Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the Senator from Iowa, I be recognized for 10 minutes, as authorized by the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, our Federal election finance laws are totally broken and a sizeable majority of the Members of Congress know the time has come to fix them. Enough is enough. We have had enough of the soft money loophole--with its contributions of unlimited dollars that fuel campaigns despite laws which are intended to strictly limit contributions to candidates. We have had enough of the candidate ads disguised as issue ads and paid for with money outside the statutory limits. And, we have had enough of the solicitations by our elected officials and the officers of our national political parties, soliciting huge sums of money by offering insider access to government decisionmakers. In the 1970s, we passed laws to limit the role of money in Federal elections. Our intent was to protect our democratic form of Government from the corrosive influence of unlimited political contributions and the appearance of corruption which can be created when large sums of money are solicited by and for officeholders and candidates. We wanted to ensure that our Federal elected officials are neither in reality not in perception beholden to special interests who are able to contribute large sums of money to candidates and their campaigns. Our election laws were designed to protect the public's confidence in our democratically elected officials. For many years those laws worked fairly well. The limits they set seemed clear. Individuals weren't allowed to give more than $1,000 to a candidate per election or $5,000 to a political action committee, or more than $20,000 a year to a national party committee or $25,000 total in any one year. Corporations and unions were prohibited from contributing to campaigns, except through regulated and limited political action committees. That is the law on the books today. Yet over the past few years, we have see almost geometric growth of contributions of hundreds of thousands of dollars, even millions of dollars, from individuals, corporations, and unions, and even contributions from foreign sources. How is that possible, we ask. Our pretty good law--setting limits on the size and source of contributions--had gaping holes punched in it, the largest of which is the soft money loophole. That is the loophole that allows parties to raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals as well as corporations and unions so long as they use the money for activities that don't expressly, explicitly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate. That's why you have a $1.3 million contribution to the Republican National Committee from just one company or a $450,000 contribution from one couple to the Democratic National Committee. Yet, the Supreme Court in Buckley was clearly aware of the likelihood of persons trying to evade the limits by giving huge sums to the parties to help candidates. This is apparent in the Court's discussion in upholding the $25,000 overall limit under current law. In describing the legitimacy for the overall $25,000 limit, the Court called it ``a modest restraint,'' serving to ``prevent evasion of the $1,000 contribution limitation by a person who might otherwise contribute massive amounts of money to a particular candidate through the use of unearmarked contributions to political committees likely to contribute to that candidate or huge contributions to the candidate's political party.'' Those words precisely described a potential evasion of the intended limits on contributions to candidates by giving to parties. The Court explicitly said it was constitutional to stop it. But that evasion of our intent is exactly what is happening today with the soft money loophole, and that is exactly what this bill will stop. So the Supreme Court saw clearly the possibility of efforts to get around the $1,000 contribution limit per election, and it ruled in Buckley that Congress had properly sought to prevent that by imposing the $25,000 overall cap on contributions from any individual in any calendar year. What the Court did not see, and what we did not see at the time, was the end run around contribution limits by using the soft money loophole. The Federal Election Committee's recent figures show the tremendous growth in soft money fundraising. It reports that during the year 2001--a nonelection year--Democratic national party committees reported $69 million in soft money contributions or 26 percent more than in 1999; Republican national party committees reported $100 million in soft money contributions or 68 percent more than in 1999. The FEC states that soft money contributions have more than doubled for both national parties since 1997. The loophole has destroyed the law. There are no effective limits. How do the parties attract large soft money contributions? Often they offer access--access to decisionmakers in return for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. The parties advertise the sale of access for huge sums. It's blatant. Both parties do it--openly. Large contributors to the DNC got to attend one of dozens of coffees with the President in the White House. Large contributors to the Republican Party were entitled to have breakfast with the Republican congressional leadership and lunch with the Republican Senate and House committee