Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman agree to that?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, look, what is the difference between rule 1 and rule 2? Rule 2 allows nongermane amendments, 258. Why do they want nongermane amendments? That is not the traditional pattern on this floor. Is it to promote free speech? Not for a moment. My colleagues tried earlier to choke campaign reform.

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

Mr. LEVIN. No, no. Will the gentleman agree to ask all the Republicans to withdraw all their nongermane amendments if we get all Democrats to do that? No, no, I will take back my time. The reason the gentleman does not want to do that is because allowing nongermane amendments is a strategy, it is a tactic. At first the gentleman tried to choke campaign reform with a very restrictive rule and attacked it. Some of the gentleman's own Members rebelled with virtually all of us Democrats. So that did not work, and now essentially the gentleman wants to drown it. I heard last night some of the Republican Members, I say to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) coming up here and talking about left-wing Democrats who want campaign reform, who want Shays-Meehan, like John McCain, that left-wing Democrat. I understand Fred Thompson supports it, that left-wing Democrat; the gentleman from Connecticut, Chris Shays, is he a left-wing Democrat?.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, my colleague is 100 percent right. It is so cynical for anybody to suggest that the people who are in office, who helped raise the money in many cases, do not know the source of the funds. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) is so right. The problem is, the public does not know. But the recipients, the parties, do know.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip. The Shays-Meehan bill does not gag speech any more than our present limitation on independent expenditures upheld by the court gags. Right now, if somebody comes in with an ad that says, defeat so-and-so, they have to come within the structures set up by Congress. There are limits on what can be contributed, and there are requirements for disclosure. The question is, if the magic words, which really are not magical, ``elect'' or ``defeat'' are not used, should the ad be immune from any limitation as to amount or any disclosure? That is what we are talking about. What Shays-Meehan says is that we should not provide this loophole. When Buckley was decided, there were not these barrages, these bombardments of so-called issue ads. In the last few years we have had them in torrents. And what the majority is saying is, or some of the majority, is that they want those to go on without any regulation at all. Now, this is not, therefore, an issue of gagging any more than Buckley gagged free speech. It did not. It balanced our needs for free speech, and I love the First Amendment and voted against efforts a few days ago to undermine it. The question is, how do we apply it to today's politics? In the decision in the Ninth Circuit, FEC v. Fergatch, here is what the court said. 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's opinion in Buckley does not exhaust the capacity of the English language to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate. A test requiring the magic words, ``elect,'' ``support,'' or their nearly perfect synonyms for a finding of express advocacy would preserve the First Amendment right of unfettered expression only at the expense of eviscerating the Federal Election Campaign Act. What Shays-Meehan tries to do is to protect, to preserve the thrust of that act, and not have the public swamped by undisclosed, unlimited expenditures, especially the last 2 months of a campaign. Those who are raising the First Amendment are essentially trying to kill campaign reform. They are really hiding behind the First Amendment. They often do not support the First Amendment in other instances. So I strongly urge support for Shays-Meehan.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I say to the gentleman, I think every Democrat would be glad to withdraw them if the gentleman will withdraw his nongermane amendments. Would the gentleman agree to that?

