Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern about the recent arrest in Russia of Vladimir Gusinsky and its negative impact on press freedom and democracy under the leadership of President Putin. Mr. Gusinsky runs Media Most, a major conglomerate of Russian media organizations, including NTV, Russia's only television network not under state control. Media Most is a relatively independent force in Russian news reporting, and its outlets have offered hard-hitting, often critical accounts of Russia's brutal campaign in Chechnya, as well as reports on alleged Government corruption. Besides being an important media and business executive, Mr. Gusinsky is a also a leading figure in the Russian Jewish community, serving as President of the Russian Jewish Congress. On May 11, just days after President Putin's inauguration, Russian federal agents in a major show of force raided several of Media Most's corporate offices, raising immediate concerns about the direction of press freedom in the new government. These concerns intensified on Tuesday June 13 when a Russian prosecutor called Mr. Gusinsky in for questioning, and then arrested him on suspicion of embezzling millions of dollars worth of federal property. On June 16, Mr. Gusinsky was released from prison after the prosecutor formally charged him with embezzlement. It is very difficult for anyone to address fully the specifics of such charges, and the Russian government's case against Mr. Gusinsky, when so little information has been made available by the Russian government. However, the circumstances of the case raise serious concerns about the initial direction of press freedom and democracy under President Putin. As one of the opening acts of the new Administration, the government chose to carry out a heavy-handed, much publicized raid on an organization led by high profile Government critic. It chose to arrest the leader of an organization, Media Most, that is one of the few outlets of independent news about controversial Russian government policies. The fact that this arrest took place while President Putin was traveling abroad, and that he publicly speculated that the arrest might have been excessive, serves to make the situation and the Government's policy even more confusing and unsettling. Moreover, this case in not occurring in a vacuum. After President Putin's election, but before his inauguration, there were disturbing signs of government hostility toward Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, evident in the harassment of RFE/RL correspondent Andrei Babitsky. I am encouraged to see that prominent Russians have been speaking out about the arrest of Mr. Gusinsky, and that our Government is signaling its concern too. I echo the New York Times editorial on June 15 that this is ``A Chilling Prosecution in Moscow.'' I would ask unanimous consent that this piece, as well as similar editorials from the June 15 editions of the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, be printed in full in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose this amendment to create a Commission on Cuba. I do so with some personal reluctance because of my deep affection and respect for my colleague from Connecticut who is the sponsor of the amendment and who I know is acting with the best of intentions. We simply have come to a different conclusion on this question. Some might say: What can be the harm of a commission to study Cuban- American relations? I oppose the idea of a commission because I believe the current state of America's policy toward Cuba is right. It has been sustained now over four decades. It began and has continued as a bipartisan policy which originates from Castro's Communist takeover of that country in 1959, and his attempts to spread communism to other parts of this hemisphere and to the world. Although I think our policy has helped prevent Castro's communism from expanding to the Americas, thanks to the strong leadership of ourselves and other countries, his regime continues to subject the Cuban people to a form of government that deprives them of their basic and inalienable human rights. He is now one of the last of less than a handful of old-style Communist leaders, and his regime's human rights record remains abysmal. Throughout my years in the Senate, I have been a strong supporter of our policy toward Cuba, and I remain a strong supporter because I believe it is right. It is based on principle, and Castro has done nothing to justify a change in that policy. In fact, every time we give him an opportunity to show he has changed, he refuses to take that opportunity. I quote from the State Department's most recent Annual Human Rights Report for Cuba, issued in 1999: Cuba is a totalitarian state controlled by President Fidel Castro. * * * The Government continued to control all significant means of production and remained the predominant employer. * * * The Government's human rights record remained poor. It continued systematically to violate the civil and political rights of its citizens. * * * The authorities routinely continued to harass, threaten, arbitrarily arrest, detain, imprison, and defame human rights advocates and members of independent professional associations, including journalists, economists, doctors, and lawyers, often with the goal of coercing them into leaving the country. * * * The Government denied citizens the freedom of speech, press, assembly, and association. * * * The Government denied political dissidents and human rights advocates due process and subjected them to unfair trials.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this regime has done nothing to justify a change in our policy toward it. For that reason, I will vote against this amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss provisions (Section 906) in the FY 2001 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 2549) aimed at supporting efforts within the Department of Defense to develop a set of operational concepts, sometimes referred to as ``Network Centric Warfare,'' that seek to exploit the power of information and US superiority in information technologies to maintain dominance and improve interoperability on the battlefield. I am very pleased to have been joined in the development of these provisions by my able colleagues, Senators Roberts and Bingaman. This concept of operations generates increased combat power by networking sensors, decision makers and shooters to achieve shared situational awareness, increased speed of command, higher tempo of synchronized operations, greater lethality, increased survivability, and more efficient support operations. In the words of Vice Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, the President of the Naval War College, ``Network Centric Warfare is an embodiment of the emerging theory of warfare for the Information Age.'' As we strive to transform our military to meet the challenges and threats of the new century, it is clear that we must make better use of our huge advantages in information technology, sensors, networks, and computing to achieve battlefield dominance. Network Centric Warfare exploits these advantages not only by identifying, developing, and utilizing the best new networking and sensing technologies, but also by adjusting our existing doctrine, tactics, training and even acquisition, planning, and programming to reflect the network centric concepts of operations. A truly networked force can be lighter, faster, more precise, more Joint and more able to respond to contingencies ranging from peacekeeping to major regional conflicts. In Joint Vision 2020, the Joint Chiefs of Staff highlight the critical role that information and information systems will play in future operations, stating: * * * the ongoing ``information revolution'' is creating not only a quantitative, but a qualitative change in the information environment that by 2020 will result in profound changes in the conduct of military operations. In fact, advances in information capabilities are proceeding so rapidly that there is a risk of outstripping our ability to capture ideas, formulate operational concepts, and develop the capacity to assess results. While the goal of achieving information superiority will not change, the nature, scope, and ``rules'' of the quest are changing radically. Information superiority provides the joint force a competitive advantage only when it is effectively translated into superior knowledge and decisions. The joint force must be able to take advantage of superior information converted to superior knowledge to achieve ``decision superiority''-- better decisions arrived at and implemented faster than an opponent can react, or in a noncombat situation, at a tempo that allows the force to shape the situation or react to changes and accomplish its mission. Decision superiority does not automatically result from information superiority. Organizational and doctrinal adaptation, relevant training and experience, and the proper command and control mechanisms and tools are equally necessary. The legislation in Section 906 of S. 2549 explores many of the facets of this Joint vision of a networked force and operations. It is clear that there have been chronic difficulties and deficiencies in our recent military operations, including Kosovo, associated with Service-centric boundaries and segmentation of operational areas by Service, which have resulted in a number of interoperability failures and inefficiencies. Reports have suggested that we continue to have difficulty collecting, processing, and disseminating critical information to our battlefields. These shortfalls, for example, severely limited our ability to make full use of the capabilities of our JSTARS aircraft or to effectively strike mobile targets. Earlier in this session, the Armed Services Committee received testimony concerning Kosovo operations from Lieutenant General Michael Short, the Commander of Allied Air Forces in Southern Europe, where he highlighted improvements made within the Air Force to move targeting information from intelligence assets (for example, U-2s) to some combat aircraft. But he also pointed out the need to expand these efforts, * * * we need to be able to do that across the fleet, to move information to A-10s and F-16s and F/A-18s and F-14s, everything we have got, * * * to rapidly respond to the emerging situation. It is also clear that these problems do not all stem from technological deficiencies. In fact, many of the interoperability difficulties that we see today result from force and organizational structures, doctrine, and tactics that have not kept pace with technological change. Admiral James Ellis, the Commander-in-Chief of Allied Forces in Southern Europe, highlighted these problems for the Committee, stating about the Kosovo operation, There are clearly opportunities for us to, through firewalls and the like, to pass data, * * * that we were not able to during this effort that require attention as well, so that at a staff level as well as at a planning and execution level we have the ability to communicate as freely as we need to in order to ensure that we've got the security and the capability that the alliance is capable of delivering. The networking of our military assets and the training of our personnel and transformation of our forces to adapt to an information- centric environment will be critical for future military operations. Theater Missile Defense is an excellent example of the need for this type of network centric approach. Given the global proliferation of missile technology and weapons of mass destruction, we are moving toward a robust missile defense capability to protect our warfighters deployed overseas. The Theater Missile Defense mission depends on the seamless linking of multiple Joint assets and on the timely passing of critical information between sensors and shooters. Earlier this year, Lieutenant General Ron Kadish testified that we have got ``some long work ahead'' to make our various Theater Missile Defense efforts interoperable. We must all work to ensure that we develop the space- based and airborne sensing systems, interoperable networking and communications systems, and Joint operations and organizations needed to perform this vital mission. After extensive discussions with a variety of Agency and Service officials, I believe that although there are many innovative efforts underway throughout the Department to develop network centric technologies and systems, as well as to establish mechanisms to integrate information systems, sensors, weapon systems and decision makers, these efforts are too often underfunded, low-priority, and not coordinated across Services. In many cases, they will unfortunately continue the legacy of interoperability problems that we all know exist today. To paraphrase one senior Air Force officer, we are not making the necessary fundamental changes--we are still nibbling at the edges. The legislation incorporated into the Defense bill calls for DoD to provide three reports to Congress detailing efforts in moving towards Network Centric forces and operations. Section 906(b) calls for a report focusing on the broad development and implementation of Network Centric Warfare concepts in the Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are asked to report on their current and planned efforts to coordinate all DoD activities in Network Centric Warfare to show how they are moving toward a truly Joint, networked force. The report calls for the development of a set of metrics as discussed in Section 906(b)(2)(C) to be used to monitor our progress towards a Joint, network centric force and the attainment of fully integrated Joint command and control capabilities, both in technology and organizational structure. These metrics will then be used in more detailed case studies described in Section 906(b)(2)(E)--focusing on Service interoperability and fratricide reduction. The legislation also requires the Department to report on how it is moving towards Joint Requirements and Acquisition policies and increasing Joint authority in this area to ensure that future