[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 173 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16657-S16672]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 1389. A bill to reform the financing of Federal elections, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.


   the senate campaign spending limit and election reform act of 1995

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue of 
great concern and importance to me, and I believe, to the integrity of 
our democratic system of Government: campaign finance reform.
  I supported the legislation introduced and passed by this body in 
1993, and I came back to Washington in 1995 

[[Page S 16658]]
with renewed commitment to pursuing meaningful reform of our Nation's 
campaign finance laws.
  Mr. President, I completed in November my 10th political campaign--10 
of them. Three of them were very big. One was for Governor of the State 
of California, and two were for the U.S. Senate.
  I would like to tell you what I raised in just those three campaigns: 
In 1990, for Governor, $19,770,062; in 1992, $8,540,222; and in 1994, 
$14,407,179. That totals in three campaigns $42,231,463.
  Mr. President, I am a walking, talking, case exhibit for campaign 
spending reform. And I would like to submit that the time has come for 
the Senate and the House to rally to the challenge, and produce some 
legislation which can reduce the impact and the need for fundraising 
and dollars in American political national House and Senate campaigns.
  I supported the legislation introduced and passed by this body in 
1993. And I came back to Washington after this last campaign really 
with a renewed commitment. I raised $14 million. My opponent outspent 
me by better than 22 to 1. That should not be the case for a U.S. 
Senate seat, even in a State as big as the State of California.
  The bill I introduce today addresses what I believe are the areas 
most in need of reform: curbing the astronomical amounts of money that 
flood campaigns today, creating a level playing field between wealthy 
candidates who finance their own campaigns and candidates who cannot, 
and honesty in campaign advertising.
  Among the bill's key provisions are:
  Voluntary spending limits based on voting-age population;
  Provisions relating to spending from personal funds and creating a 
level playing-field for their opponent; and
  Disclosure requirements for political advertisements.


                            spending limits

  For almost 20 years now this Congress has studied and debated the 
issue of campaign spending reform. Last year in the Senate, we passed 
out a bill. It did not move forward in the House. During that time, 
though, spending in Senate races has increased more than 500 percent 
while the cost of living has roughly doubled.
  The last election cycle exemplifies the absurd levels campaign 
spending has reached. According to the Federal Election Commission, 
congressional candidates in 1994 raised and spent over $724 million--
the highest amount ever recorded in any election cycle in the 
Commission's 20-year existence.
  The fundraising pressure on candidates to meet ever-growing demand is 
enormous. I know it firsthand. It increases with every election cycle, 
and it clearly discourages otherwise qualified candidates from running.
  So the legislation which I put forward today is very limited and very 
simple. Not a lot of it is new. There are a few new twists. But it 
really is combining three things that were presented before that I 
think go to reduce spending, create that level playing field, and 
particularly to reduce the inordinate costs of media.
  Voluntary spending limits would be based on each State's voting age 
population ranging from a high of $8.2 million in a State like 
California to a low of $1.5 million in a smaller State like Wyoming.
  The rules are the same as those that were sent out by the Rules 
Committee in the Senate bill of last session.
  In return for voluntarily controlling spending, a candidate receives 
a bonus. This is the carrot to go along with the voluntary limit.
  In return for voluntarily controlling spending, a candidate would be 
entitled to receive: 30 minutes of free broadcast time, a proposal 
which is based on a bill Senator Dole introduced in the 102d Congress; 
a 50-percent discount on television time over and above the free time, 
and a reduced postage rate on two pieces of mail to each voting-age 
resident in their State.
  These latter two benefits were in the bill passed by the Senate in 
the last Congress.
  Previous spending limit proposals have been seen as pro-incumbent 
measures and a barrier to challengers who have to spend more money to 
compete against an incumbent with high name recognition.
  This bill evens the playing field a little by making critical 
advertising time available to challengers and incumbents alike--30 
minutes of broadcast time free, and the rest at half the price.
  With 30 to 40 cents of every dollar raised--sometimes well over 
half--going to media advertising, free media time and a 50-percent 
broadcast discount rate will not only reduce campaign costs but will 
also serve as a powerful incentive for candidates to agree to voluntary 
spending limits.


