Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. No objection, Mr. President. We support this.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, that effort would be made, as I understand it, immediately following the vote on the confirmation of General Gordon. I am just wondering if that is accurate, so we can inform our colleagues who have an interest in this that the effort which the Senator from Virginia, the manager of the bill, has just described would occur immediately following the vote on the confirmation of General Gordon.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, at the hour of 11 o'clock we would then return to the consideration of the matter that is now pending?

Mr. LEVIN. And that the Senator from Virginia be recognized.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, only that John Brown is the fourth witness who will be invited. He is the Director at the Los Alamos Lab.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I can think of amendments on both sides that could require extensive debate, but there may be occasions where cloture is an appropriate way in this Senate. We have rules for that. With some of these amendments which have been waiting to be offered for so many months, I think the best way to do it is deal with them within the rules of the Senate. Happily, this is not one of those amendments. We should not in any way suggest the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota is involved in that particular issue. He is willing to take a short time agreement. I think we ought to put that in the bank, get this amendment up early, and dispose of it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I join with Senator Warner in supporting the President's nomination of Gen. John Gordon to be the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security in the Department of Energy, and the first administrator of the new National Nuclear Security Agency in the Department of Energy. General Gordon is an excellent choice to fill this very demanding position. General Gordon has served his country for more than 30 years, most recently as the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He was recommended for this position by a panel of highly qualified experts headed by former Deputy Secretary of Energy Charles Curtis. It is hard to imagine an individual with more experience than General Gordon with all aspects of the nuclear forces of the United States. During his long and distinguished career in the United States Air Force, General Gordon worked in the research and development of nuclear weapons programs as a physicist and technician; he is familiar with the operational requirements of our nuclear forces from his tours of duty with U.S. strategic missile forces, including service as vice commander and commander of a Strategic Missile Wing; and he worked at the highest policy levels of the Executive Branch during his four years on the National Security Council as special assistant to the President for national security affairs and senior director for defense policy and arms control. Upon confirmation, General Gordon will take on one of the most challenging assignments in the federal government. The Administrator of the new National Nuclear Security Administration is responsible for maintaining the safety and reliability of our nation's nuclear warheads; for addressing security problems that continue to undermine public confidence in the Department of Energy; for managing the Department of Energy laboratories; and for cleaning up some of the worst environmental problems in the country. Moreover, the Administrator will face these assignments as the head of an agency so plagued with ``convoluted, confusing and contradictory'' reporting channels that the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board last year characterized the entire Department of Energy as a ``dysfunctional'' organization. Although I believe that some of the legislation Congress has passed and is currently considering will make General Gordon's job harder and not easier, I pledge to work with General Gordon, Secretary Richardson and my colleagues in the Congress to do everything I can to give General Gordon the support he will need to be successful in this demanding job. I think all of us appreciate General Gordon's willingness to serve his country on this continuing basis and to take on a very difficult assignment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate will shortly pass H.R. 2614, the Certified Development Company Program Improvements Act of 1999. This bill was passed by the House on August 2, 1999. The Small Business Administration's 504 loan program provides 20- and 10-year fixed-rate loans to small businesses through Certified Development Companies to be used for the acquisition or renovation of plant and equipment. SBA's 504 program loans are funded through the sale of pooled debentures on the bond market which gives small businesses access to interest rates that are close to those offered to large corporations. SBA's 504 loan program is a net plus to our economy because it requires that small businesses receiving loans must create jobs or retain jobs that otherwise would be lost and/or meet certain national public policy goals. The 504 loan program's job creation track record has been excellent, with at least 3 jobs being created for every $35,000 in 504 lending provided. This legislation is most urgently needed because the 504 program needs to be reauthorized. Even though the program costs the Government nothing and no appropriations are made to fund it because the program pays for itself through fees collected from borrowers, it cannot continue to operate without an authorization. We cannot allow this to happen. The 504 loan program is too important to small businesses who wish to expand because it provides affordable financing for growth with low down payments which is often difficult or impossible for small businesses to obtain from traditional lenders. This bill improves on the 504 loan program and increases the maximum amount of a regular SBA guaranteed debenture, long term bond, from $750,000 to $1 million. The maximum amount for loans with specific public policy purposes, low-income, rural and minority-owned businesses, is increased to $1,300,000. There has not been an adjustment to the maximum loan level in 10 years and this change allows the program to keep up with inflation that has occurred over that time period. It also adds women-owned businesses to the category of public policy goals that the program aims to achieve, making women-owned businesses eligible for the higher levels of financing. This is an important addition due to the significant role women-owned businesses play in contributing to job growth in our economy. The bill also reauthorizes the program for 3 more years and makes two pilot programs permanent. The State of Michigan has many active CDCs which keep in close touch with my office to report on their activities and the small businesses they have helped. On their behalf and on behalf of all the small businesses assisted by the 504 loan program and those that will be assisted in the future, I commend my colleagues for passing this legislation which improves on an already outstanding program.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield on that point, General Gordon has very strong support on both sides of the aisle. He is a Presidential nominee who has gotten a very positive response from just about everybody I know. I think the people look forward to voting on his nomination as early as possible tomorrow morning. Again, I think there is an effort being made to set a deadline for another vote on a nominee to the same Department, someone who has been waiting for a long time.