forces will be truly seamless, interoperable, and network-centric, as described in Sections 906(b)(2) (F) through (I). Many view these Joint activities as being critically necessary to achieving networked systems and operations. Unless we move away from a system designed to protect individual Service interests and procurement programs, we will always be faced with solving interoperability problems between systems. For example, strengthening the Joint oversight of the requirements for and acquisition of all systems directly involved in Joint Task Forces interoperability would provide a sounder method for acquiring these systems. We need to move away from a Cold War based, platform-centric acquisition system that is slow, cumbersome, and Service-centric. As part of this review, we ask DoD to examine the speed at which it can acquire new technologies and whether the personnel making key decisions on information systems procurement are technically trained or at least supported by the finest technical talent available. We also need to ensure that Service acquisition systems are responsive to the establishment of Joint interoperability standards in networking, computing, and communications, as well as best commercial practices. In the operations support area, DoD can follow the example of the private sector--which has embraced network centric operations to improve efficiency in an increasingly competitive environment. Companies as different as IBM and WalMart are both moving to streamline and unify their networks and to make their distribution, inventory control and personnel management systems more modern and information- centric. Successful firms are not only buying the newest technology, they are also changing their operations and business plans to deal with the new networked environments. Section 906(b)(2)(J) calls for the Department to study private sector efforts in these areas and evaluate their past successes and failures as they can inform future DoD activities. Section 906(c) describes the second report, which examines the use of the Joint Experimentation Program in developing Network Centric Warfare concepts. Network Centric Warfare is inherently Joint, and the Commander in Chief of Joint Forces Command is in the best position to develop new operational concepts and test the new technologies that support it. The report calls for a description of how the Joint Experimentation Program and the results of its activities are to be used to develop new Joint Requirements, Doctrine, and Acquisition programs to support network centric operations. It also requires the development and description of a plan to use the Joint Experimentation program to identify impediments to the development of a joint information network, including the linking of Service intranets, as well as redesigning force structures to leverage new network centric operational concepts. The final report, described in Section 906(d), focuses on the coordination of Service and Agency Science and Technology investments in the development of future Joint Network Centric Warfare capabilities. In moving towards a more Joint, networked force we must continue to ensure that we provide our nation's warfighters with the best technologies. We must increase our investments in areas such as sensors, networking protocols, human-machine interfaces, training, and other technologies outlined in Section 906(d)(2)(A), especially in the face of declining S&T budgets. The report requires the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to explain how S&T investments supporting network centric operations will be coordinated across the Agencies and Services to eliminate redundancy and better address critical warfighter, technology, and R&D needs. This is more important than ever as we develop our next generation of weapon systems--better coordination and establishment of common standards in the technology development stages can only help to alleviate future interoperability problems. The Undersecretary's planning and evaluation of investments in S&T for a network centric force must also address the role of the operator in a network centric system. We must pay more attention to the training of our combat and support personnel so that they can make the best use of information technologies, as well as investing more in research on learning and cognitive processes so that our training systems and human-machine interfaces are optimized. The investments recommended in the report should also accommodate the incredible pace of change in information technologies that is currently driven by the commercial sector. To address this, Section 906(d)(2)(B) calls for an analysis of how commercially driven revolutions in information technology are modifying the DoD's investment strategy and incorporation of dual-use technologies. I believe this legislation will help focus the Pentagon and Congress' attention on the need to move our military into a more information savvy and networked force. I hope that these three key reports set forth the needed organizational, policy, and legislative changes necessary to achieve this transformation for decision makers in the military, Administration, and in Congress. I believe that our future military operations must be network centric to preserve our technological and operational superiority. I look forward to receiving plans and proposals to help get us there efficiently and effectively.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I want to thank Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin for their foresight in accepting the amended text of S. 1993, the Government Information Security Act, which was unanimously reported out of the Government Affairs Committee. We are now far enough into the digital age to understand both its promise and its pitfalls. Our booming economy is driven in large part by the dot.com entrepreneurs who are providing goods and services faster and more cost-effectively than ever before in our history. But we are also experiencing threats to our privacy, to the integrity of our digitized information, and even to our ability to use our computers freely. We know there will be trade-offs for the benefits government will reap in the digital age. But, I offer this sincere warning now: information security cannot be one of them. With this amendment, we would lay the groundwork for securing much of the government's electronic information. Above all else, protecting the integrity, the availability and the confidentiality of information stored on federal computers is central to serving taxpayers in the digital age. And we must be vigilant about it. Like the rest of the nation, the government is ever more dependent on automated information systems to store information and perform tasks. At hearings before the Government Affairs Committee last Congress, however, witnesses testified that such increased reliance has not been met by an equivalent strengthening of the security of those systems. It is chilling to think of less than perfect security in the context, for example, of tax and wage information the Internet Revenue Service maintains, troop movements monitored by the Defense Department, or public health threats analyzed by the Centers of Disease Control. Without proper security, government's dependence on computers would expose to exploitation all of this information--and much more. Indeed, some of this information may be in jeopardy right now. A series of General Accounting Office (GAO) studies found government computer security so lax that GAO put the entire apparatus on its list of ``high risk'' government programs. GAO reported in September 1998 that inadequate controls over information systems at the Veterans Administration exposed many of its service delivery and management systems to disruption or misuse. In May 1998, the GAO gained unauthorized access to State Department networks, enabling the GAO, had it tried, to modify, delete or download data and shut down services. In May 1999, GAO reported that one of its test teams gained access to mission critical computer systems at NASA, which would have allowed the team to control spacecraft or alter scientific data returned from space. Our problem is not simply a technical one. It is also a cultural one. The federal government can purchase and implement the most advanced security programs it can afford but unless top government officials acknowledge that our future depends on information security, those programs will be meaningless. But even high-level attention to and responsibility for security will mean little unless everyone and anyone who uses a computer--which, these days, must include practically every government worker--does their part to ensure the security of the system on which they work. This amendment, therefore, focuses on good management practices to ensure secure government information systems. Had this amendment been in place earlier this year when the ``Love Bug'' and successive, mutating viruses wreaked havoc on the world's computers, government would have been better prepared to withstand the attack. I hope that government employees would have been more aware of the need to upgrade their systems' security software to ensure that such ``worms,'' as they are called, were barred from the system. And this amendment's training provisions would have helped to ensure that employees were versed in the dangers of opening attachments from unknown senders. The cornerstone of this amendment is the plan each agency must develop to protect sensitive federal information systems. Agency chief information officers (CIOs) would be responsible for developing and implementing the security programs, which must undergo annual evaluations and be subject to the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Because we need to change our cultural attitudes toward information security, the OMB also would be responsible for establishing government-wide policies promoting security as a central part of each agency's operation. And we intend to hold agency heads accountable for implementing those policies. This amendment requires high-level accountability for the management of agency systems beginning with the Director of OMB and agency heads. Each agency's plan must reflect an understanding that computer security is an integral part of the development process for any new system. Agencies now tend to develop a system and consider security issues only as the system is about to go online. This amendment establishes an ongoing, periodic reporting, testing and evaluation process to gauge the effectiveness of agencies' policies and procedures. This would be accomplished through reviews of agency budgets, program performance and financial management. And the amendment requires an independent, annual evaluation of all information security practices and programs to be conducted by the agency's Inspector General, GAO or an independent external auditor. I hope that the IGs will use their limited resources wisely and use their discretion in targeting those areas of their agencies' programs which require the most attention. In addition, I hope that agency heads will work with their IGs, especially when it comes to sharing information on potential threats to agencies' systems. Our amendment requires that agencies report unauthorized intrusions into government systems. GSA currently has a program for reporting and responding to such incidents. The amendment requires agencies to use this reporting and monitoring system. The amendment requires that the national security and classified systems adhere to the same management structure as every other government system under our bill. This means they must develop a plan addressing security upgrades, although the plan need not be approved by OMB. To address particular concerns raised by the defense and intelligence communities, the amendment allows the heads of agencies with national security and classified systems to designate their own independent evaluators in the interest of protecting sensitive information and system vulnerabilities. And the Secretary of Defense, the Director of Central Intelligence, and other agency heads, as designated by the President, may develop their own procedures for detecting, reporting and responding to security incidents. Finally, President Clinton has proposed a very creative idea known as the Federal Cyber Service designed to strengthen the government's cadre of information security professionals. Our amendment authorizes this program and gives agencies the flexibility they need to implement it. The program includes scholarships in exchange for government service, retraining computer information specialists and, as part of our campaign to influence cultural behavior, proposals to promote cyber- security awareness among Federal workers and high school and secondary school students. Since Senator Thompson and I introduced S. 1993 last November, we have worked closely with the Administration, the Department of Defense, the National Security Agency, the Department of Energy, the CIO Council, the Inspector General community, and interested parties outside government. We have made changes to address the concerns that have been raised and I am very pleased that the administration strongly supports the provisions. Witnesses testifying at the Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on S. 1993 were also very supportive of the bill. Jack Brock, Director of GAO's Governmentwide and Defense Information Systems Group in the Accounting and Information Management Division testified that ``the bill, in fact, incorporates the basic tenets of good security management found in our report on security practices of leading organizations. . . . '' He also said that ``the key to this process is recognizing that information security is not a technical matter of locking down systems, but rather a management problem. . . . Thus, it is highly appropriate that S. 1993 requires a risk management approach that incorporates these elements.'' Roberta Gross, the Inspector General at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration testified that ``. . . S. 1993 is a very positive step in highlighting the importance of centralized oversight and coordination in responding to risks and threats to IT [information technology] security.'' S. 1993 ``. . . importantly recognizes that IT security is one of the most important issues in shaping future Federal planning and investment . . . the Act makes it clear that each agency must be far more vigilant and involved than current practices.'' Another witness, James Adams, Chief Executive Officer of Defense, a security consulting firm, testified that S. 1993 is ``. . . thoughtful and badly needed legislation . . .'' which ``. . . takes a crucial step forward.'' Ken Watson of Cisco Systems noted hat S. 1993 is consistent with what industry has already been encouraging, that is that ``. . . security must be promoted as an integral component of each agency's business operations, and information technology security training is essential. . . .'' Mr. President, it is my hope that, if enacted, this amendment will improve our computer security to the point where the operations of government in the digital age are performed with the privacy and well- being of the American public in mind. Again, I am pleased the leadership of the Armed Services Committee has accepted this amendment because, in the digital age, there is no such thing as moving too quickly.