                             personal funds

  This legislation, which mirrors parts of the campaign finance bill 
introduced by the majority leader, Senator Dole, in the last Congress, 
attempts to limit the ability of a wealthy candidate to buy a seat in 
Congress.
  This is where the provisions are a little different than anything 
anybody has introduced prior. But let me say what they are.
  Under this bill, after qualifying as a candidate for the primary, a 
candidate must declare if he or she intends to spend more than $250,000 
of their own funds in the election. If the candidate says, Yes, I am 
going to spend more than $250,000 of my own money in this election, 
then the contribution limits on his or her opponent are raised from 
$1,000 to $5,000. If a candidate declares that he or she will spend 
more than $1 million on the race from their own pocket, then the 
contribution limit on his or her opponents are removed entirely.
  As with my case, where somebody came forward and said, I will spend 
$30 million of my own--that still is disbelief to me to even say that 
huge amount of my own money on this race--there is no way, no matter 
how proven a fundraiser you are, that you can compete with that amount 
of money. This would enable an individual to compete because the 
spending limits are off of them.
  I believe this requirement will minimize the advantage of enormous 
personal wealth in campaigns, while maximizing the opponent's time to 
pursue a campaign on the issues, rather than being caught in a 
quicksand of fundraising.
  Let me speak for a moment about honesty in campaign advertising, 
which I really did not believe that we should deal with. I really 
thought that, well, campaigns are freewheeling. They are rough and 
tumble. I participated in very hard mayoral races, rough and tumble in 
San Francisco. But I never saw the degree to which negative ads 
permeate the campaign spectrum as I did in the last campaign.
  So honesty in campaign advertising is of great interest to me. I 
think it is critically important to the voters who are now saying, 
well, a pox on both their houses, and I do not believe any of them, as 
we restore some level of credibility and respect to the political 
process. Honesty will do it. Honesty in campaign ads will go a long, 
long way.
  One issue of great concern to me and one that, I believe, is 
critically important to restore some level of credibility and respect 
to the political process, is honesty in campaign advertising. In recent 
years, the amount of negative advertising and personal attacks in 
campaign ads has exploded. And all the experts are predicting in the 
next set of races that it is going to get even worse. You see it 
beginning to start with someone who may be a probable or possible 
Presidential candidate even before he gets into the race.
  Campaigns that rely on unchecked character assassination--with no 
regard for the validity or truth of the charges--have contributed to 
unprecedented voter cynicism and apathy.
  In the 1994 campaign, negative ads, groundless attacks on character, 
distorted facts dragged political advertising to this new low. In my 
campaign, at least two televisions stations and one radio station ran a 
disclaimer before my opponent's ads in an attempt to absolve their 
station of responsibility and liability for the content of the ads and 
noting that the reason they ran the ads is because they were required 
by law to do so.
  Campaign advertising has become a virtual arms race, and in some 
cases is based upon a deliberate strategy of alienating voters to 
degrees voter turnout. The result again is this public turn-off, the 
cynicism, the pox on both your houses, and the enormous disaffection 
people feel with political leaders and the political process itself.
  Most of us would like but we are limited in our ability to curtail 
negative 

[[Page S 16659]]
advertising because of first amendment considerations. We can hold 
candidates and campaign committees more responsible for what they do or 
we can individually just decide not to do it ourselves. I resolved not 
to do it myself, not to respond, and my poll numbers went like this. 
And when we did the focus groups, what we found was that the negatives 
blasted through and the positive credentials did not. People just did 
not believe them. They tend to believe the negatives, but they would 
not believe the positives. And that is a sad, sad case in American 
political affairs.

  So what has happened--and I believe this is fairly typical across the 
United States--is campaign consultants are finding that the negative 
ads blast through and the positive ads do not, so the tendency on an 
increasing basis is to go to negative campaign advertising.
  The provisions of my bill would set minimum standards for disclosure 
in print, on radio, and on television. The bill would require 
disclaimers in TV ads to appear for at least 4 seconds with a 
reasonable degree of color contrast between the background and the 
printed statement. It requires a clearly identifiable photograph or 
other image of the candidate if the ad is paid by a candidate or the 
candidate's committee by the candidate, and the statement at the end of 
the add by the candidate saying, ``This is Dianne Feinstein. I have 
approved the content of this ad.''
  The thrust of this is to connect the responsibility between the 
consultant who does the ad and the candidate whose campaign runs the 
ad. After all, the candidate is eventually responsible.
  The bill also would require sponsors of other advertisements such as 
independent campaigns to indicate in a statement that they are 
responsible for the veracity of the content of the ad.
  Now, what is not contained in this bill? What is not contained in 
this bill is public financing of campaigns. It is my belief that the 
American people are not ready to accept public financing of campaigns. 
Tax dollars are hard fought for, and that situation is not going to get 
better; it is going to get worse. Therefore, even a checkoff for public 
financing of campaigns I think is unworthy of the priorities that we 
face as legislators.
  So there is no direct public financing in this legislation.
  Some have opposed spending limits as contrary to the Supreme Court's 
decision in Buckley versus Valeo which rejected mandatory limits unless 
they are imposed--for example, in exchange for public benefits. This 
bill attempts to strike a balance called for in that decision by making 
the spending limits voluntary and tying them to public benefits.
  I supported initial campaign spending reform that would curb the 
influence of political action committees, and in the $14 million that I 
raised in the last campaign, about 16 percent was from political action 
committees. But I believe distinctions need to be made to protect small 
contributors who pool their resources, share information, and involve 
themselves in the process by supporting candidates or causes in which 
they believe.
  A blanket ban on all political action committees in a sense throws 
the baby out with the bath water. I think we need to be encouraging 
people to be involved in politics, not discouraging them. And virtually 
every legal scholar I know who has examined this question believes that 
a complete ban is unconstitutional.
  The Congressional Research Service has advised the Senate:

       A complete ban on contributions and expenditures by 
     connected and nonconnected PAC's appears to be 
     unconstitutional in violation of the first amendment.

