Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield 15 seconds to the Senator.

Mr. LEVIN. It will be brief and on my time. Senator Lautenberg is scheduled to go next under the unanimous consent agreement. Can we schedule a speaker on your side, perhaps?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I also yield myself 30 seconds to thank my good friend from Ohio for a very thoughtful statement. He has put his finger on the heart of the matter, which is that Congress, by acting now, putting on automatic pilot a withdrawal of forces a year from now, unless action is taken later on, creates a very dangerous year of uncertainty which threatens the success of this mission as well as our alliance. It was an extremely thoughtful statement, which I hope all of our colleagues had an opportunity to hear. I thank the Senator.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if my good friend will yield for a question as to whether we might be able to schedule----

Mr. LEVIN. After that, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts could go on our side.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that Senator DeWine be recognized for 10 minutes immediately after Senator Inhofe, and then does the Senator know who would be ready on his side?

Mr. LEVIN. I have no objection if it comes out of their time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thought we agreed on a schedule--perhaps I am mistaken--that Senator Byrd would be going from 2:10 p.m. to 2:20 p.m.; that then Senator Daschle would go from 2:20 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Am I correct there are 22 minutes remaining?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there is a time that has been allocated to each side. I ask my good friend from Kansas whether or not the additional 5 minutes will come out from the time that is allocated to his side.

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I make a parliamentary inquiry: As I understand it, Senator Daschle will be recognized at 2:20. Is that correct?

Mr. LEVIN. I yield an additional minute to the Senator.

Mr. LEVIN. The Secretary General of NATO, on May 16, in a letter that has been referred to by Senator McCain, said the following in a different paragraph--one that he didn't read, but which I think is also significant: If this language is adopted, it would point toward a single policy outcome to the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Then he went on to say: As Secretary General, the prospect of any NATO ally deciding unilaterally not to take part in a NATO operation causes me deep concern. It risks sending a dangerous signal to the Yugoslav dictator Milosevic that NATO is divided and that its biggest and most important ally is pulling up stakes. This is the Secretary General of the greatest alliance in world history--one that we have been a leader of--who is saying the adoption of this language risks sending a dangerous signal to Milosevic that NATO is divided and that its biggest and most important ally is pulling up stakes. General Clark, recently the commander of our forces in Kosovo, wrote the following: These measures, if adopted, would be seen as a de facto pullout decision by the United States. They are unlikely to encourage European allies to do more. In fact, these measures would invalidate the policies, commitments, and trust of our allies in NATO, undercut U.S. leadership worldwide, and encourage renewed ethnic tension, fighting, and instability in the Balkans. So the issue here isn't our power. We have it. Everyone in this body will protect it--I hope. As long as I am here, I will be fighting for the same power Senator Byrd so eloquently talks about that the Congress must have--the power of the purse, the power to set a deadline, should we choose, such as the power we exercised in Somalia to set a deadline and to force our troops out. We have, at times, exercised that power. At times, we have shown, in my judgment, the wisdom not to exercise that power. We have not exercised it in Iraq. We are not exercising it in Korea. We are not exercising it in Bosnia at this point. We have not authorized those engagements to continue. We have not determined that we are going to put an end to them. So we have exercised judgment both ways, in our wisdom. We have the power to put an end to our presence in Iraq, or in Bosnia, or in South Korea. We have the power, but we have decided, in our wisdom, not to exercise that power. I hope that today, in our wisdom, for the reasons set forth by Mr. Cohen, General Clark, and the Secretary General of NATO, we will not create this period of dangerous uncertainty if we today decide that a year from now we are going to withdraw troops unless Congress changes its mind. It is the wrong message for our troops, for the reasons General Clark gives. It is a terrible message to our European allies because in one part of this amendment it says we want you to meet certain standards, but in the other part of the Byrd-Warner language it says even if the Europeans meet their standards and their commitments, nonetheless, unless Congress changes its mind in the next year, our troops are going to be withdrawn. It is on automatic pilot. It is self- effectuating. If no action is taken further by the Congress, our troops must be withdrawn.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, I am not sure what the request is. I am sure we can work something out. We are on the same wavelength. I am not sure what the request is.