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the amendment Senator Kennedy will offer on Monday, of which I am pleased to be a cosponsor. One of the things we try to do in this Chamber, as lawmakers, is to adopt laws that express and encode our values as a society, to, in some sense, put into law our aspirations for the kind of people we want to be. Clearly, one of the bedrock values, one of the fundamental values, of America is equality--equality of treatment before the law, equality of opportunity but, beyond that, a broader notion of tolerance in our society. It is part of what brought generations of immigrants to this country--the idea that they would be judged on their personal merit, not on anything related to their personal status or characteristics. Tolerance has been a hallmark of American society. I said before, when I talked about the law, that law sometimes tries to express the aspirations we have for ourselves. Sometimes, obviously, we do not achieve those aspirations and we are intolerant toward one another. Then the law has not only the opportunity but the obligation to step in and to try to create incentives or deterrence toward the worst forms of intolerance, even hatred. That is what this amendment is about. Clearly, over the decades our Nation has built a strong and proud history of protecting the civil rights of Americans who are subject to racial, religious, gender-based, or disability-based discrimination in the workplace, in housing, in life. In more recent times, there are a group of us here in the Chamber who have worked to try to extend some of those protections to cover bias, discrimination based on sexual orientation. It seems to me this amendment and the law on which it builds are also right and proper because they take Federal criminal jurisdiction and extend it to the prosecution and punishment of those who are accused of having caused bodily injury or death based on an animus, a personal animus, a hatred that comes from feelings about the victim's race, religion, nationality, gender, disability, or sexual orientation. In other words, this is another way for our society to express our disdain, to put it mildly, at acts of violence committed based on a person's race, religion, nationality, gender, disability, or sexual orientation. It is also a way, as is traditionally the province of criminal law, not just to speak to the common moral consensus of our society about what is right and what is wrong because that is what the law is all about, but hopefully by pushing those who are proven to have committed the wrongs, to deter others in the future from committing those same acts that society generally finds abhorrent. Current law expresses this but in a way that is limited. It permits Federal prosecutions of hate crimes resulting from death or bodily injury if two conditions are met: First, the crime must be motivated by the victim's race, religion, national origin, or color; second, the perpetrator must have intended to prevent the victim from exercising a federally protected right such as voting or traveling interstate. Of course, I support this law and the goals that it embraces: The Federal prosecution of people who inflict serious harm on others because of the color of the victim's skin, the sound of the victim's voice, a foreign accent, or the particular place in which the victim worships God. In short, these are crimes committed because the victim is different in some way from the perpetrator. Such crimes, I conclude, should be federally prosecuted. As we have had U.S. attorneys invoking these laws, carrying them out, we have discovered some shortcomings and some ways in which we can make them better, which is to say, ways in which we can more fully express some of the principles I talked about at the outset: equality, tolerance, doing everything we can to stop the most abhorrent acts of violence against people based on their characteristics. I think we ought to add to the list of prohibited bases of these crimes, crimes committed against someone because of gender, because of sexual orientation, and because of disability. That is what is provided in the amendment the senior Senator from Massachusetts will offer on Monday and of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. I suppose some people may hear these categories that I have mentioned and say: People commit crimes based on that basis? The fact is, they do. Sometimes they become quite visible and notorious. Crimes such as that committed against Matthew Shepard, who was killed because he was a gay man, are no less despicable and, of course, therefore no less deserving of Federal protection and prosecution than are those committed against others based on a characteristic, a status of the person, that are currently included in the Federal law. Adding these categories--gender, sexual orientation, disability--seems to me to be an appropriate extension of the basic concept of equal protection under the law. As the law now stands, it also imposes a requirement, a bar to prosecution relating to race, color, religion, and national origin that we ought to change, which is that the law is only triggered if the victim is prevented from exercising a specifically enumerated federally protected activity. There are obviously crimes that are committed based on hatred that are triggered in cases other than the simple prevention of the exercise of a federally protected activity, thus, the provision of this amendment that would eliminate this obstacle and, therefore, broaden the ability of Federal prosecutors to pursue crimes motivated by racial or religious hatred. The amendment that will be introduced on Monday also includes new language requiring the Justice Department, prior to indicting a defendant in a hate crime based on the categories I have enumerated, including those added under this amendment, a prosecutor of the Justice Department will have to, prior to the indictment, certify either that the State is not going to prosecute a hate crime, therefore avoiding both an overlap and the opportunity for prosecution by those in law enforcement closest to the crime, the alleged crime, and will also have to certify that the State requested or does not object to Justice Department prosecution or that the State has completed prosecution. It seems that you wouldn't have to say that, but just to be sure to avoid a kind of double exposure, double prosecution, that certification should satisfy the concerns some of my colleagues may have who may fear that Federal prosecutors will interfere with State efforts to bring perpetrators of hate crimes to justice. In other words, the State is given the first opportunity and the superior opportunity to prosecute these cases. Only if the State does not will Federal prosecutors be able to proceed. At a time when so much else is going on here in the Capitol with the high profile issues of this session--the Patients' Bill of Rights, whether we are going to give Medicare coverage or other coverage for prescription drug benefits for seniors, campaign finance reform--this amendment brings us back to America's first principles of equality and tolerance and challenges each of us to think about the appropriate and constructive role that the law can play, understanding that the law can't control the hearts of people in this country. Ultimately, we have to count on people's own sense of judgment and tolerance and, hopefully, the effect that other forces in their lives will have on them to make them fair and tolerant, such as their families, their schools, their religions, their faith. But here is the law to say in the cases when all of those other sources of good judgment and values in society fail to stifle the hatred that sometimes does live in people's hearts and souls, to say that this is unacceptable in America and to attach to that statement the sanction of law, hoping that we thereby express the higher aspirations we have for this great country of ours as it continues over the generations to try to realize the noble ideals expressed by our founders in the Declaration and the Constitution, but also to put clearly into the force of law the punishment that comes with law when one goes so far over the line to commit an act of violence based on hatred, hoping thereby that we will deter such heinous acts from occurring again in the future. I hope my colleagues over the weekend will have a chance to take a look at this amendment, will come to the floor and talk about it, and perhaps question those of us who have proposed it. Then I hope a strong bipartisan majority will support it when it comes to a vote next Tuesday. I thank the distinguished Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern about a rider that has been attached to the Transportation Appropriations bill in Congress for the past four years. The language of this rider prevents the Administration from even considering an increase to our nation's Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE. This rider was a bad idea when it was first introduced four years ago, and it is a bad idea today. This rider appears yet again in the FY2001 House Transportation Appropriations bill. I would like to voice my opposition to this rider and express my support for Senator Gorton's Motion to Instruct Conferees, which he is offering with Senators Feinstein and Bryan, that opposes the CAFE freeze. Aside from my personal conviction about the importance of improved CAFE standards, I am troubled by this provision for another fundamental reason: this rider bars the Administration from considering--even discussing--making our cars more efficient. This Administration should be making decisions in light of all possible information, not being asked to forgo critical policy analyses simply because they are not allowed to freely evaluate different options. Substantively, this rider forces the nation to bypass a critical opportunity to make our fleet of cars more efficient. The efficiency of our cars, or said another way, the number of miles our cars can travel on one gallon of gasoline, is important for a great number of reasons. First, because of recent and continuing increases in the price of fuel, we have felt firsthand the bite of high prices at the pump. The best answer to reducing the amount of money we spend each month on gasoline is to make our cars more efficient. We know this approach will work, because the doubling of fuel economy between 1975 and the mid 1980s saved new car purchasers an average of $3,000 in fuel over the lifetime of the car, at today's prices. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates, for example, that if we were to raise light truck fuel economy to 27.5 miles per gallon, the most popular Sports Utility Vehicle in the country--the Ford Explorer--would go from traveling 19 miles to the gallon to traveling 34 miles to the gallon. We could achieve this for $935 in established technology, and the SUV owner would save thousands of dollars over the lifetime of the car. Second, we need to raise CAFE standards for the sake of our national security. The United States imports more than half of its oil from foreign countries, and this dangerously limits our independence and potentially our options in times of turmoil. The dramatic rise in oil prices in recent months should be a reminder of how overly-dependent we are on OPEC, and how vulnerable we are to OPEC cartel pricing. We must raise our domestic fuel economy in order to reduce this dependence. According to the Sierra Club, raising CAFE standards would save more oil than we import from the Persian Gulf and off-shore California drilling combined. Third, there are critical environmental gains to be made from improving the fuel economy of our vehicles. There have been a number of reports in recent weeks about the reality of global warming. A Federal Government study released earlier this week, requested by Congress four years ago, reports that global climate has become approximately one degree hotter over the past century, and many scientists believe that this warming trend will continue as humans continue to burn fossil fuels. This trend will cause very real and significant changes to our weather and climate patterns, fundamentally altering the way of life in some geographic areas. A recent study at NASA's Ames Research Center reported that the ozone layer is not recovering as fast as was previously thought, potentially due to greenhouse gas emissions. A report by Environment Canada and Parks Canada shows that some national park glaciers could disappear in 20 years due to global warming. These and other significant reports come on the heels of one another to warn us that global warming is real and that we need to pay serious attention to the problem. The first, very important step we must take to curb greenhouse gas emissions is to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we consume in our vehicles. Improving the CAFE standards to 45 mpg for cars and 34 mpg for light trucks would save this country 3 million barrels of oil per day and prevent hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere every year. Carbon dioxide is the major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and to the subsequent warming of our climate. We must, I repeat we must, take this step and raise CAFE standards. Since the 1980s, partly due to our nation's increasing use of light trucks, or Sports Utility Vehicles, the corporate average fuel economy of our fleet of vehicles has declined. According to EPA's 1999 Report on Fuel Economy Standards, there have been no improvements in fuel economy for light trucks in 19 years. This is particularly dismaying when we consider that over half the passenger vehicles sold in the U.S. now fit into the category of light trucks. We know we can do better and that the technology already exists. Using state of the art engine refinements; optimized transmission control; high strength, ``ultra- light'' steel techniques, and lower rolling resistance tires, auto manufacturers should be able to improve fuel economy drastically. For all these reasons, we must move back toward improving the fuel economy of the vehicles in the United States. It saddens me that some of my colleagues would like to prevent this discussion from even taking place. The first step in the right direction is to uphold the Gorton/ Feinstein/Bryan motion and oppose the freeze on CAFE standards. From there, we will be able to discuss appropriate measures to improve upon our vehicles, for so many reasons that make good sense.