  The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that campaign contributions and 
expenditures are a form of political speech protected by the first 
amendment to the United States Constitution. While the activities of 
some political action committees certainly need to be scrutinized, 
others give the small person, the ordinary person a voice in politics. 
They allow many people who cannot afford to make only small 
contributions to band together so that their voices can be heard. For 
those PAC's whose practices violate the letter or intent of Federal 
election law, the full weight of the FEC enforcement should be brought 
to bear. But I do not believe we should silence the voice of small 
contributors in our efforts to curb the influence of big special 
interest PAC's.
  One example is the League of Conservation Voters. The average 
contribution to their PAC is $40. Individually, these donors cannot 
take out ads supporting environmental legislation or candidates. But by 
pooling their resources, they can purchase an ad announcing their 
support. Surely this is not the type of political influence that 
warrants an outright ban on political action committees. Yet, other 
legislation being considered by this body would do just that. And that 
is where I split.
  I was encourage when President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich agreed to 
set up a bipartisan commission to study and perhaps finally act on 
campaign finance reform. But apparently that agreement seems to have 
since become bogged down with political baggage. This issue has been 
studied and studied and studied not only by this Congress for 20 years 
but by a bipartisan commission whose recommendations were made to the 
Congress in 1990.
  I think it is time for Congress to act. And what we have tired to do 
in this legislation is take concepts that have stood the test of time, 
put them together in a limited package of three major areas where I 
believe there is a consensus in both political bodies and around which 
I think there can be forged no real opposition that is credible and 
worthy to taking these three steps as a first and meaningful step in 
campaign spending reform.
  So I submit the legislation, and I welcome the discussion and the 
debate.
  I thank the forbearance of the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1389

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Senate Campaign Spending 
     Limit and Election Reform Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF CAMPAIGN ACT; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Amendment of FECA.--When used in this Act, the term 
     ``FECA'' means the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.).
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Amendment of Campaign Act; table of contents.

         TITLE I--SENATE ELECTION SPENDING LIMITS AND BENEFITS

Sec. 101. Senate election spending limits and benefits.
Sec. 102. Transition provisions.
Sec. 103. Free broadcast time.
Sec. 104. Broadcast rates and preemption.
Sec. 105. Reduced postage rates.

                   TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Candidate expenditures from personal funds.
Sec. 202. Restrictions on use of campaign funds for personal purposes.
Sec. 203. Campaign advertising amendments.
Sec. 204. Severability.
Sec. 205. Expedited review of constitutional issues.
Sec. 206. Effective date.
Sec. 207. Regulations.
         TITLE I--SENATE ELECTION SPENDING LIMITS AND BENEFITS

     SEC. 101. SENATE ELECTION SPENDING LIMITS AND BENEFITS.

       FECA is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     title:
 ``TITLE V--SPENDING LIMITS AND BENEFITS FOR SENATE ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

     ``SEC. 501. CANDIDATES ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE BENEFITS.

       ``(a) In General.--For purposes of this title, a candidate 
     is an eligible Senate candidate if the candidate--
       ``(1) meets the primary and general election filing 
     requirements of subsections (c) and (d);
       ``(2) meets the primary and runoff election expenditure 
     limits of subsection (b);
       ``(3) meets the threshold contribution requirements of 
     subsection (e); and
       ``(4) does not exceed the limitation on expenditures from 
     personal funds under section 502(a).
       ``(b) Primary and Runoff Expenditure Limits.--
       ``(1) In general.--The requirements of this subsection are 
     met if--
       ``(A) the candidate or the candidate's authorized 
     committees did not make expenditures for the primary election 
     in excess of the lesser of--

[[Page S 16660]]