Mr. LEVIN. That is the problem.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator guarantee a majority vote in both the House and Senate?

Mr. LEVIN. In the middle of the air campaign, while our fliers were putting their lives at risk over Kosovo, the House of Representatives could not even muster a majority to support our air campaign. My good friend says he will be the one to trigger this vote in the Senate. I have no doubt that he would. Once he says something, he means it. I would bet my life on it. I have bet an awful lot on his words many times, and I have never lost a bet. But I will say this: You can't tell us what the House of Representatives will do, or what 99 other Senators will do a year from now, and the problem, General Clark tells us, is that year of dangerous uncertainty is destabilizing, discourages our allies in NATO, encourages Milosevic, and is a real morale buster for our troops. It endangers our troops. It puts them at greater risk during this year. That is what General Clark told us in his letter, which I will read in a few moments. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. LEVIN. It is limited reassurance because it doesn't answer the heart of the problem, which is that if Congress does not vote later to authorize those troops, we are deciding now that those troops must leave. General Clark told us the problem is that in the year between now and then you have tremendous uncertainty, to put it mildly, as to whether Congress will authorize those troops to continue despite the commitment of one Senator to vote that way. It is that uncertainty which creates danger for our troops. Those aren't my words. Those are the words of General Clark's, who commanded those forces until a few weeks ago. That is the uncertainty which creates problems inside of our NATO alliance. That is the problem that creates in Milosevic the hope that he can restore himself to power for 1 year. For 1 year what is going to be the law of this land is that, unless Congress by majority vote decides to authorize those troops in Kosovo, the American forces must leave. It is a dangerous uncertainty. It is a debilitating uncertainty in terms of NATO. It is an encouraging uncertainty in terms of Milosevic. And it is an uncertainty that we should not create. There would be a way to avoid this. There is a way that I suggested. The way to avoid this is to guarantee the Senator from Virginia an opportunity that he could vote to pull the plug a year from now. That is a lot different. That is not this language. That was language which I suggested to my good friend from Virginia that we could guarantee a year from now that there would be an opportunity to force the withdrawal of those troops. That doesn't create the year of uncertainty which this language does because the language in this bill that my amendment would strike creates the uncertainty because if Congress does nothing a year from now, if the majority does not act a year from now to authorize these troops, the year of uncertainty between now and then will take a horrendous toll. Those are not my words. Those are the words of General Clark, the expert in the field. It seems to me that is a significant difference. One other point, and I would be happy to yield further, but I probably want to do this on my good friend's time.

Mr. LEVIN. If the Congress does nothing, under this language those troops are out of there.