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I submit for the Record the following, written by Marshall H. Cohen, photojournalist, and honorary life-member of the Association of Tall Ship, The Danmark, June, 2000. Captain Vilhelm Hansen passed away at age 82 on May 3, 2000. Captain Hansen was master of the training ship the Danmark for twenty-two years from 1964 until his retirement in 1986. He was not only a legendary captain and educator, training thousands of Danish men and women for maritime careers, but also a familiar, and well-liked ambassador of good will to the United States with his ready wit, his unparalleled knowledge of seamanship, and his unbending strong character. Whenever the Danmark anchored in various East Coast ports, thousands of Americans, including members of the U.S. Congress, have been welcomed on board this beautiful full-rigged ship. Captain Hansen received many honors and awards here in the United States. He has been presented with the keys to many U.S. cities, among them, Baltimore. He received the Danish- American Society's ``Man of the Year'' award in New York City in 1987, and this year (June 8, 2000) Captain Hansen posthumously received the National Maritime Historical Society Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Maritime Education in a ceremony in Miami, Florida. The Danmark has played a significant role in the maritime history of the United States. In 1939, the Danmark was on a routine training mission to the United States when the Second World War began. The Captain at that time, Knud Hansen, was informed that Germany had invaded Denmark, and consequently, the Danmark remained in the United States for the duration of the war. The Danmark was based in New London, Connecticut, and served as a training ship for U.S. sailors. The First Officer of the Danmark during the war was Knud Langevad, and he was in charge of training more than 5,000 U.S. cadets. He also convinced U.S. authorities of the value of learning basic seamanship on a tall ship, and following the war the U.S. Coast Guard purchased its well-known tall ship the U.S. Eagle, to replace the Danmark. Reflecting this special kinship between the two ships, the Danmark sails as the first foreign ship behind the Eagle in official Tall Ship Parades. It will be so honored again in June and July, 2000 during the millennium voyage of tall ships along the East Coast, from Miami to Boston. On July 4, 1986 the Danmark was honored with the number two position sailing behind the Eagle during the Parade of Tall Ships celebrating the 100th birthday of the Statue of Liberty. It was Captain Hansen's final voyage as master of the Danmark prior to his retirement that year. Captain Vilhelm Hansen, in his white uniform and gold braided cap, steered his 253 foot ship into the South Street Seaport, New York City, for the last time. He barked his final commands to the officers, switched off the auxiliary engine, and ended his distinguished career during this memorable event in American history.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, we have watched the steady deterioration of the vitality of our democracy under assault not from the kinds of foreign enemies that the Department of Defense authorization bill is aimed at protecting us against, but in some senses, an assault from ourselves. We have allowed our political system--particularly the post-Watergate reforms that were adopted to put limits on how much people could give to campaigns, to require full disclosure of those contributions--to be evaded, eroded, made a mockery of. The result is that the people of this country rightly conclude that money buys access and influence and affects our Government, and it turns millions of them off from the process. The vitality of this democracy, which is the pulsating virtue and the essence of America that generations of our soldiers have fought and died for, is under attack domestically. The question is whether we will respond, whether we will defend our democracy. We have had terrible controversies here on the floor over this question, focused particularly in recent months and years on the work that the Senators from Arizona and Wisconsin have done--Senators McCain and Feingold--particularly trying to focus in on soft money. The controversies have not produced yet the 60 votes we need to adopt a change. But even in the case of soft money, though it clearly violates the intention of the law, which is to limit contributions, there is disclosure. So that part of the post-Watergate reform is still honored. Now we have the appearance of these 527s, stealth PACs--spending enormous amounts of money in advertising, buying time for what has become ``Big Brother'' propaganda over TV to influence voters, without letting them or those who are the targets of those advertisements or the opponents of those for whom they are being placed know who is paying for them, how much are they paying, and where is the money coming from. Is it coming from America? Is it coming from abroad? So a bipartisan group of us--breaking through the division on party lines that has characterized too much of this debate about campaign finance reform and too much debate here generally--earlier this year, proposed two responses. The amendment before the Senate now is the second of those responses. It simply requires disclosure. It doesn't end the mockery of saying one thing to the Federal Elections Commission and another to the IRS--yes, I am in the business of influencing elections, so I deserve the tax exemption; or, no, I am not, so I don't have to register under the campaign finance laws. All this amendment does is ask for disclosure. Where is the money coming from? Who is giving it? Who is running these organizations? Who is coming in to try to influence the sacred right of voting--the franchise that is at the heart of our democracy? I had hoped that this amendment, which is reasonable, moderate, and only invoking the ideal of the right to know, would not evoke controversy on the floor. So I am disappointed at the response today and disappointed particularly that it comes from those who apparently support the essence of the amendment. I understand this question of an objection-- the so-called blue-slip objection being raised in the House because, technically--though really in a very minimal way, if at all--this may affect revenue. This is about political freedom, about electoral reform, about disclosure to the public. It is hardly at all, if at all, a revenue measure. I understand the fear that if this amendment passes, it may be objected to in the House, and as my distinguished chairman from Virginia, who I dearly love and respect, said before, it could sink this bill, which I enthusiastically support, to the bottom of the ocean, such that hardly Davy Jones could rescue it. Here is my response to that, respectfully: I hope not. I say that this amendment is so important and gives us such a unique opportunity in the recent history of this body to come together across party lines and to do something in the direction of campaign finance reform that it is worth putting it on the bill. I say, as one of the proponents of this amendment, that if, in fact, the fears expressed here are realized, which is that in the House the bill is blue-slipped, objected to on constitutional grounds that it is a revenue-raising measure and should start in the House, then we can do what has been done with many bills, including the DOD authorization bills, in past years--bring it back here under unanimous consent. Who would object to bringing it back? Take this amendment off, send the bill back, and play the role. They may continue referring to the metaphor of Davy Jones rescuing the bill, but let's not, on a technical basis, miss the opportunity to take one significant step to defend our democracy against the insidious forces of unlimited, secret cash that are corrupting it and distancing millions of our fellow citizens from the process itself. Mr. President, how much time remains on the time yielded to me?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 2549) that would establish a commission to assess the future of the United States aerospace industry and to make recommendations for actions by the Federal Government to improve this industries global competitiveness. The modern aerospace industry fulfills vital roles for our nation. It is a pillar of the business community that employs 800,000 skilled workers. It is an engine of economic growth that generated a net trade surplus of $37 billion in 1998, larger than any other industrial sector. It is a working model of private-public partnership, yielding commercial and military benefits that have enhanced our communication and transportation networks while enabling the aerospace dominance demonstrated in both Kosovo and the Gulf War. And its well-known products, from the Boeing 777 to the Blackhawk helicopter to the Space Shuttle, serve as fitting symbols of American preeminence in an inter- connected world that thrives on speed and technology. Unfortunately, this key industrial sector is facing new challenges to its leadership role in the global economy. Since 1985, foreign competition has cut the American share of the worldwide aerospace market from 72 percent to 56 percent. In order to remain competitive, we must reevaluate industrial regulations enacted during the Cold War, that might hamper innovation, flexibility, and growth. We must reconsider our defense research priorities, to counteract the 50% decline in domestic funding for aerospace research and development during the last decade. We must reexamine the rules that govern export of aerospace products and technologies, and develop policies that permit access to global markets while protecting national security. we must assess all of these areas in light of new trade agreements that may require adjustments to federal regulations and policies. Ultimately, we must assess the future of the aerospace industry and ensure that government policy plays a positive role in its development. To accomplish this goal, this amendment calls for the creation of a Presidential commission empowered to recommend action to the federal government regarding the future of the aerospace industry. The commission shall be composed of experts in aerospace manufacturing, national security, and related economic issues, as well as representatives of organized labor. The commission is directed to study economic and national security issues confronting the aerospace industry, such as the state of government funding for aerospace research and procurement, the rules governing exportation of aerospace goods and technologies, the effect of current taxation and trade policies on the aerospace industry, and the adequacy of aerospace science and engineering education in institutions of higher learning. I urge the Congress to support the creation of the Commission and the next President to support its activities and heed its counsel. By creating such a commission and through careful consideration of these complex issues, we can ensure that this valuable American industry soars into the 21st century, turbulence-free. amendment no. 3241 (Purpose: To guarantee the right of all active duty military personnel merchant mariners, and their dependents to vote in Federal, State, and local elections) At the appropriate place, insert the following:

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I will not respond to the description of the Senator from Connecticut. But let me say, if there is a risk, here is a risk that has a remedy. The reason the Senator from Connecticut is prepared to take the risk is the balance of equities involved and the balance of interests involved. I am so incensed by the proliferation. We are using military terms, quite appropriately, on this campaign finance amendment. I note the House chose to use appropriately a militaristic term--``invasion''-- when talking about their privileges. But our democracy is so much under threat from the corrosive spread of money in our system that I think we have a moment of opportunity here to get together to pass this amendment and make the statement; in other words, a procedural vote on this. My dear friend and chairman in the House on this very matter on another bill a week or so ago fell short of passage on a motion to recommit, I believe, by barely 10 votes. I am not prepared to make a judgment about how the House will vote on this matter. But I think we have a chance to speak. I pledge to the Senator from Virginia, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, under whose leadership this committee on which I am honored to serve had a very busy and productive year resulting in this bill. I can't imagine that any Member of this Chamber would deny a unanimous consent request. If, in fact, the House saw this as an invasion of their privilege and stopped the Department of Defense authorization bill, we would come back here and take this amendment off, and find another vehicle for it. I appeal to my chairman just finally on this point. I appreciate very much his statement that he supports the substance of the amendment. If he proceeds on the course of a constitutional objection based on House prerogatives, I appeal to him to find a way to join with us, since we agree on the merits of this amendment, to get a guarantee that the Senate will be able to speak as soon and as clearly as possible on the next available bill to at least require disclosure of contributions and sources of contributions to these 527 stealth PACs.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Some may ask why disclosure is so important. Well, the Supreme Court has spoken about the appearance of corruption. Here, there is the profound suspicion of corruption; but without information, we don't even have the ability to know whether there is corruption, let alone to have the appearance of corruption-- big money, secret money, perhaps not even American money, raised by elected officials, raised by left-leaning, right-leaning ideological groups, raised by political groups, and trade and economic groups, do nothing but undermine our system. The least that we can ask is for disclosure. Mr. President, I appeal to my colleagues, let's break the reflex action and let's rise to the moment. Let's do something correct and courageous here. Let's adopt this amendment and agree together, arm in arm, that if the House refuses to take the bill with this amendment on it, we will strip it off and find the next appropriate vehicle, having spoken for this amendment to attach this principle and to advance the health and vitality of our democracy. No less than that is at stake here. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and my friend from Wisconsin. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein of California be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Thompson, Levin, Durbin, Voinovich, Collins and Akaka to introduce this legislation, which will help improve the transition from one Presidential Administration to the next by providing training and other assistance. Each newly elected President has the power to bring into government, with the advice and consent of the Senate, his or her own selection of political appointees to manage key agencies and offices within the Executive Branch. However, new administrations face a series of hurdles they must overcome to accomplish this essential task before they can begin to govern. For example, new administrations often lack critical information about the jobs they must fill. Individuals without prior government experience who are selected for key positions may be unfamiliar with how to work with Congress and the media and may run the risk of missteps early in their tenure. But perhaps most importantly, the process by which these individuals are nominated and confirmed has fallen into increasing disarray in recent years. Knowledgeable observers have warned that it could take until November 2001 before all the senior members of the new Administration are vetted and confirmed, due to factors such as lengthier background checks, burdensome and duplicative financial disclosure forms, and a more contentious Senate confirmation process. The bill we are introducing today is a first step in responding to these problems. It provides for training and orientation of high-level Presidential appointees, to better prepare them for the challenges of their new positions. It provides for the preparation of a ``transition directory'' containing essential information about the agency structure and responsibilities these new appointees will face. Our bill directs the Office of Government Ethics to study ways to streamline the current financial disclosure process, while still ensuring disclosure of possible conflicts of interest. More may need to be done. Several studies are underway to look at how we can further improve the transition process, including the Presidential Appointee Initiative and the Transition to Governing Project. I commend those undertaking these studies and their efforts to provide assistance to the upcoming crop of nominees, and I look forward to recommendations for future action.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge and congratulate the recent success of the students of Trumbull High School of Trumbull, Connecticut. On May 6-8 these students competed in the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' national finals in Washington, D.C. This competition, administered by the Center for Civic Education, tests elementary, middle and high school students in their knowledge of the American constitutional government. In the finals, in which Trumbull High School matched wits against 50 other classes from across the country, students acted as constitutional experts and testified before a panel of judges in a congressional hearing. The Trumbull class was taught by Peter Sullivan and included Rachel Bochinno, Alison Brand, Joanna Bruckman, Melissa Budahazy, Lindsey Cahill, Kelly Chapple, Andrew Conway, Jessica Cotter, Shannon Cusello, Jon Draskovic, Timothy Drummond, Michael Dusiewicz, Kim Ferguson, Kathryn Graf, Juli Griek, Amy Hatzis, Lauren Hellthaler, Christine Jelliffe, Dawn Liscinsky, James Lucia, John Manchisi, Saya Nagori, Ryan O'Neill, Julian Ross, Alison Schary, David Schub, Neerali Shah, Lauren Slade, Paul Strelka, Varun Vasudeva, and Robert Ward. I am pleased to recognize the accomplishments of these outstanding students. The ``We the People . . .'' competition is the largest program testing knowledge of the Constitution in the United States, extending to over 26 million students across the country. Advancing to the national finals represents a significant achievement, and demonstrates an impressive interest in and understanding of the structure and processes of our constitutional government. Trumbull High School and all of Connecticut can take great pride in these students' success in a subject that is of fundamental importance to the vitality of our democracy.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I rise to support the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona. I am proud to be a cosponsor of it and to join with him and the Senator from Wisconsin, my friend, and also my colleague from New York. This is a bold but absolutely necessary step which was initiated by the Senator from Arizona, based on some work a bipartisan group did together earlier in the year to try to respond to this latest threat to the integrity of our Nation's election process, and that is the proliferation of so-called ``stealth'' PACs operating under section 527 of the Tax Code. As my colleagues have indicated, these groups exploit a relatively recently discovered loophole in the Tax Code that allows organizations seeking to influence Federal elections to fund those elections with undisclosed and unlimited contributions at the same time as they claim exemption from both Federal taxation and the Federal election laws. As I say these words, and as I have listened to my colleagues, I wonder about the folks listening to the proceedings on C-SPAN. People must justifiably be scratching their heads or, I hope, standing up in outrage at what is happening within our political system. I was taught as a student at school long ago about the power of water, the natural force of water, to move and find weakness and then move through that weakness to continue to go forward. The flow of money in our political system today, which is not as natural as the movement of water through nature, seems to follow the same kind of unstoppable movement where it pursues a point of weakness in our legal system and pushes through, to the detriment of our democracy. Section 527 is the latest point of vulnerability that has been found by the forces and flow of money in our political system. Section 527 offers tax exemption to organizations, primarily involved in election- related activities such as campaign committees, party committees, and PACs. That is what the law says it is supposed to do. It defines the type of organization it discovers as one whose function is, among other things, ``Influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any individual to any Federal, State, or local public office.'' Because the Federal Election Campaign Act uses nearly identical language to define the entities it regulates, section 527 formally had been generally understood to apply only to those organizations that register as political committees under the Federal Election Campaign Act. Nevertheless, the flow of money moves to find a point of vulnerability in our existing legal system. A number of groups engaging in what they term ``issue advocacy campaigns'' and other election- related activities, have begun arguing that the near identical language of our Federal Election Campaign Act and section 527 actually mean two different things. This would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious. In their view, these groups gain freedom from taxation by claiming they are seeking to influence the election of individuals to Federal office, but they claim they can evade regulation under the Campaign Act by asserting that they are not seeking to influence an election for Federal office. They are going two ways at once, trying to claim the benefit of two inconsistent laws, and, for the time being, getting away with it. As a result, unlike other tax-exempt groups, section 527 groups don't even have to publicly disclose their existence. They gain both the public subsidy of tax exemption and the ability to shield from the American public the identity of those spending their money to try to influence our elections. Indeed, according to news reports, newly formed 527 organizations pushing the agenda of political parties are using the ability to mask the identity of their contributors as a means of courting wealthy donors who are seeking anonymity in their efforts to influence our elections. This is so venal, an end run on the clear intention of our laws, that I cannot believe we will let it continue. Section 527 organizations are not required to publicly disclose their existence. It is impossible to know the precise scope of this problem. The Internal Revenue Service private letter rulings, though, make clear that organizations that are intent on running what they call ``issue ad campaigns'' and engaging in other election-related activities are free to assert section 527 status. Of course, there have been numerous news reports that provide specific examples of groups taking advantage of these rulings. Common Cause recently issued a report which is engaging in unsettling reading, under the title ``Under the Radar: The Attack of the Stealth PACs on Our Nations's Elections,'' which offers details on 527 groups set up by politicians, industry groups, right-leaning ideological groups, and left-leaning ideological groups. The advantages conferred by assuming this 527 form, which are the anonymity provided to both the organization and its donors, the ability to engage in unlimited political activity without losing your tax-exempt status, and significantly the exemption from gift tax which otherwise would be imposed on large donors, leaves no doubt that these groups will continue to proliferate as the November election approaches. No one should doubt that the expansion of these groups poses a real and significant threat to the integrity and the fairness of our election system. One of the basic promises that our system makes is for full disclosure. Senator McCain and Senator Feingold have spoken of comments that have been made on this floor and elsewhere by those who opposed other forms of regulating and limiting campaign finance contributions, limits on expenditures, but at least support disclosure, sunshine, the right to know. The identity of the messenger, the identity of the contributor supporting a message, naturally, would help a citizen, a voter, reach a judgment on the quality and the effect of that message. The risk posed by the 527 loophole goes even further than depriving the American people of critical information. I believe it threatens the very heart of our democratic political process because allowing these groups to operate in the shadows poses a real and present danger of corruption and makes it difficult for anyone to vigilantly guard against that risk. The press has reported that a growing number of 527 groups have connections to, or even have been set up by, candidates and elected officials who are otherwise limited--clearly, at least so is the intention of the law--by other laws. Allowing individuals to give to these groups and allowing elected officials to solicit money for these groups without ever having to disclose their dealings to the public, at a minimum leads to exactly the appearance of corruption that the Supreme Court in some of its election law cases has warned against and sets the conditions clearly that would allow corruption to thrive. If people in public life are allowed to continue seeking money secretly, particularly sums of money that exceed what the average American makes in a year, there is no telling what will be asked for in return. And there is no predicting how many more tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of our fellow citizens will turn away from our political system because they reach the conclusion that there is not actually equal access to our Government; that an individual or group or corporation that gives hundreds of thousands of dollars secretly to