       ``(i) 67 percent of the general election expenditure limit 
     under section 502(b); or
       ``(ii) $2,750,000; and
       ``(B) the candidate and the candidate's authorized 
     committees did not make expenditures for any runoff election 
     in excess of 20 percent of the general election expenditure 
     limit under section 502(b).
       ``(2) Indexing.--The $2,750,000 amount under paragraph 
     (1)(A)(ii) shall be increased as of the beginning of each 
     calendar year based on the increase in the price index 
     determined under section 315(c), except that the base period 
     shall be calendar year 1995.
       ``(3) Increase based on expenditures of opponent.--The 
     limitations under paragraph (1) with respect to any candidate 
     shall be increased by the aggregate amount of independent 
     expenditures in opposition to, or on behalf of any opponent 
     of, such candidate during the primary or runoff election 
     period, whichever is applicable, that are required to be 
     reported to the Secretary of the Senate with respect to such 
     period under section 304(c).
       ``(c) Primary Filing Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--The requirements of this subsection are 
     met if the candidate files with the Secretary of the Senate a 
     certification that--
       ``(A) the candidate and the candidate's authorized 
     committees--
       ``(i) will meet the primary and runoff election expenditure 
     limits of subsection (b); and
       ``(ii) will only accept contributions for the primary and 
     runoff elections which do not exceed such limits;
       ``(B) the candidate and the candidate's authorized 
     committees will meet the limitation on expenditures from 
     personal funds under section 502(a); and
       ``(C) the candidate and the candidate's authorized 
     committees will meet the general election expenditure limit 
     under section 502(b).
       ``(2) Deadline for filing certification.--The certification 
     under paragraph (1) shall be filed not later than the date 
     the candidate files as a candidate for the primary election.
       ``(d) General Election Filing Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--The requirements of this subsection are 
     met if the candidate files a certification with the Secretary 
     of the Senate under penalty of perjury that--
       ``(A) the candidate and the candidate's authorized 
     committees--
       ``(i) met the primary and runoff election expenditure 
     limits under subsection (b); and
       ``(ii) did not accept contributions for the primary or 
     runoff election in excess of the primary or runoff 
     expenditure limit under subsection (b), whichever is 
     applicable, reduced by any amounts transferred to this 
     election cycle from a preceding election cycle;
       ``(B) at least one other candidate has qualified for the 
     same general election ballot under the law of the State 
     involved;
       ``(C) the candidate and the authorized committees of the 
     candidate--
       ``(i) except as otherwise provided by this title, will not 
     make expenditures that exceed the general election 
     expenditure limit under section 502(b);
       ``(ii) will not accept any contributions in violation of 
     section 315;
       ``(iii) except as otherwise provided by this title, will 
     not accept any contribution for the general election involved 
     to the extent that such contribution would cause the 
     aggregate amount of contributions to exceed the sum of the 
     amount of the general election expenditure limit under 
     section 502(b), reduced by any amounts transferred to this 
     election cycle from a previous election cycle and not taken 
     into account under subparagraph (A)(ii);
       ``(iv) will furnish campaign records, evidence of 
     contributions, and other appropriate information to the 
     Commission; and
       ``(v) will cooperate in the case of any audit and 
     examination by the Commission; and
       ``(D) the candidate intends to make use of the benefits 
     provided under section 503.
       ``(2) Deadline for filing certification.--The certification 
     under paragraph (1) shall be filed not later than 7 days 
     after the earlier of--
       ``(A) the date the candidate qualifies for the general 
     election ballot under State law; or
       ``(B) if under State law, a primary or runoff election to 
     qualify for the general election ballot occurs after 
     September 1, the date the candidate wins the primary or 
     runoff election.
       ``(e) Threshold Contribution Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--The requirements of this subsection are 
     met if the candidate and the candidate's authorized 
     committees have received allowable contributions during the 
     applicable period in an amount at least equal to the lesser 
     of--
       ``(A) 10 percent of the general election expenditure limit 
     under section 502(b); or
       ``(B) $250,000.
       ``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `allowable contributions' means 
     contributions that are made as gifts of money by an 
     individual pursuant to a written instrument identifying such 
     individual as the contributor; and
       ``(B) the term `applicable period' means--
       ``(i) the period beginning on January 1 of the calendar 
     year preceding the calendar year of the general election 
     involved and ending on the date on which the certification 
     under subsection (c)(2) is filed by the candidate; or
       ``(ii) in the case of a special election for the office of 
     United States Senator, the period beginning on the date the 
     vacancy in such office occurs and ending on the date of the 
     general election.

     ``SEC. 502. LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURES.

       ``(a) Limitation on Use of Personal Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--The aggregate amount of expenditures 
     that may be made during an election cycle by an eligible 
     Senate candidate or such candidate's authorized committees 
     from the sources described in paragraph (2) shall not exceed 
     the lesser of--
       ``(A) 10 percent of the general election expenditure limit 
     under subsection (b); or
       ``(B) $250,000.
       ``(2) Sources.--A source is described in this subsection if 
     it is--
       ``(A) personal funds of the candidate and members of the 
     candidate's immediate family; or
       ``(B) personal loans incurred by the candidate and members 
     of the candidate's immediate family.
       ``(b) General Election Expenditure Limit.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     title, the aggregate amount of expenditures for a general 
     election by an eligible Senate candidate and the candidate's 
     authorized committees shall not exceed the lesser of--
       ``(A) $5,500,000; or
       ``(B) the greater of--
       ``(i) $950,000; or
       ``(ii) $400,000; plus

       ``(I) 30 cents multiplied by the voting age population not 
     in excess of 4,000,000; and
       ``(II) 25 cents multiplied by the voting age population in 
     excess of 4,000,000.

