how this was drafted, but maybe the thing to do is, if the gentleman wants to pass this amendment, understand its contradictions or take it back and try to rewrite it so that it does not have the inconsistencies. The caption reads the same way.

Mr. LEVIN. I think it would help if the gentleman could cite any noncriminal statute in this country that uses the term high probability; any civil statute that has the term high probability in it.

Mr. LEVIN. Good. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) we need not only order day by day, but a guarantee that order day by day leads to a conclusion to this before we leave.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, since the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has been serious and raised a serious issue, I would just like to repeat what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) said to the gentleman from California. If there is going to be unanimous-consent request, it must in the eyes of many of us, and I just speak for many of us, have a cut-off for a vote on Shays-Meehan and the other substitutes, because if there are 50 amendments, we do not see how there is time between now and August 7 to bring this to a vote, and we want not only order now, we want order to the end in that case. So I wanted to mention that to my colleague in terms of his request.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, we have five or six committees looking into this, and I support investigations into where money came from. Mr. Thompson spent a number of months and came out without evidence. Now we will see what other committees come up with. And if there was a wrong, it should be, it should be not only looked into, but I think it should be redressed. But I suggest to the gentleman, if I can take back my time, and I have heard the gentleman in the Committee on Ways and Means, I know the fervor with which you speak. My only suggestion is keep a bit of that fervor for the final vote on Shays-Meehan, just a bit of it, and do what this system needs. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I think he was inquiring of the Chair, not of me.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, all I was saying was the gentleman is fervent, and I think the gentleman should be equally fervent----

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I will finish. The gentleman should be equally fervent when it comes to his chance to vote for reform. Do not pick and choose.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. The question is whether they should come within the kind of regulation that now applies to ads that say ``elect'' or ``defeat.'' Here is the what the executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action said. ``It is foolish to believe there is any practical difference between issue advocacy and advocacy of a political candidate. What separates issue advocacy and political advocacy is a line in the sand drawn on a windy day.'' Now, look, I think Shays-Meehan protects voter guides like we presented here. If there is any question about that, let us have an amendment that relates to voter guides. Though I do not think it is necessary. But do not present an amendment that guts the entire issue advocacy provisions of this bipartisan bill.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this Congress is on trial. With each election, big money is talking bigger and the voice of the average citizen is growing smaller. This amendment, as has been said, is not essentially about voter guides. The caption says it is about voter guides, but it goes way beyond it. It says the term express advocacy, and we are now talking about these ads that are really campaign ads, that it shall not apply with respect to any communication which provides information or commentary on the voting record or positions on issues taken by any individual holding Federal office or any candidate for election for Federal office unless the communication contains explicit words expressly urging a vote for or against any identified candidate or political party. So this, as the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has said, guts the express advocacy provisions of this bipartisan bill. Next, this is not a question about banning anything. The question is whether voter guides under any circumstances should fall within the regulations of Federal elections that are now in place: the limits on contributions and also disclosure. So I just want to make it clear. Voting guides are permitted in terms of the Federal system under Shays-Meehan. The only contrary case would be where they clearly are a campaign document and not essentially otherwise, where the only reason they are not arguably a campaign document is because they do not say the word ``elect'' or ``defeat,'' Mr. Doolittle presents on the floor a voter guide. Now, if it were clearly a campaign document and it just left out the words ``defeat'' or ``elect,'' I guess he would say, that is fine, unrestricted amounts without disclosure. But the point is that Coalition document would not fall within the language of Shays-Meehan placing it under Federal regulation in any event. Now, I just want to say a word about the reference to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and tell my colleagues what this amendment is all about. Here is an ad in 1996 by the League of Conservation Voters about the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske). I want to read it. ``It is our land, our water.'' This was a TV ad. ``America's environment must be protected. But in just 18 months, Congressman Ganske has voted 12 out of 12 times to weaken environmental protections. Congressman Ganske even voted to let corporations continue releasing cancer-causing pollutants into our air. Congressman Ganske voted for the big corporations who lobbied these bills and gave him thousands of dollars in contributions. Call Congressman Ganske. Tell him to protect America's environment for our families, for our future.'' Now, the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) would essentially say that that kind of an ad could continue to be classified as a non-campaign ad without any disclosure and without any limits as to how much is spent simply because instead of saying after that clear attack on the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), it says, ``call him, tell him.'' It does not say, ``defeat.'' It says, ``call him.'' Now, I do not think anybody can reasonably argue that that was not a campaign ad. And what the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) is proposing is that we gut the provisions in this bipartisan bill so that for any amount at any point, any amount, any point, this kind of an attack ad could be continued without any Federal regulation at all as to amount or disclosure. That is why we are on trial here.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) for going back to his election. He won it, so it is a little easier than if he had lost it. But he is a Republican, I am a Democrat, but the last thing I would deny is that that ad that was run against him was a campaign ad. I tried an ad like this out on a group of students. Every single one was amazed that anybody would call that anything but a campaign ad. Every single one, they could not believe that is the way we function in this democracy. And what the Doolittle amendment does is say it refers to voting records, but, as been said before by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the sponsors, and by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), this amendment goes miles beyond voting records or voting guides. It says any communication on any position on any issue taken by a candidate. My colleague is trying to gut the issue advocacy provisions and essentially leave defenseless, if he does not or she does not have a lot of money to respond, an ad like was tried against the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), and there was no need for the person or the group that presented it to indicate who they were.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I rise in strong support today for H.R. 3130 which will reward States that administer effective child support enforcement systems. The bill is a result of the cooperation and hard work of both parties and both Chambers of Congress, and it is very similar to legislation the House passed earlier this year by a vote of 414 to 1, and I would like to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), to his staff, and to our staff, and to the administration for all of its work. This bill is tough because it is realistic. No more postponements. States will have to modernize their systems to collect moneys ordered by courts for noncustodial parents needed by their children or face certain penalties. H.R. 3130, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has explained has two basic goals. First, the legislation would establish a new set of penalties for States that have failed to modernize their child support systems. Unlike the current penalties, these new requirements can be realistically enforced and therefore represent a meaningful incentive for States to computerize and centralize their child support files. These steps are necessary for reliable and timely payments to children and families. Second, the bill would revamp the current Federal system for rewarding performance among State child support enforcement systems. By establishing specific performance criteria, H.R. 3130 would make these incentive payments more closely track State efforts to enforce child support orders. Let me say the concerns from the other body unfortunately prevented us from including in this bill, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has stated, a provision championed by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) to deny noncitizens entrance into our country if they refuse to pay past due child support to an American citizen. The provision would serve a clear and useful purpose and certainly deserves our continued support. Mr. Speaker, we all talk about parental responsibility. In today's legislation that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and I have sponsored and that has had, as said, the hard work on both sides of the aisle, on both sides of the Rotunda and with the administration, is indeed a real step towards requiring all parents to meet their obligations to their children.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object to the original unanimous consent request, and I yield to the gentleman from Florida for an explanation of the amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I am looking for the language of the amendment. It does not really state it correctly. It says nonapplication to publications of voting records. And everybody should understand this goes far beyond voting records. It goes to all communications. Let me read it. ``The term `express advocacy' shall not apply with respect to any communication which provides information or commentary on the voting record of or positions on issues taken by . . .'' So it is anything in a political campaign. ``. . . by any individual holding Federal office or any candidate for election for Federal office, unless the communication contains explicit words expressly urging a vote for or against any identified candidate or political party.'' So the amendment offered by the gentleman from California is not really related to voting guides. What it does is try to strike all of the language within Shays-Meehan relating to express advocacy, to issue ads. Let no one be unclear about that. Secondly, I wish we would stop talking about people who are for this bill as left wing reformers, I say to the gentleman from California, because when he says that, he is demeaning the gentleman across the aisle from him, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). He is demeaning the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) who has been actively involved, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), and others, and Mr. McCain. My colleagues may disagree with their fellow or sister Republicans. Do not call them by an epithet. This debate serves better than that. No one is calling my colleagues a right wing nut. We are also not demeaning the Supreme Court. By the way, if it is patently unconstitutional on its face, then do not present an amendment. The court will eliminate it. The problem with my colleague's position is that that is not true, and that is what they are worried about. The 9th Circuit, which is not filled with left wing reformers, has interpreted the decision, the Buckley decision. There is a circuit that disagrees with it. But the 9th Circuit has said this, and we essentially, in this bill, attempt to follow the language in Furgatch or the gist of it. Here is what they say: We begin with the proposition that express advocacy is not strictly limited to communications using certain key phrases. The short list of words included in the Supreme Court opinion in Buckley does not exhaust the capacity of the English language to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate.