Mr. LEVIN. Yes.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, well, I have listened to some of this debate and I think I can sum it up very quickly. I am not in favor of the status quo, but I am not in favor of anarchy. Anarchy is not being on the side of the American people. The majority is proposing to tear down a house before they have even put one block into a new one. It will not sell. I have heard some say, we need to force Congress to do something. Who has had the majority in this place for 4 years? Where have they been? They had the majority in both the House and the Senate to pass something. Maybe the President would have vetoed it. But they have not passed a comprehensive tax bill that he could say yes or no to. They say we have to force ourselves? Mr. Speaker, I suggest the fault is not in the stars, I say to those in the majority, but it is with yourself. Why is the bill opposed by such a full spectrum from the labor movement to the National Association of Manufacturers? Do not take comfort that when most everybody is against you, it is something good. The people will not buy this. How are they going to plan mortgages? How are they going to plan their estates if they have no idea what charitable deductions will look like? How are companies going to plan health care coverage if they do not know whether they will be deductible? How do municipalities begin to issue bonds? It is chaos. Is the majority going to suggest we sunset Social Security next because they do not like the Social Security system? Mr. Speaker, after the sunset comes darkness where I come from. This is a very dark proposal. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think the American people will buy this, they are only fooling themselves.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2709, the ``Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act.'' It is clear that Iran is seeking to improve its ballistic missile capability. In addition, it is clear that Iran's ballistic missile program is receiving outside assistance and support, most notably from Russia. Entities within Russia have supplied Iran's missile program with crucial technologies, materials and technical assistance. As a direct result of Russia's assistance, Iran may soon become self- sufficient in missile production; more ominously, Iran could be within a year or two of fielding an intermediate range missile capable of striking targets in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Mr. Chairman, this assistance to Iran's missile program must end. I can think of no greater threat to regional stability in the Middle East than Iran's coming into possession of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. These weapons would constitute a clear and present danger to American troops stationed in the Persian Gulf as well as Israel and our other allies in the region. I appreciate that the Clinton Administration has been working with the Russian Government to curb the proliferation of missile technology to Iran. Real progress has been made, and the Administration is to be commended for its efforts. Unfortunately, while the flow of missile technology between Russia and Iran has slowed, it has not stopped. I was alarmed to learn that earlier this year a shipment of 22 tons of missile-quality steel was smuggled out of Russia bound for Iran, despite the fact that the Administration had alerted Russian authorities several days before the shipment left Russia. Fortunately, the steel--which is used to construct rocket fuel tanks--was impounded in Azerbaijan before it crossed the border into Iran. The legislation before the House today would impose sanctions on foreign entities, wherever they may be, that contribute to Iran's efforts to develop ballistic missiles. H.R. 2709 sends a clear message that the United States will not tolerate further proliferation of missile technologies to Iran. I urge every member of the House to support this vital legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the gentleman quickly about the back and forth on TANF. Does not the budget resolution say that there shall be a $10 billion reduction in Function 600?

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, we are supposed to be talking about the budget this morning. The Republicans are afraid to bring it up and talk about it. They ran into a problem. They were taking $10 billion from Medicare. That was not working. They were afraid, so, instead, they decided to take it out of Function 600 and aim it at welfare reform. They were frantic. So they stabbed in the dark, grabbed for Function 600, but what they have done is to stab in the back welfare reform. The National Conference of State Legislatures says this: This budget, the Republican budget abrogates an agreement reached between State Legislators, governors, and Congress in 1996 regarding welfare reform. The National Governors Association, Governors Carper, Engler, Miller, Beasley, Chiles, Leavitt, O'Bannon, Romer, Ridge and Thompson say this about it: We urge you in the strongest terms possible to uphold the historic welfare agreement reached in 1996 and reject any cuts in TANF, Medicaid, or other welfare-related program as part of the budget resolution.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the ranking member for his eloquent statement. I want to be very specific, I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), on what the Republicans are going to do regarding welfare reform. Any Republican who votes for this budget is voting to undercut welfare reform of 2 years ago. They had $10 billion in cuts in Medicare. They grew nervous, so what did they do? Last night they take $10 billion, instead, out of Function 600. The heart of that is TANF. They are going to say to us on the Committee on Ways and Means, cut Function 600, and therefore, cut welfare reform, TANF, by 10. It is going to take $20 billion. This is what State legislators say about this: ``This budget would disproportionately cut State programs, and abrogates a fundamental agreement reached among State legislators, Governors, and Congress in 1996 regarding welfare reform.'' If Members adopt the resolution, ``It will prove that the States cannot trust Congress,'' i.e., you, ``to abide by its word.'' Here is what the governors have to say: ``Your budget resolution is a serious violation of the welfare agreement reached in 1996, and would erode the Federal-State partnership and the future success of welfare reform.'' And they go on to say, ``We urge you in the strongest possible terms to uphold the historic welfare agreement reached in 1996, and reject any cuts in TANF, Medicaid or other welfare-related programs as part of the budget resolution.'' Signed Tom Carper, John Engler, Tommy Thompson, Tom Ridge. Any Republican from Michigan, from Wisconsin, from Pennsylvania, who votes for this is going to be voting to undercut welfare reform. We are telling the majority this at midnight, and we are going to tell them this tomorrow at 10 o'clock in the morning.