       ``(2) Exception.--In the case of an eligible Senate 
     candidate in a State that has not more than 1 transmitter for 
     a commercial Very High Frequency (VHF) television station 
     licensed to operate in that State, paragraph (1)(B)(ii) shall 
     be applied by substituting--
       ``(A) `80 cents' for `30 cents' in subclause (I); and
       ``(B) `70 cents' for `25 cents' in subclause (II).
       ``(3) Indexing.--The amount otherwise determined under 
     paragraph (1) for any calendar year shall be increased by the 
     same percentage as the percentage increase for such calendar 
     year under section 501(b)(2).
       ``(4) Increase based on expenditures of opponent.--The 
     limitations under paragraph (1) with respect to any candidate 
     shall be increased by the aggregate amount of independent 
     expenditures in opposition to, or on behalf of any opponent 
     of, such candidate during the primary or runoff election 
     period, whichever is applicable, that are required to be 
     reported to the Secretary of the Senate with respect to such 
     period under section 304(c).
       ``(c) Payment of Taxes.--The limitation under subsection 
     (b) shall not apply to any expenditure for Federal, State, or 
     local taxes with respect to earnings on contributions raised.

     ``SEC. 503. BENEFITS ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES ENTITLED TO RECEIVE.

       ``An eligible Senate candidate shall be entitled to 
     receive--
       ``(1) the broadcast media rates provided under section 
     315(b) of the Communications Act of 1934;
       ``(2) the free broadcast time provided under section 315(c) 
     of such Act; and
       ``(3) the reduced postage rates provided in section 3626(e) 
     of title 39, United States Code.

     ``SEC. 504. CERTIFICATION BY COMMISSION.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than 48 hours after a 
     candidate qualifies for a general election ballot, the 
     Commission shall certify the candidate's eligibility for free 
     broadcast time under section 315(b)(2) of the Communications 
     Act of 1934. The Commission shall revoke such certification 
     if it determines a candidate fails to continue to meet the 
     requirements of this title.
       ``(b) Determinations by Commission.--All determinations 
     (including certifications under subsection (a)) made by the 
     Commission under this title shall be final, except to the 
     extent that they are subject to examination and audit by the 
     Commission under section 505.

     ``SEC. 505. REPAYMENTS; ADDITIONAL CIVIL PENALTIES.

       ``(a) Excess Payments; Revocation of Status.--If the 
     Commission revokes the certification of a candidate as an 
     eligible Senate candidate under section 504(a), the 
     Commission shall notify the candidate, and the candidate 
     shall pay an amount equal to the value of the benefits 
     received under this title.
       ``(b) Misuse of Benefits.--If the Commission determines 
     that any benefit made available to an eligible Senate 
     candidate under this title was not used as provided for in 
     this title, the Commission shall so notify the candidate and 
     the candidate shall pay an amount equal to the value of such 
     benefit.''.

     SEC. 102. TRANSITION PROVISIONS.

       (a) Expenditures Made Prior to Date of Enactment.--(1) 
     Expenditures made by an eligible Senate candidate on or prior 
     to the date of enactment of this title shall not be counted 
     against the limits specified in section 502 of FECA, as 
     amended by section 101.
       (2) For purposes of this section, the term ``expenditure'' 
     includes any direct or indirect payment or distribution or 
     obligation to make payment or distribution of money.

[[Page S 16661]]

       (b) Relationship to Other Titles.--The provisions of titles 
     I through IV of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     shall remain in effect with respect to Senate election 
     campaigns affected by this title or the amendments made by 
     this title except to the extent that those provisions are 
     inconsistent with this title or the amendments made by this 
     title.

     SEC. 103. FREE BROADCAST TIME.

       (a) In General.--Section 315 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 315) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``within the meaning of this subsection'' 
     and inserting ``within the meaning of this subsection and 
     subsection (c)'';
       (B) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively; and
       (C) by inserting immediately after subsection (b) the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c)(1) An eligible Senate candidate who has qualified for 
     the general election ballot shall be entitled to receive a 
     total of 30 minutes of free broadcast time from broadcasting 
     stations within the State.
       ``(2) Unless a candidate elects otherwise, the broadcast 
     time made available under this subsection shall be between 
     6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on any day that falls on Monday 
     through Friday.
       ``(3) If--
       ``(A) a licensee's audience with respect to any 
     broadcasting station is measured or rated by a recognized 
     media rating service in more than 1 State; and
       ``(B) during the period beginning on the first day 
     following the date of the last general election and ending on 
     the date of the next general election there is an election to 
     the United States Senate in more than 1 of such States,