chairman of the contributor's choice. There are dozens and dozens of examples like this. The record is chock full of them, and should anyone want specific examples, I refer them to the six volume report in 1997 by the Governmental Affairs Committee on the state of our campaign finance system. That investigation collected ample evidence of soft money contribution of hundreds of thousands even millions of dollars destroying the contribution limits in federal law and creating the appearance of corruption in the public's eye. Look at one case that surfaced in our 1997 hearings--the case of Roger Tamraz, a large contributor to both parties, who became the bipartisan symbol for what is wrong with the current system. Roger Tamraz served as a Republican Eagle in the 1980s during Republican administration and a Democratic trustee in the 1990s during the Democratic administration. Tamraz was unabashed in admitting his political contributions were made for the purpose of obtaining access to people in power. Tamraz showed us in stark terms the all too common product of the current campaign finance system--using unlimited soft money contributions to buy access. And despite the condemnation of Tamraz's activities, when asked at the hearing to reflect on his $300,000 contribution to obtain access, Tamraz said, ``I think next time. I'll give $600,000.'' Do these large money contributions create an appearance of improper influence by big contributors? In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court answered for the American people--it found an appearance of corruption created from the size of the contribution alone without even looking at the sale of access. The Court in that case upheld contribution limits as a reasonable and constitutional approach to deterring actual and apparent corruption of federal elections in the Buckley case. Here is what the Court said: It is unnecessary to look beyond the Act's primary purpose--to limit the actuality and appearance of corruption resulting from large individual financial contributions--in order to find a constitutionally sufficient justification for the $1,000 contribution limitation. Under a system of private financing of elections, a candidate lacking immense personal or family wealth must depend on financial contributions from others to provide the resources necessary to conduct a successful campaign. To the extent that large contributions are given to secure political quid pro guos from current and potential office holders, the integrity of our system of representative democracy is undermined. Of almost equal concern 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. Congress could legitimately conclude that the avoidance of the appearance of improper influence ``is also critical . . . if confidence in the system of representative government is not to be eroded to a disastrous extent.'' The Court went on to say: And while disclosure requirements serve the many salutary purposes discussed elsewhere in this opinion, Congress was surely entitled to conclude that disclosure was only a partial measure and that contribution ceilings were a necessary legislative concomitant to deal with the reality or appearance of corruption inherent in a system permitting unlimited financial contributions, even when the identities of the contributors and the amounts of their contributions are fully disclosed. The Buckley Court repeatedly endorses the concept that contributions without limits, alone, are enough to create the appearance of corruption and to justify the imposition of limits. For instance, the Buckley Court said: Not only is it difficult to isolate suspect contributions but, more importantly, Congress was justified in concluding that the interest in safeguarding against the appearance of impropriety requires that the opportunity for abuse inherent in the process of raising large monetary contributions be eliminated. Selling access in exchange for contributions would only take the Court's concerns and justification for limits a step further. What do these unlimited soft money contributions allow the parties to do? They allow them to pay for ads which they claim are ads about issues, but in reality, they're ads clearly intended to help elect or defeat candidates. In Buckley, the Supreme Court held that we could put limits on electioneering-type communications under specified circumstances. The Court said that Congress could limit contributions for those communications that ``in express terms advocate for the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for federal office.'' In one of the most famous footnotes of a Supreme Court case, the Court tried to describe what it meant by its finding, citing what has come to be known as the seven magic words and phrases: ``communications containing . . . words . . . such as: `vote for,' `elect,' `cast your ballot for,' `Smith for Congress,' `Vote against,' `defeat,' `reject.' '' So long as these types of words are not used in a communication, a television ad for instance, the Court held, the communication would not be subject to contribution limits. Over time, the parties have developed ads which avoid these types of words but which by anyone's estimation are promoting the election or defeat of a candidate. Listen to this ad from the Republican National Committee on behalf of then Presidential candidate Bob Dole. Mr. Dole. We have a moral obligation to give our children an