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield on that, that opens the possibilities that we would vote on that nomination prior to the recess because it says ``no later than.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished managers of the bill in a brief colloquy on the issue of the health care management demonstration program recommended by the Armed Services Committee in S. 2549, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. Section 740 of S. 2549 would direct the Secretary of Defense to conduct a test of two models to improve health care delivery in the Defense Health Program: one model would study alternative delivery policies, processes, organization and technologies; the second would study long term disease management. This section would also authorize $6 million within the total of $11.4 billion authorized for the Defense Health Program in FY2001 to carry out these demonstration programs. The Armed Services Committee believes that these two models have the potential to improve significantly the delivery of health care in the military medical system. I would like to ask the distinguished managers of the bill if the FY2001 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill currently before the Senate includes the resources in the Defense Health Program to conduct the health care management demonstration program directed by section 740 of S. 2549?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire, and yet Congress is refusing to act on sensible gun legislation. Until we act, one of us who is trying to get legislation passed will read the names of those who lost their lives through gun violence in the past year and will continue to do so every day while the Senate is in session. In this way, we hope to remember those who have died and to bring closer the day when fewer die from gun violence. Following are the names of some of the Americans who were killed by gunfire 1 year ago today, on June 12, 1999: Tyrand Baxter, 24, Atlanta, GA; D'Ante Bonds, 18, Oakland, CA; Kenneth Davis, 17, Chicago, IL; Moises Moctezuma, 49, Charlotte, NC; Kevin Parks, 26, Chicago, IL; Cornell Rogers, 31, Washington, DC; Reginald Rogers, 21, St. Paul, MN; David Sapp, 42, Charlotte, NC; Joseph Shruga, 69, Detroit, MI; Yong S. Suoh, 44, Chicago, IL; Javier Velasquez, 23, San Antonio, TX; Joel Vives, 27, Miami-Dade County, FL; Charles Wachholtz, 80, Dallas, TX; Antwan Wimberly, 24, Atlanta, GA; and Timothy Young, 21, Charlotte, NC. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names of those who were killed by gunfire last year on the days June 10 and June 11, which was last weekend when the Senate was not in session.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the section 527 loophole is driving elections and their financing deeper and deeper into the muck. We cannot stand by with the values we hold as Americans and watch elections driven deeper and deeper into the muck. That is what is happening with this 527 loophole. It is tearing this system to shreds. The soft money loophole has already cut a huge hole in the campaign finance system. This section 527 loophole just simply tears this system to shreds. It allows unlimited contributions and, even worse than the soft money loophole, it allows undisclosed unlimited contributions, stealth contributions, and the press reports already tens of millions of dollars of these contributions are totally off the campaign finance radar screen. The only way people can use this is by trying to take inconsistent positions on two laws. The Internal Revenue Code defines an organization subject to tax exemption under section 527 as an organization which influences or attempts to influence the election of any individual to any Federal office. That seems pretty clear. The Federal Election Campaign Act defines a political committee which is subject to regulation by the Federal Election Commission as an organization that spends or receives money for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office. People are creating these 527 organizations because, and only because, they influence or attempt to influence an election. That is why they are exempt but then ignore the FEC's requirements that people who organize for the purpose of influencing an election have to disclose. We cannot in good conscience stand by and permit this process, this charade, which is doing so much damage to the public, to continue. On this so-called blue-slip question, first, the Senate should not agree to a House interpretation that something like this is a revenue raiser when it is not a revenue raiser. We should not simply accede to that, No. 1. That is a broad interpretation which the House uses to have a larger prerogative than the Constitution provides. Secondly, we do not know that there is going to be a blue slip. We do not know that. The House, I believe, has to adopt a position. This is not something which is done informally. Thirdly, if the House does blue-slip this matter, there is plenty of precedent for the matter then coming back to the Senate and the Senate removing the language in question. This is being used as an excuse not to adopt a critically essential amendment if we are going to even begin to restore public confidence in the elections in this country. This last suggestion by our good friend, the chairman, that there could be, instead of a law being passed, sense-of-the-Senate language which is not law, is not