     the 30 minutes of broadcast time under this subsection shall 
     be allocated equally among the States described in 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(4)(A) In the case of an election among more than 2 
     candidates, the broadcast time provided under paragraph (1) 
     shall be allocated as follows:
       ``(i) The amount of broadcast time that shall be provided 
     to the candidate of a minor party shall be equal to the 
     number of minutes allocable to the State multiplied by the 
     percentage of the number of popular votes received by the 
     candidate of that party in the preceding general election for 
     the Senate in the State (or if subsection (d)(4)(B) applies, 
     the percentage determined under such subsection).
       ``(ii) The amount of broadcast time remaining after 
     assignment of broadcast time to minor party candidates under 
     clause (i) shall be allocated equally between the major party 
     candidates.
       ``(B) In the case of an election where only 1 candidate 
     qualifies to be on the general election ballot, no time shall 
     be required to be provided by a licensee under this 
     subsection.
       ``(5) The Federal Election Commission shall by regulation 
     exempt from the requirements of this subsection--
       ``(A) a licensee whose signal is broadcast substantially 
     nationwide; and
       ``(B) a licensee that establishes that such requirements 
     would impose a significant economic hardship on the 
     licensee.''; and
       (2) in subsection (d), as redesignated--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(3) the term `major party' means, with respect to an 
     election for the United States Senate in a State, a political 
     party whose candidate for the United States Senate in the 
     preceding general election for the Senate in that State 
     received, as a candidate of that party, 25 percent or more of 
     the number of popular votes received by all candidates for 
     the Senate;
       ``(4) the term `minor party' means, with respect to an 
     election for the United States Senate in a State, a political 
     party--
       ``(A) whose candidate for the United States Senate in the 
     preceding general election for the Senate in that State 
     received 5 percent or more but less than 25 percent of the 
     number of popular votes received by all candidates for the 
     Senate; or
       ``(B) whose candidate for the United States Senate in the 
     current general election for the Senate in that State has 
     obtained the signatures of at least 5 percent of the State's 
     registered voters, as determined by the chief voter 
     registration official of the State, in support of a petition 
     for an allocation of free broadcast time under this 
     subsection; and
       ``(5) the term `Senate election cycle' means, with respect 
     to an election to a seat in the United States Senate, the 2-
     year period ending on the date of the general election for 
     that seat.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to general elections occurring after December 31, 
     1995 (and the election cycles relating thereto).

     SEC. 104. BROADCAST RATES AND PREEMPTION.

       (a) Broadcast Rates.--Section 315(b) of the Communications 
     Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 315(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(b) The changes'' and inserting ``(b)(1) 
     The changes'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
       (3) in paragraph (1)(A), as redesignated--
       (A) by striking ``forty-five'' and inserting ``30''; and
       (B) by striking ``lowest unit charge of the station for the 
     same class and amount of time for the same period'' and 
     inserting ``lowest charge of the station for the same amount 
     of time for the same period on the same date''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) In the case of an eligible Senate candidate (as 
     described in section 501(a) of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act), the charges for the use of a television broadcasting 
     station during the 30-day period and 60-day period referred 
     to in paragraph (1)(A) shall not exceed 50 percent of the 
     lowest charge described in paragraph (1)(A).''.
       (b) Preemption; Access.--Section 315 of such Act (47 U.S.C. 
     315), as amended by section 102(a), is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as 
     redesignated, as subsections (e) and (f), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting immediately after subsection (c) the 
     following subsection:
       ``(d)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a licensee 
     shall not preempt the use, during any period specified in 
     subsection (b)(1)(A), of a broadcasting station by an 
     eligible Senate candidate who has purchased and paid for such 
     use pursuant to subsection (b)(2).
       ``(2) If a program to be broadcast by a broadcasting 
     station is preempted because of circumstances beyond the 
     control of the broadcasting station, any candidate 
     advertising spot scheduled to be broadcast during that 
     program may also be preempted.''.
       (c) Revocation of License for Failure To Permit Access.--
     Section 312(a)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 312(a)(7)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or repeated'';
       (2) by inserting ``or cable system'' after ``broadcasting 
     station''; and
       (3) by striking ``his candidacy'' and inserting ``the 
     candidacy of such person, under the same terms, conditions, 
     and business practices as apply to its most favored 
     advertiser''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to the general elections occurring after December 
     31, 1995 (and the election cycles relating thereto).

     SEC. 105. REDUCED POSTAGE RATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 3626(e) of title 39, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by striking ``and the National'' and inserting ``the 
     National''; and
       (ii) by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``, 
     and, subject to paragraph (3), the principal campaign 
     committee of an eligible Senate candidate;'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (C) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (D) by adding after subparagraph (C) the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(D) the term `principal campaign committee' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 301 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971; and
       ``(E) the term `eligible Senate candidate' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 501(a) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971.''; and
       (2) by adding after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) The rate made available under this subsection with 
     respect to an eligible Senate candidate shall apply only to 
     that number of pieces of mail equal to 2 times the number of 
     individuals in the voting age population (as certified under 
     section 315(e) of such Act) of the State.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to the general elections occurring after December 
     31, 1995 (and the election cycles relating thereto).
                   TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. CANDIDATE EXPENDITURES FROM PERSONAL FUNDS.