America with the opportunity and values of the nation we grew up in. Voice Over. Bob Dole grew up in Russell, Kansas. From his parents he learned the value of hard work, honesty and responsibility. So when his country called, he answered. He was seriously wounded in combat. Paralyzed, he underwent nine operations. Mr. Dole. I went around looking for a miracle that would make me whole again. Voice Over. The doctors said he'd never walk again. But after 39 months, he proved them wrong. A Man Named Ed. He persevered, he never gave up. He fought his way back from total paralysis. Voice Over. Like many Americans, his life experience and values serve as a strong moral compass. The principle of work to replace welfare. The principle of accountability to strengthen our criminal justice system. The principle of discipline to end wasteful Washington spending. Mr. Dole. It all comes down to values. What you believe in. What you sacrifice for. And what you stand for. That ad was called an ``issue ad'' and paid for with the unlimited contributions of soft money to the Republican National Committee. That is viewed as permissible under current law because that ad does not explicitly ask the viewer to vote for or support Bob Dole. It just spends its whole time extolling him before election day. If it added words at the end that say what the ad is all about, ``Vote for Bob Dole,'' it would be treated as a candidate ad, not an issue ad, and would be subject to the hard money limits; that is, it could only be paid for with contributions subject to limits. Any reasonable person who hears that ad knows it is an ad supporting the candidacy of Bob Dole. It is not an ad about welfare or wasteful government spending. It should have to be paid for with regulated or hard money contributions. But that is not the case today. It will be the case when we pass McCain-Feingold. The Democrats avail themselves of the same loophole. In the 1996 Presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee ran ads on welfare and crime and the budget which were basically designed to support President Clinton's reelection. At our hearings on the campaign finance system, Harold Ickes was asked about these DNC ads and the extent to which the people looking at the ads would walk away with the message to vote for President Clinton. ``I would certainly hope so,'' he said. ``If not, we ought to fire the ad agencies.'' To get around the reasonable limits of the 1974 law, parties and candidates seized on the Buckley Court's seven magic words by arguing if any election activity was not expressly for the election or defeat of a candidate--that is it did not include those seven magic words-- then it was outside the scope of the law's limits. In a terrible irony then, the Buckley case unwittingly contained the seed--the seven magic words test--for undermining the law. The McCain-Feingold bill will address the subterfuge of sham issue ads, and does so in a clear, direct manner that will not subject it to concerns of vagueness, which need to be foremost in our minds when addressing matters of free speech. The bill would require any radio or television ad that refers to a clearly identified candidate that is broadcast within 60 days of a general election or within 30 days of a primary election to be treated as an ad seeking to influence the outcome of an election and therefore paid for with funds subject to contribution and disclosure limits. The bill would require any national party running such an ad to pay for that ad with hard money. Any nonparty group running such an ad that costs $10,000 or more a year would have to identify itself as the sponsor of the ad, disclose the cost of the communication and disclose the names and addresses of its donors of $1,000 or more. The bill does not prohibit such ads from being aired by nonparty groups with unregulated money; it only requires disclosure of the sponsoring group's major contributions if the group spends over $10,000 on such ads. This is a very reasonable and modest limitation on political advocacy. It is very clear in order to withstand charges of ambiguity. And it addresses the reality. Any reasonable person knows when seeing these sham issue ads that they are really about electing or defeating the candidates named in them. The research by the Brennan Center confirms that for us. First, the Brennan Center found that of the 57,863 ads aired by non- party groups in the final 60 days of the 2000 election where a candidate was mentioned, only 331--or less than 1 percent--were genuine issue ads ``primarily aimed at providing information on a policy matter.'' That means that 99 percent of the group-sponsored ads were in fact ads to promote or defeat the election of a candidate. Second, the Brennan Center study found that of the ads actually run by candidates and paid for with hard money specifically on behalf of their election or defeat, only 9 percent used the seven magic words and phrases identified by the Supreme Court. That is compelling evidence that the magic words identified by the Supreme Court are not a complete test of what constitutes electioneering ads. More is at work here than just the seven magic words identified by the Supreme Court. Some argue that if we only close the soft money loophole to political parties, the money we cut off to the parties will be redirected to special interest groups. I believe it will not happen that way because candidates