Mr. LEVIN. If I may finish this one thought, I will be happy to yield. That is what it comes down to. The proponents do not want us participating--by their own words--in NATO-led ground forces, even at a junior partner level of 10 or 15 percent because, in the words of the proponents in a Dear Colleague letter they sent, ``The Europeans should be responsible for the ground element of the Kosovo peacekeeping mission.'' That is what the proponents wrote to all of us. They don't want us participating. They want us out of there. Unless we change our mind, we will be out of there because, in their words, ``The Europeans should be responsible for the ground element of the Kosovo peacekeeping mission.'' By the way, I reiterate, we are supplying 15 percent of the forces. We have pleaded with the Europeans for years to become more active in their own defense, and they have now responded. They are now the senior partner, with 80 percent of the ground forces. We are 15 percent, and the other non-Europeans are 5 percent. We are the junior partner right now. But the language in this bill says we don't want to even perform that role. That is what will unravel this mission and endanger this mission in the eyes of NATO and its leaders. I am happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes, and then I am going to yield to the Senator from Delaware for 45 minutes. Our amendment strikes language in the bill which requires ground troops be withdrawn from Kosovo by a fixed date next year unless Congress later changes its mind. Our amendment would strike language requiring withdrawal this year, unless the President certifies that certain specific contribution targets have been met by the Europeans. We are attempting to strike this language for the pullout of our ground forces next year for many reasons. First and foremost, in my judgment, is that such a requirement will create a year or a year and a half of dangerous uncertainty and dangerous instability in the Balkans. Creating that year of uncertainty and instability is dangerous because it is inconsistent with what we have struggled so hard to achieve in the Balkans, which is stability in a relatively peaceful environment. Creating that uncertainty for a year or a year and a half would make us an unreliable partner in NATO. I hope when we come to vote on this matter, we will take into account the words of General Wesley Clark, who was our commander there until a few weeks ago. He wrote a letter. I want to quote very briefly from that letter because it seems to me this captures what our problems are with this language that is in the bill. General Clark wrote: These measures, if adopted, would be seen as a de facto pull-out decision by the United States. They are unlikely to encourage European allies to do more. In fact, these measures would invalidate the policies, commitment and trust of our Allies in NATO, undercut U.S. leadership worldwide, and encourage renewed ethnic tension, fighting and instability in the Balkans. At the time that US military and diplomatic personnel are pressing other nations to fulfill and expand their committment of forces, capabilities and resources, an apparent congressionally mandated pull-out would undercut their leadership and all parallel diplomatic efforts. He also wrote that these provisions will place U.S. forces on the ground at increased risk. I ask unanimous consent the full letter from General Clark dated 11 May 2000 be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining Senators Lieberman, Daschle, McCain, Feingold, and others today in sponsoring this legislation to close the Section 527 loophole in our campaign finance and tax laws. Section 527 of the IRS Code was originally created by Congress in the 1970's 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 to the contributor, Congress did provide a tax exemption to the political organization for the money contributed. At the time Congress established the tax exemption, it assumed that since the sole stated purpose of such organizations is to influence elections, the organizations would be filing a more complete disclosure with the FEC under the campaign finance laws and consequently it wasn't necessary to require disclosure with the IRS. Once a federal court ruled in 1996 that coverage under the federal election laws required advocating the election or defeat of a specific candidate and not just seeking to influence the outcome of an election, the backbone of disclosure for Section 527 political organizations dissolved. Section 527 organizations could get the tax exemption for a political organization without having to follow the requirements--both the disclosure requirements and the contribution limits--of the federal election laws. Thus, an organization can state openly to the IRS that it is spending money for the sole purpose of influencing an election and get a tax exemption under Section 527, yet it can avoid registering with the Federal Election Commission because it can argue that its influence is not directed at a specific candidate. That's the kind of Alice-in-Wonderland logic we've got with this loophole. Today we are offering two alternative solutions to the Section 527 problem. One bill would apply filing requirements to Section 527 organizations that are required of other tax exemption organizations in the Tax Code and add new requirements to disclose contributions to the public; the other would require a Section 527 organization to comply with the federal election laws, as was originally contemplated when Congress created Section 527 in the first place. Given the limited number of legislative days remaining, we think it wise to pass, at a minimum, the bill requiring disclosure under tax code, although as a long-term solution, we favor the bill requiring disclosure and limits under the federal campaign laws. Mr. President, the Section 527 loophole in our federal campaign laws is a bipartisan problem that requires and deserves a bipartisan solution. Supporters of both parties have Section 527 organizations. This is a loophole in our laws that you can drive not only a truck through, but a convoy of trucks. And that's what's happening as we speak. Individuals and organizations that want to affect