       Section 315 of FECA (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i)(1)(A) Not later than 15 days after a candidate 
     qualifies for a primary election ballot under State law, the 
     candidate shall file with the Commission, and each other 
     candidate who has qualified for that ballot, a declaration 
     stating whether the candidate intends to expend during the 
     election cycle an amount exceeding $250,000 from--
       ``(i) the candidate's personal funds;
       ``(ii) the funds of the candidate's immediate family; and
       ``(iii) personal loans incurred by the candidate and the 
     candidate's immediate family in connection with the 
     candidate's election campaign.
       ``(B) The declaration required by subparagraph (A) shall be 
     in such form and contain such information as the Commission 
     may require by regulation.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the limitations on 
     contributions under subsection (a) shall be modified as 
     provided under paragraph (3) with respect to other candidates 
     for the same office who are not described in subparagraph 
     (A), (B), or (C), if the candidate--
       ``(A) declares under paragraph (1) that the candidate 
     intends to expend for the primary and general election funds 
     described in such paragraph in an amount exceeding $250,000;
       ``(B) expends such funds in the primary and general 
     election in an amount exceeding $250,000; or
       ``(C) fails to file the declaration required by paragraph 
     (1).

[[Page S 16662]]

       ``(3) For purposes of paragraph (2)--
       ``(A) the limitation under subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be 
     increased to $5,000; and
       ``(B) if a candidate described in paragraph (2)(B) expends 
     more than $1,000,000 of funds described in paragraph (1) in 
     the primary and general elections the limitation under 
     subsection (a)(1)(A) shall not apply.
       ``(4) If--
       ``(A) the modifications under paragraph (3) apply for a 
     convention or a primary election by reason of 1 or more 
     candidates taking (or failing to take) any action described 
     in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (2); and
       ``(B) such candidates are not candidates in any subsequent 
     election in the same election campaign, including the general 
     election,

     paragraph (3) shall cease to apply to the other candidates in 
     such campaign.
       ``(5) No increase described in paragraph (3) shall apply 
     under paragraph (2) to noneligible Senate candidates in any 
     election if eligible Senate candidates are participating in 
     the same election campaign.
       ``(6) A candidate who--
       ``(A) declares, pursuant to paragraph (1), that the 
     candidate does not intend to expend funds described in 
     paragraph (1) in excess of $250,000; and
       ``(B) subsequently changes such declaration or expends such 
     funds in excess of that amount,
     shall file an amended declaration with the Commission and 
     notify all other candidates for the same office not later 
     than 24 hours after changing such declaration or exceeding 
     such limits, whichever first occurs, by sending a notice by 
     certified mail, return receipt requested.''.

     SEC. 202. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR PERSONAL 
                   PURPOSES.

       (a) Restrictions on Use of Campaign Funds.--Title III of 
     FECA (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new section:


     ``RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES

       ``Sec. 324. (a) An individual who receives contributions as 
     a candidate for Federal office--
       ``(1) shall use such contributions only for legitimate and 
     verifiable campaign expenses; and
       ``(2) shall not use such contributions for any inherently 
     personal purpose.
       ``(b) As used in this subsection--
       ``(1) the term `campaign expenses' means expenses 
     attributable solely to bona fide campaign purposes; and
       ``(2) the term `inherently personal purpose' means a 
     purpose that, by its nature, confers a personal benefit, 
     including a home mortgage payment, clothing purchase, 
     noncampaign automobile expense, country club membership, 
     vacation, or trip of a noncampaign nature, and any other 
     inherently personal living expense as determined under the 
     regulations promulgated pursuant to section 302(b) of the 
     Senate Campaign Spending Limit and Election Reform Act of 
     1995.''.
       (b) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Federal Election Commission 
     shall promulgate regulations to implement subsection (a). 
     Such regulations shall apply to all contributions possessed 
     by an individual at the time of implementation of this 
     section.

     SEC. 203. CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING AMENDMENTS.