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

Mr. LEVIN. I say to the gentleman, then, go back and read Shays- Meehan. Go back and read it, because all it says is, within the last 60 days, especially if there is express advocacy, if you attack a candidate, but do not say vote against, or if you say things that do not exactly say vote for, that, still, if the clear purpose is a political ad, it shall fall within independent expenditures and be controlled by the regulations with the FEC.

Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. LEVIN. I wish to say to the gentleman from California that he says it relates to voting records. It is a misstatement of what it applies to. It applies to any communication. And it says that it will not be covered by Federal regulation unless there are explicit words urging a vote for or against. What the gentleman is doing is trying to totally vitiate the express advocacy provisions. And the gentleman has said it so well, the gentleman who has the time. The gentleman is so right in saying that we should not allow ads to masquerade for something that they are not.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, then, between now and next week that the gentleman should get together with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) because I just think that his language is contrary to what he says he understands Furgatch to be. He says, unless the communication contains explicit words expressly urging a vote for or against any identified candidate. That is, rewrite your amendment, then. Let me just go on. Let me just finish, if I might. It goes on to say, a test requiring the magic words elect, support, et cetera, or their nearly perfect synonyms, for finding of express advocacy would preserve the First Amendment right of unfettered expression only at the expense of eviscerating the Federal election campaign ad. No one is trying to gag anybody. If they want to do a political ad that essentially wants people to vote for or against, what they say is fall within the independent expenditure and other provisions of the law, which has limits on what can be expended and has requirements for disclosure, which is not true of these ads that are clearly campaign ads, that are clearly political ads. But the people do not know who put the money up. They are hidden. They are endless. There is a flood of hidden, in terms of its support, of hidden money. That is what we say should not happen. Now, look, in terms of the brochures, voter guides, if you think the language on voter guides is not clear enough, then amend that. But the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) have carefully tried to spell this out. They say that a printed communication is not included if it presents information in an educational manner solely about the voting record or position on the campaign issue of two or more candidates. If it is not education, if it is essentially political, it should fall within the purview of the ad. Now, look, no one is talking about a czar. We have laws on independent expenditures that the FEC has to enforce. The Supreme Court was worried about this 20 years ago. A lot has happened in the last 20 years, to include this bombardment of so-called issue ads that are really political ads. If Members adopt this amendment, they are essentially eviscerating the issue advocacy provisions, the effort in Shays-Meehan to call and regulate political, what is really political and a campaign ad that is really a campaign ad.