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, under the first amendment, individuals have a sacred right to religious expression. Students have the right to pray, read the Bible, initiate prayer clubs, and distribute religious materials. The constitutional amendment before us would go far beyond the first amendment by sanctioning organized prayer and display of religious symbols. Instead of guaranteeing religious freedom, this amendment would actually burden the religious rights of individuals. Questions like this are presented by the amendment: Which prayer? What symbols? What happens to those whose prayer and symbols are not included? How is everyone's religious freedom served by this amendment which would allow a particular prayer to be organized, broadcast over the school intercom and participated in by a teacher or other administrator. The first amendment protects the balance necessary to ensure individual religious freedom. This constitutional amendment jeopardizes that balance so carefully crafted by the founders of our Constitution. Their wisdom prevails to this day and should not be rejected by passing this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time, and congratulate her and the chairman of our subcommittee on their very diligent and effective work, and now successful work. Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt this will become law. The reason for that is the basic thrust of this legislation, and that is to enhance the opportunities of the disabled who want to work, while always protecting those who cannot. We must never forget that so many people who are receiving disability payments simply are not able to return to the workforce, and we must never forget them. But for those who are receiving disability payments who could return to work or to part-time work, what this bill does is attempt to enhance those opportunities, and it does so in a number of imaginative ways. It improves the rehabilitative services that are so critical by definition, and it does that by changing the scheme and structure of payments to try to encourage the effectiveness of their rehabilitation. It also, as has been mentioned, undertakes another very vital aspect of this, and that is to make sure that there will be continued longer Medicare coverage when people move from the disability roll payments to work. Without that kind of protection of health care, it is pretty clear that there would be continued disincentive to work. We have found in other instances that we cannot expect those whose only source of medical care is receipt of a payment from the Federal Government to forfeit that, and many of the disabled by definition, as is true of the nondisabled, would be moving into positions that have no health care or very inadequate health care, when the disabled by definition need very, very comprehensive health care. So I congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) for this provision. Also there is an effort to look at the possibility of a new structure so disability payments can continue in some amount while people are moving from disability to work. So I congratulate the authors. I have been proud to be a cosponsor and work with them. I hope this will pass, not only overwhelmingly but unanimously, and we can all go to the White House, or at least maybe in the quiet of night or day it will be signed. One way or another, it will become law.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I just want to say something to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) in terms of effective date. Right now there are hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants who are ineligible for food stamps. What is being proposed is that their eligibility begin November 1, but there is a time sequence, a time impact for these people. They now are ineligible and, in many cases, hungry. This has nothing to do with welfare reform, Mr. Speaker. AFDC was reformed. We added SSI and food stamps as additional portions. We have restored now most of the money for legal immigrants in terms of SSI. This now suggests that we add $800 million of the $27 billion that was cut, and we are cutting food stamps by $2 billion and restoring $800 million. There is a net cut in food stamps. Essentially, what the gentleman's amendment would do would be to shelter crop insurance from any objection, but leave food stamps for one person to object to and raise it in front of here for a majority vote, when the Senate has overwhelmingly said that food stamps should be put in. You are delaying crop insurance and everything else. You are delaying; you are the ones who are doing it. When the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) gets up here and talks about crop insurance, et cetera, and talks about other things, that is a smoke screen, if I might say so. I want to just make it entirely clear what the gentleman is doing here. The Senate has already voted. I want to make one last point: Do not say that the food stamp issue is a surprise. We debated that issue when this bill came through here, and we were told by some on the gentleman's side that it would be raised in conference. Go back and look at the debate. You are going to come forth here on a bill I am going to vote for on ISTEA, asking to put in numerous provisions that were not discussed in the Senate or the House on the floor. You are going to ask a waiver. But when it comes to hungry people, you do not want to respond. It is disgraceful.