this kind of political committee clearly have more influence than they do, and it is not worth even turning out to vote. In the hopes of forestalling this growing cancer in our body politic, a bipartisan group of Members of the Senate earlier this year introduced two bills to deal with this 527 problem. The first was what we called our aspirational bill. It would have completely closed the 527 loophole by making clear that tax exemption under 527 is available only to organizations regulated under the Federal Elections Campaign Act. It was pretty straightforward and, in my opinion, eminently sensible and logical. If this bill were ever enacted, groups would no longer be able to tell one thing to the IRS to get a tax benefit and then deny the same thing to the FEC, the Federal Election Commission, in order to evade Federal Election Campaign Act regulation. But recognizing that a complete closing of this ever growing 527 loophole might not be possible to achieve in this Congress, we also offered a second alternative, slightly narrower. That is what this amendment is before the Senate now. It is aimed at forcing section 527 organizations simply to emerge from the dark shadows, from the secret corners, and let the public know who they are--that is not asking too much--where they get their money--that is a fundamental right--and how they spend it. This amendment would require 527 organizations to disclose their existence to the IRS, to file publicly available tax returns and to file with the IRS and make public reports specifying annual expenditures of at least $500 and identifying those who contribute at least $200 annually to the organization. That is not asking very much. It is simple fairness, basic facts, respecting the public's right to know. No doubt opponents of this amendment may claim the proposal infringes on their first amendment rights, perhaps, to free speech and association. But nothing in this amendment infringes on those cherished freedoms in the slightest bit. This amendment does not prohibit anyone from speaking. It does not force any group that does not currently have to comply with the Federal Elections Campaign Act or disclose information about itself to do either of those things. This amendment speaks only to what a group must do if it wants the public subsidy of tax exemption, something the Supreme Court has made clear that no one has a constitutional right to have. We in Congress, Representatives of the people, makers of the law, have the right to attach conditions in return for the public subsidy of tax exemption. As the Supreme Court explained in Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, a 1983 case: Both tax exemptions and tax-deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system, [and] Congressional selection of particular entities or persons for entitlement to this sort of largess is obviously a matter of policy and discretion. . . . That is policy and discretion to be exercised in the public interest by this Congress. Under this proposal, any group not wanting to disclose information about itself or abide by the election laws would be able to continue doing whatever it is doing now. It would just have to do so without the public subsidy of tax exemption conferred by section 527. Again, that is not asking too much. We have become so used to our campaign finance system's long, slow descent that I fear it is sometimes hard to ignite the kind of outrage that should result when a new loophole starts to shred the very spirit of yet another law aimed at protecting the integrity of our system. I suppose if there is any direct relevance of this proposal to the Department of Defense Authorization Act on which it is offered, it is that generations of Americans have fought, been injured, and died for our political system, our principles, our values: The right to exercise the franchise, the right to know. We are witnessing, without acting to correct it, the corruption and erosion of those basic freedoms. This new 527 loophole should outrage us and we should act, I hope unanimously, across party lines, by adopting this amendment to put a stop to it. Mr. President, I urge all our colleagues to join us in supporting this proposal. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask unanimous consent to have 2 more minutes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask the Chair for up to 5 more minutes. I hope not to use them.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and my friend from Michigan and my friend from West Virginia for his courtesy allowing me to go forward. Mr. President, I rise to support the motion to strike, and in doing so I join colleagues before me who have expressed what is clearly our very sincere respect for the two cosponsors of the part of the underlying bill which we seek to strike with our motion. There honestly are two no more distinguished Members of this body. May I say there are no more patriotic citizens that I have ever met than the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Virginia. So I go forward with a certain sense of awkwardness but certainly with a profound sense of respect for the two of them, even as I disagree with the provision regarding Kosovo that they have added to this appropriations bill before us. Much has been said on both sides. I will try to either say it quickly or add a few new thoughts. It seems to me we have to begin here by looking backwards; in some senses, way backwards. By coincidence, last night I was reading a new biography of President Woodrow Wilson. One of the chapters begins with a description of the election of 1912. The opening line says that as people were going to vote in the United States in 1912--and the great choices were Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, and Taft--no one had in mind or could have imagined that 2 years later an event would occur in the Balkans that would eventually draw almost 2 million people into combat in that far away quarter-- World War I. We have struggled with, been affected by, lost lives as a result of conflict in the Balkans which spread throughout Europe and which has always eventually engaged us because of our intimate relationship with Europe. We are a nation that, at the outset, was formed by children of Europe, by people who left Europe to come to these shores. We, of course, are much broader and more multicultural than that now, but that was our origin. Today our military and economic ties, our security and cultural ties with Europe are deep and they are broad. We may in the push and pull of the moment be drawn to other parts of the world. We are a global power today. But the base of our strength and the most comprehensive economic relationships we have and the heart of our international security posture has always been in Europe and is today. What happens in Europe matters to us today as it did in the second decade of this century, bloody as it was, which began with conflict in the Balkans. Again, as the ``third world war'' of the last century concluded--and I say that referring to the cold war--and new alliances began the movement of people, conflict broke out in the Balkans and threatened to go further and engage our European allies and threatened the stability of that region so important to us. I begin this way because what I want to suggest, and I hope I can convince people, is that what happened in Kosovo--the outbreak, again, of barbarism, aggression against the people by force and what became cosmetically described as ethnic cleansing--was a singling out of people because of their ethnicity, coincidentally their religion, and they were subjected to mass forced movement, exile from their country, murder, rape, and torture. The fires were burning again in the Balkans, and this time, having more recently confronted a similar threat in Bosnia, we waited, in my opinion, too long to get involved. We and our NATO allies acted on an immensely successful air campaign a little more than a year ago which stopped the barbarism, stopped the aggression, stopped the killing, and allowed more than a million refugees to return to the homes from which they had been brutally forced. All of this is by way of saying that what happened in Kosovo that led to the peacekeeping in which we are involved--and which is threatened by the underlying amendment offered by the Senators from West Virginia and Virginia--was a great victory. It was a great victory. General Clark recently returned from his position as SACEUR, our Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, a historic position, a position of great importance. He has been quoted frequently on the floor. In conversation with him, one of the things he said to me a week ago was that the reaction to what happened in Kosovo from the European public and the American public, including particularly the American political elite, was so remarkably different. In Europe, there was a sense of extraordinary pride about the course of events as they concluded last year in Kosovo, that stability, that freedom, that human rights had won a victory in Kosovo. Here General Clark worried the reaction was not so clear, that there was not the sense of pride that should have been felt because of a pivotal leadership role the United States of America played in ending the barbarism and aggression in Kosovo. I mention this today because it is perhaps that differing attitude that leads us in the Senate to consider the Byrd-Warner amendment to this Appropriations Committee bill, and also now we have witnessed the House take similar action on the question of whether our European allies are doing enough. Maybe we in this country never appreciated the significance of what we did. I believe history will show, when historians look back at the 1990s and judge what occurred, the United States and NATO interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo was a turning point, as an example that we and our allies had learned the lessons of the 20th century, the most bloody in history, unfortunately. One of the lessons is, if you turn your back on aggression and genocide, in the end it will find you; it will force you to turn your face to it; and you will face carnage and will be drawn into it at a cost that is ultimately so much greater. We achieved a great victory. I support this amendment to strike because the language in the underlying bill that it would strike I fear, I say respectfully, will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It will shake our alliance. It will send a message to Mr. Milosevic, as has been said over and over: Just wait it out; the United States is not a resolute power; it doesn't understand what it did in Europe. It would encourage, unfortunately, those in Kosovo, particularly the Albanians I fear, to a certain extent the Serbs, to worry we are about to leave and to begin to take up arms again, the very arms, as part of this peace we are helping to enforce, they gave up. The Kosovo Liberation Army turned over its arms to the peacekeeping authorities. I know those who have sponsored the underlying amendment have said it is not their intention to cut and run, to undercut NATO, to encourage Milosevic, but I fear that will be the effect of this proposal, notwithstanding the intentions of its distinguished sponsors. If, as has been said by proponents of the underlying provision, this is just a message to our allies in Europe to meet their commitments, if it is just giving an opportunity to the incoming President next year, whomever it may be, whichever candidate it may be, to offer a plan to make a decision, then let's do that. Let's not put America on a course to withdraw, which is what this underlying proposal does, to literally cut and run. Let's leave it to the next President to make those decisions. I was quite struck and appreciative of the statement Governor Bush has made on this. It is a statement that is made in the national interest. I hope all of us will heed it because it means the two major party candidates, Vice President Gore and Governor Bush, both have said they feel the underlying amendment would not only be bad for America's national security interests but is something they do not want because it will hamstring whomever is privileged to occupy the White House in January of next year. Much has been said about the effects of this amendment. I want to just add this in addition to the way in which it will encourage Milosevic. Europe is stable now and yet not fully stable. A new Government has come to power in Russia. It is a Government that we are hopeful about and yet uncertain. The people of Central and Eastern Europe, who lived under Soviet domination for, oh, those four and more decades, in some cases, are now beginning to stretch, to be free, to develop market-based economies, self-government, national independence. Some of them--three--now have joined NATO; a whole other group--I believe it is nine--have been put in line. This is a historic development and the most extraordinary and enormous victory for the forces of victory and freedom that won the cold war. I want to suggest to my colleagues that putting us on a course to withdraw our forces from Kosovo, from the peacekeeping effort, to withdraw our financial support for the economic and humanitarian reconstruction, will send a message of faithlessness, if I can say that, of irresoluteness, of lack of concern by the world's superpower-- the beacon of hope for those who yearn for freedom and now have achieved it post-cold war in Central and Eastern Europe--that perhaps our commitment there is not firm, and that as they begin to enjoy the sunlight of liberty, we may be pulling back and not worried if the clouds begin to come over them again. Our presence in Kosovo, important as it is to keeping the peace in Kosovo, is clearly more broadly important to the ongoing march of freedom for which we fought and won the cold war. In that sense, too, we would begin to be snatching defeat from the jaws of the great victory we won in the cold war. The same is true for places of conflict throughout the world where this kind of American irresoluteness--what will appear to