and public officials running for reelection and their agents will not be allowed to solicit it, the parties will not be allowed to raise it, and the contributors will not be able to buy access to us with it. This bill would prohibit a candidate or office holder from soliciting soft money for private organizations running issue ads. Will contributors of these large sums want to buy access to the Sierra Club or the National Rifle Association? Dubious. Will they be able to buy access to us through these unlimited contributions to third parties? No. If that were to occur, then it would be in direct violation of the law. Under this soft money ban, public officials and candidates will be out of the soft money fundraising business, and that's a very important step we will be taking with this legislation. The official with power, and the candidate seeking to be in a position of power, won't be able to solicit huge sums of money and sell access to themselves for their campaign or for outside groups. We have been here before--trying to pass campaign finance reform, trying to stop the explosion of soft money. Three years ago I asked this body the question: ``Will it be different this time?'' It was not. But this time the answer is it will. We are going to pass this legislation, send it to the President, and respond to the vast majority of the American people who want it. In doing so, we are hopefully going to change politics in America. No one really knows which party in the end is going to be advantaged or disadvantaged by the changes we are making to the law today. But we know for certain that the body politic itself will be dramatically benefitted. That is because we will be taking the solicitation of big money by people in power and people seeking power out of American politics and with it will go the appearances of favoritism and corruption. The political landscape will change when this bill takes effect. It will be filled with more people and less influence; more contributors and smaller contributions; more democracy and less elitism. This is a good decision by Congress for the country, and we have those persistent and hardy souls like Senator McCain, Senator Feingold, Congressman Meehan, and Congressman Shays to thank, as well as inspiring citizens like Granny D who walked across the country to make her case, and the members of the coalitions in each of our States, like the Michigan Campaign Finance Network. It is not often that we get the opportunity to legislate in a way that will so dramatically affect the core of how we operate. This is that time, and I am privileged to have worked for this bill's passage and to vote to send it to the President of the United States for enactment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am sure Senator Feingold would be happy to yield a couple of minutes if he were present. So on his behalf, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time remaining between now and 2 p.m. be divided between Senators Cantwell and Jeffords.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, a few weeks ago the Harvard School of Public Health released a study that shows children are dying from gun violence at higher rates in States with higher levels of gun ownership. The study, ``Firearm Availability and Unintentional Firearm Deaths, Suicide, and Homicide among 5 to 14 Year Olds,'' appears in the February 2002 issue of The Journal of Trauma. According to Center for Disease Control and Prevention statistics cited in the study, only motor vehicles and cancer claim more lives than do firearms among children 5 to 14 years old. The Harvard study presents evidence of a correlation between the level of gun ownership in a State and the number of gun related deaths on the State level. The study asserts that children living in the five States with the highest levels of gun ownership were more than 16 times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injury, almost seven times more likely to die from firearm suicide and more than three times more likely to die from firearm homicide than children in the five States with the lowest levels of gun ownership. Most fatal firearm accidents and suicides occur when children and teens discover firearms at home that have been left loaded or unsecured. The Child Access Prevention Act is a common sense approach that attempts to address one part of this problem. This legislation would hold adults who fail to lock up a loaded firearm or an unloaded firearm with ammunition accountable. Adults who fail to lock up their firearm and ammunition would be held liable if the weapon was taken by a child and used to kill or injure another person or him or herself. The bill would also increase the penalties for selling a gun to a juvenile and create a gun safety education program that includes parent-teacher organizations and local law enforcement. The legislation is similar to a State law which President Bush signed into law during his tenure as the Governor of Texas. The Harvard study only reinforces my support for this legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me today in extending my condolences to the family and friends of Dr. Charles H. Wright, who passed away on March 7, 2002. During his 83 years, Dr. Wright left an indelible mark on this country through his work as a doctor, a civil rights leader, a community activist and a leader in the national movement to create museums