binding, does not have the force of law, but even in its own language simply suggests to organizations that they adopt some meaningful disclosure of activity, is meaningless, not meaningful. We should not stand by and permit this charade to go on any longer. While we do not know the universe of these organizations, because they do not even have to register with the Internal Revenue Service, we do know that this is a bipartisan problem that requires and deserves a bipartisan solution. Section 527 was created by Congress in the 1970s to provide a category of tax exempt organizations for political parties and political committees. While contributions to a political party or political committee are not tax deductible, Congress did provide for a tax exemption for money contributed and spent on political activities by an organization created for the purpose of influencing elections. At the time Congress established the tax exemption, it assumed that such organizations would be filing with the FEC under the campaign finance laws for the obvious reason that the language for both coverage by the IRS and coverage by the FEC were the same--``influencing an election.'' Consequently, it was assumed that section 527 did not need to require disclosure with the IRS, since the FEC disclosure was considerably more complete. The amendment before us would require section 527 organizations to file a tax return, something they are not required to do now, and disclose the basic information about their organization as well as their contributors over $200. In late January of this year, the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation released a study of the Disclosure Provisions Relating to Tax- Exempt Organizations. In that study, the bipartisan staff addressed section 527 organizations, and the JCT staff recommended adoption of an amendment to section 527 similar to the language we now have before us. The JCT staff specifically recommended: 1. That 527 organizations be required to ``disclose information relating to their activities to the public . . .'' 2. And that 527 organizations ``be required to file an annual return even if the organizations do not have taxable income and that the annual return should be expanded to include more information regarding the activities of the organization. The JCT report said, ``This recommendation is consistent with the recommendation that all tax returns relating to tax-exempt organizations should be disclosable.'' As the 2000 campaign evolves that we get closer to November, the American public is going to be seeing the consequences--the real life consequences of this loophole in our campaign finance laws. Candidates from both parties are going to be hit with ads by groups with names that sound like civic organizations but which in reality are nothing more than well-financed political opponents whose sole purpose is to influence an election. But the public will not be able to determine who the people are behind the organizational name. It could be one person, one union, one corporation, or an association of unions, interest groups, or corporations. An organization with a name like Citizens for Safety could have as its sole contributor a leader of organized crime. We would never know. The examples are endless. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Unfortunately, it does not stop the unlimited aspect of these secret contributions, but it does bring these contributions out in the open.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3218 (Purpose: To require a report on the Defense Travel System and to limit the use of funds for the system)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend Senators Warner and Dodd for their work on a bipartisan basis to establish a bipartisan commission on Cuba. It is important that we conduct a review of the achievements or lack thereof of the embargo. The amendment does not presume the outcome in any way of the commission's effort. It is not intended nor should it be interpreted for a substitute for any other legislative action that Congress might take. It is constructive. It is bipartisan. It is modest. I think it is, frankly, long overdue. I hope we can adopt this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend our good friend from Minnesota not just for his good nature but also for his continuing to bring to the attention of the Senate and the Nation the problem addressed in his amendment, and his determination that he get a review of the impact of the actions that we have taken on poor people in this country. He has been in the leadership of this effort continually. He raises this issue with his extraordinarily powerful and eloquent voice. I commend him for that. We will be accepting the amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Robb, I offer an amendment which requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees concerning the management and fielding of the defense travel system. I believe this has been cleared by the other side.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, perhaps Senator Wellstone will yield to me for 1 minute after he is recognized.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this is the modification which was previously shared with the minority. We have no objection to the pending Smith amendment being modified.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 3228.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.