be, whether it is intended or not, a cut-and-run approach--will encourage the enemies of freedom, the enemies of the United States, to take action, with the hope that the United States does not care anymore, that we have grown either so comfortable or so isolationist that we have taken a shorter range of view and are not prepared to exercise the political, strategic, and moral leadership on which I continue to believe the world depends. Much has been said here about the question of what our European allies have done or not done. I was at the annual security conference in Munich in February. We were battling with our European allies about whether they kept this $35 million commitment they made. They had not kept it then. They have done it now. But as has been said over and over again--I will not belabor it--the Europeans are paying more than their fair share, which is to say they are paying the overwhelming majority of the costs of the military and the humanitarian operation. Although the numbers are very difficult to be totally comfortable about as to who has given what--and I have tried very hard, working with the Congressional Research Service, the World Bank, the European Commission, and the Department of Defense, to pin these down--it does seem to me that, overall, an argument could be made not just that the Europeans are paying 80 or 85 percent of the costs of these operations in Kosovo but that they have met the terms thereby of the Warner part of the Byrd-Warner amendment. But the accounting can be difficult. I think the amendment, if it is put in place, becomes meddlesome and troublesome because it sends a message of doubt about our support and, on a technical accounting basis, actually could put us in a position where the President could find it difficult, on the technicalities, to certify that the Europeans have done what this amendment requires them to do. Therefore, we would be on the road to withdrawal, with all the consequences I have described. Surely there are better ways for us to express to our allies in Europe that we believe they are not meeting their commitments than this blunt instrument, putting this amendment on this appropriations bill. It is for that reason I support so strongly this motion to strike. I will just add two general points. The first is from a very interesting column from the Washington Times by Mr. Tod Lindberg on Tuesday, May 16, in which he, quite correctly, points to the ambivalence Congress has expressed regarding Kosovo, an ambivalence which is so inconsistent; it reminds us that although Congress has the power of the purse, that is why we elect Presidents and we call them Commanders in Chief and why we expect them to make the foreign and military policy of our country, because with 535 of us, it would be hard for us to get together and do what we need to do to protect our national interests with the kind of authority a Commander in Chief can have. Of course, we have the power of the purse, and we can exercise it. But we have tended, too often, to go in different directions. As Mr. Lindberg points out: Kosovo, more or less from the moment the issues there became critical in the fall of 1998, has not exactly been Congress' finest hour. The nadir, perhaps, came a year ago during NATO's air campaign itself, [while our pilots' flying actions endangered themselves over the Balkans] when the House of Representatives voted within a short span not to support the campaign and to double funding for it. Remember the words from the Bible: If the sound of the trumpet is not clear, who will follow into battle? And 535 voices often find it hard not to sound a clear trumpet. I think that has been the case here. It will be the case if we do not strike this provision from this bill. Mr. Lindbergh finally, at the end of the column, makes a few points which I also would like to quote. He thinks what is expressed in this underlying amendment that we now seek to strike is not just concern about whether the Europeans are keeping their financial commitments, but I believe a strong argument could be made that they are; clearly, we are paying only a minority of the costs of this operation. That is undeniable. What is at work here, Mr. Lindberg says--I think, correctly--is not just the constitutional question that we have an obligation to exercise our judgment and decide whether we should stay or not--and, again, I say the way to do that is not to put us on a march to withdrawal when we are succeeding--but, he says, this amendment ``also serves for some as a false flag flying over isolationist sentiment--an opportunity to vent discontent with a whole range of American commitments without openly stating the general case. For some, setting a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Kosovo has nothing whatsoever to do with Kosovo; it's just the opportune application of a general principle of disengagement to a particular case.''

Mr. LIEBERMAN. The powerful point of the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Kerrey, our distinguished colleague, was that, because the world and America did not learn the lesson of engagement after World War I, 25 years later the sons and daughters of those who fought in World War I were again entering an even bloodier conflict, World War II. Twenty-five years after the end of Vietnam, because America had learned the lesson, had not turned isolationist, had been engaged, the sons and daughters of those who fought in Vietnam were not heading in massive numbers into a bloody world conflict. The price of that difference is involvement in potential conflicts which can grow into conflagrations, such as those in Kosovo. Mr. Lindberg closes his op-ed piece by saying: The deadline in the Byrd-Warner amendment seems clear enough. But a deadline for withdrawal is not a policy. It's an anti-policy. It says that as of the date specified, we don't care what happens. If that sentiment is ever powerful enough to override a presidential veto, we are going to have a world of trouble on our hands. With all respect, this is a momentous vote the Senate will cast today. I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to strike. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I do think we have to ask ourselves--I do not make any accusations here, of course, with respect to all my colleagues. Lingering behind some sentiments is not just specific concern about Kosovo but what Mr. Lindberg calls, in the Washington Times, ``the opportune application of a general principle of disengagement. . . .'' If it is that, it is extremely consequential. We have been tempted over our history and have fought the impulse of isolationism and disengagement from the world, and every time we have succumbed it has come back to cost us dearly. I sat with our colleague from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, a week or two ago, discussing this very issue. Perhaps he has told this story on the floor. But he reminded me, on the 25th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam war, a newspaper asked him, because he is a distinguished and honored veteran of that conflict, whether he would write his thoughts about it. He said one of the thoughts that came to his mind is that 25 years after the end of the first war--which I referred to at the opening of my remarks--in 1943, the sons and some of the daughters of those who fought in the First World War, which ended in 1918, in 1943, were training for and beginning to go to war in Europe.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills aimed at curtailing the newest threat to the integrity of our nation's election process: the proliferation of so-called stealth PACs operating under Section 527 of the tax code. These groups exploit a recently discovered loophole in the tax code that allows organizations seeking to influence federal elections to fund their election work with undisclosed and unlimited contributions at the same time as they claim exemption from both federal taxation and the federal election laws. Section 527 of the tax code offers tax exemption to organizations primarily involved in election-related activities, like campaign committees, party committees and PACs. It defines the type of organization it covers as one whose function is, among other things, ``influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any individual to any Federal, State, or local public office . . . .'' Because the Federal Election Campaign Act (``FECA'') uses near identical language to define the entities it regulates--organizations that spend or receive money ``for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office''--Section 527 formerly had been generally understood to apply only to those organizations that register as political committees under, and comply with, FECA, unless they focus on State or local activities or do not meet certain other specific FECA requirements). Nevertheless, a number of groups engaged in what they term issue advocacy campaigns and other election-related activity recently began arguing that the near identical language of FECA and Section 527 actually mean two different things. In their view, they can gain freedom from taxation by claiming that they are seeking to influence the election of individuals to Federal office, but may evade regulation under FECA, by asserting that they are not seeking to influence an election for Federal office. As a result--because, unlike other tax- exempt groups like 501(c)(3)s and (c)(4)s, Section 527 groups don't even have to publicly disclose their existence--these groups gain both the public subsidy of tax exemption and the ability to shield from the American public the identity of those spending their money to try to influence our elections. Indeed, according to news reports, newly- formed 527 organizations pushing the agenda of political parties are using the ability to mask the identities of their contributors as a means of courting wealthy donors seeking anonymity in their efforts to influence our elections. Because Section 527 organizations are not required to publicly disclose their existence, it is impossible to know the precise scope of this problem. The IRS's private letter rulings, though, make clear that organizations intent on running what they call issue ad campaigns and engaging in other election-related activity are free to assert Section 527 status, and news reports provide specific examples of groups taking advantage of these rulings. Roll Call reported the early signs of this phenomenon in late 1997, when it published an article on the decision of Citizens for Reform and Citizens for the Republic Education Fund, two Triad Management Services organizations that ran $2 million issue ad campaigns during the 1996 elections, to switch from 501(c)(4) status (which imposes limits on a group's political activity) to 527 status after the 1996 campaigns. A more recent Roll Call report recounted the efforts of a team of GOP lawyers and consultants to shop an organization called Citizens for the Republican Congress to donors as a way to bankroll up to $35 million in pro-Republican issue ads in the 30 most competitive House races. And Common Cause's recent report Under The Radar: The Attack Of The ``Stealth PACs'' On Our Nation's Elections offers details on 527 groups set up by politicians (Congressmen J.C. Watts and Tom DeLay), industry groups (the pharmaceutical industry- funded Citizens for Better Medicare) and ideological groups from all sides of the political spectrum (the Wyly Brothers' Republicans for Clean Air, Ben & Jerry's Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities and a 527 set up by the Sierra Club). The advantages conferred by assuming the 527 form--the anonymity provided to both the organization and its donors, the ability to engage in unlimited political activity without losing tax-exempt status, and the exemption from the gift tax imposed on very large donors--leave no doubt that these groups will proliferate as the November election approaches. And none of us should doubt that the proliferation of these groups-- with their potential to serve as secret slush funds for candidates and parties, their ability to run difficult-to-trace attack ads, and their promise of anonymity to those seeking to spend huge amounts of money to influence our elections--poses a real and significant threat to the integrity and fairness of our elections. We all know that the identity of the messenger has a lot of influence on how we view a message. In the case of a campaign, an ad or piece of direct mail attacking one candidate or lauding another carries a lot more weight when it is run or sent by a group called ``Citizens for Good Government'' or ``Committee for our Children'' than when a candidate, party or someone with a financial stake in the election publicly acknowledges sponsorship of the ad or mailing. Without a rule requiring a group involved in elections to disclose who is behind it and where the group gets its money, the public is deprived of vital information that allows it to judge the group's credibility and its message, throwing into doubt the very integrity of our elections. With this incredibly powerful tool in their hands, can anyone doubt that come November, we will see more and more candidates, parties and groups with financial interests in the outcome of our elections taking advantage of the 527 loophole to run more and more attack ads and issue more and more negative mailings in the name of groups with innocuous-sounding names? But the risk posed by the 527 loophole goes even farther than depriving the American people of critical information. I believe that it threatens the very heart of our democratic political process. Allowing these groups to operate in the shadows poses a real risk of corruption and makes it difficult for us to vigilantly guard against that risk. The press has reported that a growing number of 527 groups have connections to--or even have been set up by--candidates and elected officials. Allowing wealthy individuals to give to these groups--and allowing elected officials to solicit money for these groups--without ever having to disclose their