celebrating the history, culture and accomplishments of African Americans. Legend has it that it was Charles Wright's mother who inspired him to attend medical school, by declaring at age eight that he would become a doctor. Growing up in segregated Alabama, to parents who's own education stopped at elementary school, Wright had to overcome many obstacles to make his mother's dream a reality. But, as those who knew Dr. Wright can attest, he was not one to shy away from a challenge. He did attend medical school, and in 1946 he moved to Detroit, where he served his community as an obstetrician/gynecologist. He delivered more than 7,000 babies, including those of some of my staff. Today, you can still meet adults in Detroit who will refer to themselves as ``Dr. Wright's babies.'' Dr. Wright was always concerned about the plight of black people, both here and in Africa. He answered the call of Dr. Martin Luther King, traveling to the South to protest and to help those protesters who required medical assistance. He worked to end discrimination in hospitals, where empty beds were being denied to blacks because the hospital refused to put black patients and white patients in the same room together. He traveled to newly post-colonial Africa to work in villages lacking adequate health care resources. He helped raise money so that African children could come to American universities. He was constantly driven to serve others, and to serve those whom he felt he could best help. Dr. Wright is perhaps best known as the man responsible for Detroit's Museum of African American History, the largest such museum in the world. Inspired by his travels to Africa, and concerned that the children he was helping to bring into the world had no place to learn about themselves and their history, he decided to create a museum dedicated to educating people about the contributions of African Americans to society. In 1965, he opened the International Afro- American Museum in the basement of his home and office. Investing significant amounts of his own money and time into the museum, it eventually outgrew his home and was moved into a new, larger building in the heart of Detroit's University Cultural Center and was renamed the Museum of African American History. That museum moved again in 1997 to an even larger building, and has received international recognition as one of the finest museums of its kind. In 1998, it was renamed the Charles H. Wright Museum of African American History in recognition of the vision and dedication of Dr. Wright. Each year millions of Americans of all races visit this museum and learn about the history of African Americans, ensuring that Dr. Wright's legacy will live on and be passed down to future generations. Dr. Wright's life should serve as an example to all Americans. Throughout all his endeavors, he stressed the values of education, understanding and overcoming obstacles. But perhaps most importantly, he lived his life in service to others. While he will be sorely missed by those whose lives he touched, he will long be remembered for all that he gave.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Did the Chair add Senator Voinovich as a cosponsor?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would assume that I would be dividing the time in support of the amendment equally with my cosponsor from Missouri, and we would each control 5 minutes of the 10 minutes on our side. So I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Michigan.

Mr. LEVIN. In the year studied, 1993, they found between 1,300 and 2,600 deaths and 13,000 and 26,000 injuries. They said these deaths and injuries were a painful tradeoff that resulted from CAFE. The opponents of our amendment do not consider safety. They just say the study is flawed. That is their answer. What about the discriminatory impacts of CAFE? The National Academy of Sciences again says that one concept of equity among manufacturers requires equal treatment of equivalent vehicles made by different manufacturers. We do not have equal treatment of equivalent vehicles made by different manufacturers under the language that is in the substitute of Senator Kerry and Senator Hollings. It treats equally-efficient vehicles differently and discriminates, thereby, against American jobs and the American industry. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts said the amendment before us would eliminate existing safety standards. That is flat out wrong. He summarized a quote from one member of the National Academy of Sciences. I want to read one line from the National Academy of Sciences on the exact point: Equal treatment of equivalent vehicles made by different manufacturers is a requirement of equity. The current CAFE standards fail that test. I have much more confidence in the workers of this country and their representatives than my friend from Massachusetts. They strongly oppose this amendment. The UAW favored CAFE when it first came into existence. They favored CAFE. They strongly oppose the Kerry language because it discriminates against equally efficient vehicles made in America.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 30 seconds to Senator Stabenow.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time remains in support of the amendment?