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chairman, I think this debate has been illuminating. The basic issue is really quite clear: Are we basically satisfied with the status quo, or are we not? Yesterday the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) said, in opening the discussion on the rule, I do not believe that major changes are necessary to the existing campaign finance laws. Instead, he urged some kind of assurance that the current laws we have on the books are going to be honored. All I can say to him and the gentleman from Colorado, who tried to minimize the present problems, is money is swamping democratic politics in America. I have been involved in the political process for a long time. I am proud of the two-party system. It is the two-party system that is being eroded by money. The issue advocacy issue is not a Trojan horse for soft money. The point is, if we do not address not only soft money but so-called issue advocacy ads that are really campaign ads, we have not closed the circle and ended the loopholes. I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) is absolutely correct about the first amendment. I hope people will not use it as an excuse to do nothing. I want to read just a couple of lines from Buckley which indicates that the first amendment has to be looked at in the context of the political realities of 1976, in the case of Buckley, and 1998 today. It says, ``The increasing importance of the communications media and sophisticated mass-mailing and polling operations to effective campaigning make the raising of large sums of money an ever more essential ingredient of an effective candidacy. To the extent that large contributions are given to secure political quid pro quos from current and potential officeholders, the integrity of our system of representative democracy is undermined. . . .'' Then they go on to say, ``Of almost equal concern 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.'' What Shays-Meehan gets at is not only these huge financial contributions, but their unknown source and issue advocacy ads. If Members like the present system and they think the public does, go ahead and vote for essentially sham proposals. If Members want basic change, vote for Shays-Meehan.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) was going to point out that the facts of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) are wrong. We will get into that. But I take seriously your description of the issue. You say major changes are not needed to implement present law. I say implement present law and make major changes in the law. That is what you said. Money is swamping the Democratic process and you are standing up, defending the status quo. The present system demeans the contributor. It demeans the recipient. It increases polarization, and it deepens public cynicism. Shays-Meehan addresses both soft money and issue ads. I say to the minority who usually are not such defenders of free speech, free speech is not the same as unlimited paid campaign ads. Vote for Shays-Meehan.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, is hissing, and I mean this seriously if we are going to set precedent, is hissing from Members of this House in order?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, if there is any domestic issue that deserves action across party lines, this is it, drugs. My staff and I have worked actively in this fight against drugs as a number one priority in Washington and at home. At home, we have worked building antidrug coalitions, always nonpartisan, always across all kinds of lines involving parents and students and teachers, leaders in the business community, law enforcement and religious communities. The administration announced a 10-year national drug strategy, and it addresses supply and demand factors, both of them. The strategy calls for an enhanced border effort. When some of us were in Chile with the President at the summit of the Presidents of the Americas, we met with the President and discussed especially this border problem. And he said to us, a bipartisan group, will you work with me to enhance border efforts on a bipartisan basis? And the answer from all of us on a bipartisan basis was yes. The main part of this bill embodies that spirit, an enhanced effort at the border. It was worked out on a bipartisan basis. That is not true of subtitle B of title II, so-called miscellaneous provisions. The gentleman from Illinois says this bill has been a long time in coming, but these provisions, abrogation of contract provisions, were sprung without a hearing at the last minute last Tuesday without any bipartisan discussion whatsoever. Those are the facts. The chairman of the committee has talked that we should not politicize drugs, and how true it is; but that is exactly what the majority does when they raise provisions without talking to us for one second, at the last minute, without any hearings on a bill that is a long time in coming. These provisions may not go into effect this year, but when they go into effect, they give a government agency the power to abrogate a collective bargaining agreement, a contract, without any standards; and it seems to me that those of us who believe in the contract provisions, who believe in the contract process in this country, that they would hesitate before setting this kind of a precedent. I am going to vote for this bill. I am hoping that the Senate will look at these provisions. They already have a bill that authorizes the Customs Department. It does not contain these contract abrogation provisions. Let us pass this along to the Senate, hoping that they will keep what is necessary here, the fight against drugs, and remove the political parts of this bill.