dealings to the public, at a minimum, leads to an appearance of corruption and sets the conditions that would allow actual corruption to thrive. If politicians are allowed to continue secretly seeking money--particularly sums of money that exceed what the average American makes in a year--there is no telling what will be asked for in return. In the hopes of forestalling the conversion of yet another loophole into yet another sinkhole for the integrity of our elections, I am joined today by a distinguished bipartisan coalition in introducing two bills addressing the 527 problem. Our first bill--I think of it as our aspirational bill--would completely close the Section 527 loophole, by making clear that tax exemption under Section 527 is available only to organizations regulated under FECA (unless an organization focuses exclusively on State or local elections or does not meet certain other explicit FECA requirements). If this bill were enacted, groups no longer would be able to tell one thing to the IRS to get a tax benefit and then deny the same thing to the FEC in order to evade FECA regulation. Recognizing that a complete closing of the 527 loophole may not be possible to achieve this Congress, however, we are offering a narrower alternative--a pragmatic bill--aimed at forcing Section 527 organizations to emerge from the shadows and let the public know who they are, where they get their money and how they spend it. The bill would require 527 organizations to disclose their existence to the IRS, to file publicly available tax returns and to file with the IRS and make public reports specifying annual expenditures of at least $500 and identifying those who contribute at least $200 annually to the organization. Although this won't solve the whole problem, at least it will make sure that no group can hide in the shadows as it spends millions to influence the way we vote and who we choose to run this country. No doubt opponents of this legislation will claim that our proposal infringes on their First Amendment rights to free speech and association. But, Mr. President, nothing in our bills infringes on those cherished freedoms in the slightest bit. Our bills do not prohibit anyone from speaking, nor do they force any group that does not currently have to comply with FECA or disclose information about itself to do either of those things. Our bills speak only to what a group must do if it wants the public subsidy of tax exemption-- something the Supreme Court has made clear no one has a constitutional right to have. As the Court explained in Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540, 544, 545, 549 (1983), ``[b]oth tax exemptions and tax-deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system,'' and ``Congressional selection of particular entities or persons for entitlement to this sort of largesse is obviously a matter of policy and discretion . . .'' Under our bills, any group not wanting to disclose information about itself or abide by the election laws would be able to continue doing whatever it is doing now--it would just have to do so without the public subsidy of tax exemption conferred by Section 527. Mr. President, we have become so used to our campaign finance system's long, slow descent into the muck that it sometimes is hard to ignite the kind of outrage that should result when a new loophole starts to shred the spirit of yet another law aimed at protecting the integrity of our system. But this new 527 loophole should outrage us, and we must act to stop it. The bipartisan coalition joining with me today is doing just that. I hope all of our colleagues will join us in supporting these proposals, and ask unanimous consent that the text of both bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills aimed at curtailing the newest threat to the integrity of our nation's election process: the proliferation of so-called stealth PACs operating under Section 527 of the tax code. These groups exploit a recently discovered loophole in the tax code that allows organizations seeking to influence federal elections to fund their election work with undisclosed and unlimited contributions at the same time as they claim exemption from both federal taxation and the federal election laws. Section 527 of the tax code offers tax exemption to organizations primarily involved in election-related activities, like campaign committees, party committees and PACs. It defines the type of organization it covers as one whose function is, among other things, ``influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any individual to any Federal, State, or local public office . . . .'' Because the Federal Election Campaign Act (``FECA'') uses near identical language to define the entities it regulates--organizations that spend or receive money ``for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office''--Section 527 formerly had been generally understood to apply only to those organizations that register as political committees under, and comply with, FECA, unless they focus on State or local activities or do not meet certain other specific FECA requirements). Nevertheless, a number of groups engaged in what they term issue advocacy campaigns and other election-related activity recently began arguing that the near identical language of FECA and Section 527 actually mean two different things. In their view, they can gain freedom from taxation by claiming that they are seeking to influence the election of individuals to Federal office, but may evade regulation under FECA, by asserting that they are not seeking to influence an election for Federal office. As a result--because, unlike other tax- exempt groups like 501(c)(3)s and (c)(4)s, Section 527 groups don't even have to publicly disclose their existence--these groups gain both the public subsidy of tax exemption and the ability to shield from the American public the identity of those spending their money to try to influence our elections. Indeed, according to news reports, newly- formed 527 organizations pushing the agenda of political parties are using the ability to mask the identities of their contributors as a means of courting wealthy donors seeking anonymity in their efforts to influence our elections. Because Section 527 organizations are not required to publicly disclose their existence, it is impossible to know the precise scope of this problem. The IRS's private letter rulings, though, make clear that organizations intent on running what they call issue ad campaigns and engaging in other election-related activity are free to assert Section 527 status, and news reports provide specific examples of groups taking advantage of these rulings. Roll Call reported the early signs of this phenomenon in late 1997, when it published an article on the decision of Citizens for Reform and Citizens for the Republic Education Fund, two Triad Management Services organizations that ran $2 million issue ad campaigns during the 1996 elections, to switch from 501(c)(4) status (which imposes limits on a group's political activity) to 527 status after the 1996 campaigns. A more recent Roll Call report recounted the efforts of a team of GOP lawyers and consultants to shop an organization called Citizens for the Republican Congress to donors as a way to bankroll up to $35 million in pro-Republican issue ads in the 30 most competitive House races. And Common Cause's recent report Under The Radar: The Attack Of The ``Stealth PACs'' On Our Nation's Elections offers details on 527 groups set up by politicians (Congressmen J.C. Watts and Tom DeLay), industry groups (the pharmaceutical industry- funded Citizens for Better Medicare) and ideological groups from all sides of the political spectrum (the Wyly Brothers' Republicans for Clean Air, Ben & Jerry's Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities and a 527 set up by the Sierra Club). The advantages conferred by assuming the 527 form--the anonymity provided to both the organization and its donors, the ability to engage in unlimited political activity without losing tax-exempt status, and the exemption from the gift tax imposed on very large donors--leave no doubt that these groups will proliferate as the November election approaches. And none of us should doubt that the proliferation of these groups-- with their potential to serve as secret slush funds for candidates and parties, their ability to run difficult-to-trace attack ads, and their promise of anonymity to those seeking to spend huge amounts of money to influence our elections--poses a real and significant threat to the integrity and fairness of our elections. We all know that the identity of the messenger has a lot of influence on how we view a message. In the case of a campaign, an ad or piece of direct mail attacking one candidate or lauding another carries a lot more weight when it is run or sent by a group called ``Citizens for Good Government'' or ``Committee for our Children'' than when a candidate, party or someone with a financial stake in the election publicly acknowledges sponsorship of the ad or mailing. Without a rule requiring a group involved in elections to disclose who is behind it and where the group gets its money, the public is deprived of vital information that allows it to judge the group's credibility and its message, throwing into doubt the very integrity of our elections. With this incredibly powerful tool in their hands, can anyone doubt that come November, we will see more and more candidates, parties and groups with financial interests in the outcome of our elections taking advantage of the 527 loophole to run more and more attack ads and issue more and more negative mailings in the name of groups with innocuous-sounding names? But the risk posed by the 527 loophole goes even farther than depriving the American people of critical information. I believe that it threatens the very heart of our democratic political process. Allowing these groups to operate in the shadows poses a real risk of corruption and makes it difficult for us to vigilantly guard against that risk. The press has reported that a growing number of 527 groups have connections to--or even have been set up by--candidates and elected officials. Allowing wealthy individuals to give to these groups--and allowing elected officials to solicit money for these groups--without ever having to disclose their dealings to the public, at a minimum, leads to an appearance of corruption and sets the conditions that would allow actual corruption to thrive. If politicians are allowed to continue secretly seeking money--particularly sums of money that exceed what the average American makes in a year--there is no telling what will be asked for in return. In the hopes of forestalling the conversion of yet another loophole into yet another sinkhole for the integrity of our elections, I am joined today by a distinguished bipartisan coalition in introducing two bills addressing the 527 problem. Our first bill--I think of it as our aspirational bill--would completely close the Section 527 loophole, by making clear that tax exemption under Section 527 is available only to organizations regulated under FECA (unless an organization focuses exclusively on State or local elections or does not meet certain other explicit FECA requirements). If this bill were enacted, groups no longer would be able to tell one thing to the IRS to get a tax benefit and then deny the same thing to the FEC in order to evade FECA regulation. Recognizing that a complete closing of the 527 loophole may not be possible to achieve this Congress, however, we are offering a narrower alternative--a pragmatic bill--aimed at forcing Section 527 organizations to emerge from the shadows and let the public know who they are, where they get their money and how they spend it. The bill would require 527 organizations to disclose their existence to the IRS, to file publicly available tax returns and to file with the IRS and make public reports specifying annual expenditures of at least $500 and identifying those who contribute at least $200 annually to the organization. Although this won't solve the whole problem, at least it will make sure that no group can hide in the shadows as it spends millions to influence the way we vote and who we choose to run this country. No doubt opponents of this legislation will claim that our proposal infringes on their First Amendment rights to free speech and association. But, Mr. President, nothing in our bills infringes on those cherished freedoms in the slightest bit. Our bills do not prohibit anyone from speaking, nor do they force any group that does not currently have to comply with FECA or disclose information about itself to do either of those things. Our bills speak only to what a group must do if it wants the public subsidy of tax exemption-- something the Supreme Court has made clear no one has a constitutional right to have. As the Court explained in Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540, 544, 545, 549 (1983), ``[b]oth tax exemptions and tax-deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system,'' and ``Congressional selection of particular entities or persons for entitlement to this sort of largesse is obviously a matter of policy and discretion . . .'' Under our bills, any group not wanting to disclose information about itself or abide by the election laws would be able to continue doing whatever it is doing now--it would just have to do so without the public subsidy of tax exemption conferred by Section 527. Mr. President, we have become so used to our campaign finance system's long, slow descent into the muck that it sometimes is hard to ignite the kind of outrage that should result when a new loophole starts to shred the spirit of yet another law aimed at protecting the integrity of our system. But this new 527 loophole should outrage us, and we must act to stop it. The bipartisan coalition joining with me today is doing just that. I hope all of our colleagues will join us in supporting these proposals, and ask unanimous consent that the text of both bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.