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, our bipartisan alternative to the Kerry- Hollings language in the substitute before us is aimed at increasing fuel economy, helping to protect the environment, and decreasing our dependence on foreign oil but doing it in a way which does not harm the domestic manufacturing industries. We have a three-point policy, basically: One, we provide that we will increase fuel economy. Two, we have greater emphasis on positive incentives to produce and to purchase fuel-economic vehicles. We do this through joint research and development funds which we would increase over the amount requested by the administration. We would do this through mandatory Government purchases of hybrids. And we would also do this through increased tax credits above those provided by the Finance Committee. But the third part of our policy is that many factors should be considered in raising the CAFE requirement. It should be raised. And our amendment says that it will be raised, but it would be raised, under our amendment, not in an arbitrary way, not just by adopting an arbitrary number on the floor of the Senate, but, rather, by telling, in the first instance, the Department of Transportation to look at all of the factors which should be considered in adopting a new CAFE standard--many factors, including safety, including cost, including competitiveness of manufacturers. The National Academy of Sciences has specifically said that there is a safety tradeoff. That is what they have found. The opponents of our amendment say it is a flawed study. OK. We disagree with that. But, nonetheless, if it is a flawed study, the National Academy of Sciences has also then said, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should continue their work in this area. But, point blank, the National Academy of Sciences says there is a tradeoff. I yield myself an additional minute.

Mr. LEVIN. I will split that time evenly with my colleague from Michigan. Mr. President, we have decided to refer to NHTSA for the next 15 months the complicated question of whether or not we ought to increase CAFE on what vehicles and by what amounts. This amendment runs contrary to what we just agreed to. I could not disagree more with our friend from Illinois when he says we threw in the towel in terms of increasing CAFE with this last amendment. That was my amendment. We specifically said we are going to increase it, but we are going to do it in a rational and responsible way, considering all the criteria which should be considered. We should not adopt the standard on this floor. The Miller amendment, I am afraid, does that for one particular type of vehicle.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I would like to congratulate the Girl Scouts of America on their 90th anniversary. The Girl Scouts began on March 12, 1912, when founder Juliette Gordon Low assembled 18 girls in Savannah, GA, for the first ever Girl Scout meeting. She believed that all girls should be given the opportunity to develop physically, mentally, and spiritually. Girl Scouts of America has a current membership of more than three million girls and adults, 150,000 of whom live in Michigan. There are also more than 50 million Girl Scout alumnae throughout our nation. Girl Scouts serve their communities, developing skills in a diverse array of activities including sports, media relations, education and science while growing into the leaders of tomorrow. One of this year's Young Women of Distinction is Ms. Noorain Khan from Grand Rapids, MI. To earn this distinction she worked on many projects including one with the Islamic Center of Grand Rapids which serves a community of 13,000 Muslims. She helped develop a grant proposal for a program to educate Muslim youth about their religion and culture, and better equip them to make responsible decisions as adults. Her grant proposal consisted of a preliminary curriculum outline, data on demographics in the Islamic community and a job description for a program director. Though the grant has not yet been secured, a framework now exists for the Islamic center and for future grant proposals. All Girl Scout programs are based on the Girl Scout Promise and Law and Four Program Goals: developing self-potential, relating to others, developing values and contributing to society. To achieve these goals, they have established programs in foster homes, homeless shelters, school yards and Native American reservations. Further, the Girl Scouts of America have established a research institute, received government funding to address violence prevention and are addressing the digital divide with activities that encourage girls to pursue careers in science, math and technology. Today, 90 years later, the organization offers girls of all races, ages, ethnicities, socioeconomic backgrounds and abilities the chance to develop the real-life skills they'll need as adults. I am sure that my Senate colleagues join me in commending the Girl Scouts on their first 90 years and look forward to them celebrating many more.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. The next rollcall vote will occur at approximately 11:50 a.m. in relation to the Levin CAFE amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from Alaska yield for a question? The Senator from Massachusetts is taking the NAS study.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I had a discussion with Senator Miller. My understanding was that the debate on his amendment would occur after the disposition of the Levin-Bond amendment.