our federal elections but don't want to be restricted by our federal election laws are making tracks to Section 527 and establishing Section 527 organizations to run their election ads--without disclosure, without contribution limits. Now those ads--like other sham issue ads--can't say ``vote for'' or ``don't elect'', but they can go right up to that line and make essentially the same point. Mr. President, even if a Member of this body doesn't support campaign finance reform, he or she can support this legislation, because it is about disclosure and it eliminates an unintended consequence of the convergence of two laws--the tax laws and the campaign finance laws. Congress never intended to allow Section 527 organizations to escape both disclosure and campaign finance limits. Yet that's what's happened as a result of recent interpretations by the IRS and a U.S. District Judge. Our legislation reverses these interpretations and reinstates Congressional intent. 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: that 527 organizations be required to ``disclose information relating to their activities to the public . . .''; 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.'' [Section 527 organizations currently aren't even required to file a tax return.] 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 and 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 responsible civic organizations but which in reality are nothing more than well financed political opponents. But the damage from such ads will be incurred well before a candidate can even catch his or her breath much the less make any headway in identifying the source of the money behind the ads. That's why we need this legislation now.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining Senators Lieberman, Daschle, McCain, Feingold, and others today in sponsoring this legislation to close the Section 527 loophole in our campaign finance and tax laws. Section 527 of the IRS Code was originally created by Congress in the 1970's 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 to the contributor, Congress did provide a tax exemption to the political organization for the money contributed. At the time Congress established the tax exemption, it assumed that since the sole stated purpose of such organizations is to influence elections, the organizations would be filing a more complete disclosure with the FEC under the campaign finance laws and consequently it wasn't necessary to require disclosure with the IRS. Once a federal court ruled in 1996 that coverage under the federal election laws required advocating the election or defeat of a specific candidate and not just seeking to influence the outcome of an election, the backbone of disclosure for Section 527 political organizations dissolved. Section 527 organizations could get the tax exemption for a political organization without having to follow the requirements--both the disclosure requirements and the contribution limits--of the federal election laws. Thus, an organization can state openly to the IRS that it is spending money for the sole purpose of influencing an election and get a tax exemption under Section 527, yet it can avoid registering with the Federal Election Commission because it can argue that its influence is not directed at a specific candidate. That's the kind of Alice-in-Wonderland logic we've got with this loophole. Today we are offering two alternative solutions to the Section 527 problem. One bill would apply filing requirements to Section 527 organizations that are required of other tax exemption organizations in the Tax Code and add new requirements to disclose contributions to the public; the other would require a Section 527 organization to comply with the federal election laws, as was originally contemplated when Congress created Section 527 in the first place. Given the limited number of legislative days remaining, we think it wise to pass, at a minimum, the bill requiring disclosure under tax code, although as a long-term solution, we favor the bill requiring disclosure and limits under the federal campaign laws. Mr. President, the Section 527 loophole in our federal campaign laws is a bipartisan problem that requires and deserves a bipartisan solution. Supporters of both parties have Section 527 organizations. This is a loophole in our laws that you can drive not only a truck through, but a convoy of trucks. And that's what's happening as we speak. Individuals and organizations that want to affect our federal elections but don't want to be restricted by our federal election laws are making tracks to Section 527 and establishing Section 527 organizations to run their election ads--without disclosure, without contribution limits. Now those ads--like other sham issue ads--can't say ``vote for'' or ``don't elect'', but they can go right up to that line and make essentially the same point. Mr. President, even if a Member of this body doesn't support campaign finance reform, he or she can support this legislation, because it is about disclosure and it eliminates an unintended consequence of the convergence of two laws--the tax laws and the campaign finance laws. Congress never intended to allow Section 527 organizations to escape both disclosure and campaign finance limits. Yet that's what's happened as a result of recent interpretations by the IRS and a U.S. District Judge. Our legislation reverses these interpretations and reinstates Congressional intent. 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: that 527 organizations be required to ``disclose information relating to their activities to the public . . .''; 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.'' [Section 527 organizations currently aren't even required to file a tax return.] 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 and 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 responsible civic organizations but which in reality are nothing more than well financed political opponents. But the damage from such ads will be incurred well before a candidate can even catch his or her breath much the less make any headway in identifying the source of the money behind the ads. That's why we need this legislation now.