       Section 318 of FECA (2 U.S.C. 441d) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``Whenever'' and inserting ``Whenever a 
     political committee makes a disbursement for the purpose of 
     financing any communication through any broadcasting station, 
     newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, 
     or any other type of general public political advertising, or 
     whenever'';
       (ii) by striking ``an expenditure'' and inserting ``a 
     disbursement''; and
       (iii) by striking ``direct''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``and permanent street 
     address'' after ``name''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(c) Any printed communication described in subsection (a) 
     shall be--
       ``(1) of sufficient type size to be clearly readable by the 
     recipient of the communication;
       ``(2) contained in a printed box set apart from the other 
     contents of the communication; and
       ``(3) consist of a reasonable degree of color contrast 
     between the background and the printed statement.
       ``(d)(1) Any broadcast or cablecast communication described 
     in subsection (a)(1) or subsection (a)(2) shall include, in 
     addition to the requirements of those subsections, an audio 
     statement by the candidate that identifies the candidate and 
     states that the candidate has approved the communication.
       ``(2) If a broadcast or cablecast communication described 
     in paragraph (1) is broadcast or cablecast by means of 
     television, the communication shall include, in addition to 
     the audio statement under paragraph (1), a written statement 
     which--
       ``(A) states: `I, (name of the candidate), am a candidate 
     for (the office the candidate is seeking) and I have approved 
     this message';
       ``(B) appears at the end of the communication in a clearly 
     readable manner with a reasonable degree of color contrast 
     between the background and the printed statement, for a 
     period of at least 4 seconds; and
       ``(C) is accompanied by a clearly identifiable photographic 
     or similar image of the candidate.
       ``(e) Any broadcast or cablecast communication described in 
     subsection (a)(3) shall include, in addition to the 
     requirements of those subsections, in a clearly spoken 
     manner, the following statement: `________________ is 
     responsible for the content of this advertisement.' (with the 
     blank to be filled in with the name of the political 
     committee or other person paying for the communication and 
     the name of any connected organization of the payor). If 
     broadcast or cablecast by means of television, the statement 
     shall also appear in a clearly readable manner with a 
     reasonable degree of color contrast between the background 
     and the printed statement, for a period of at least 4 
     seconds.''.

     SEC. 204. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this 
     Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any 
     person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the 
     remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and 
     the application of the provisions of such to any person or 
     circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

     SEC. 205. EXPEDITED REVIEW OF CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.

       (a) Direct Appeal to Supreme Court.--An appeal may be taken 
     directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from any 
     interlocutory order or final judgment, decree, or order 
     issued by any court ruling on the constitutionality of any 
     provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act.
       (b) Acceptance and Expedition.--The Supreme Court shall, if 
     it has not previously ruled on the question addressed in the 
     ruling below, accept jurisdiction over, advance on the 
     docket, and expedite the appeal to the greatest extent 
     possible.

     SEC. 206. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the amendments 
     made by, and the provisions of, this Act shall take effect on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 207. REGULATIONS.

       The Federal Election Commission shall prescribe any 
     regulations required to carry out this Act not later than 9 
     months after the effective date of this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. PRESSLER:
  S. 1390. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
permit a private person against when a civil or administrative penalty 
is assessed to use the amount of the penalty to fund a community 
environment project, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


          the local environmental improvement facilitation act

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
allow companies that violate the Clean Water Act the option to invest 
fines in improving their local environment. This bill makes good sense. 
Clean Water Act fines could be invested in the community where the 
violation occurred, rather than sent to Washington to be spent by 
bureaucrats.
  In May 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency began a new program 
to encourage local environmental projects through EPA fines. My bill 
would adopt as law the goals of this program--to give Clean Water Act 
violators the option to perform community services by targeting their 
fines to local pollution prevention and remediation activities.
  Under my legislation, companies found guilty of violating the Clean 
Water Act would be given the option of contributing to a community 
environmental project in lieu of paying fines directly to the Treasury. 
Violators could negotiate with State and local officials to determine 
an appropriate project. The money would then be paid by the violator 
directly to cover project costs.
  The benefits to this legislation are clear. Passage of this bill 
would express Congress' support for local environmental projects. In 
addition, this legislation represents community empowerment. It gives 
the local community the opportunity to right a wrong done to its 
citizens by one of its own. It is common sense. Clean Water Act 
violations inadvertently can punish the community where the violation 
occurred. It's only fair that when a violator is punished, the 
community should receive some compensation. This option certainly is 
preferable to sending penalty dollars back to Washington to pay for 
more bureaucracy.

  At the State and local level, many of those who violate the law are 
directed to perform community service. That tradition deserves a place 
in our Federal system as well. The legislation I am introducing today 
would do just that.

[[Page S 16663]]

  Senator Chafee, chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, has stated his intent to hold hearings on efforts to reform 
the Clean Water Act in the near future. I look forward to working with 
him to make sure that fines collected under the Clean Water Act can 
continue to be used for the benefit of the community where violations 
occurred. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. PRESSLER (for himself and Mr. Campbell):
  S. 1391. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
prohibit the imposition of any civil or administrative penalty against 
a unit of local government for a violation of the act when a compliance 
plan with respect to the violation is in effect, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                 CLEAN WATER ACT PENALTIES LEGISLATION

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to 
lift the unfair burden of excessive regulatory penalties from the backs 
of local governments that are working in good faith to comply with the 
Clean Water Act.
  Mr. President, earlier this year we worked on legislation to bring 
common sense to the regulatory process. That legislation is still 
pending. It is my hope that we will return to that bill and pass it. 
Everyone from small business persons to city mayors want real relief 
from Federal regulatory overreach. That is the goal of my bill as well.
  Under current law, civil penalties begin to accumulate the moment a 
local government violates the Clean Water Act. Once this happens, the 
law requires that the local government present a municipal compliance 
plan for approval by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency [EPA], or the Secretary of the Army in cases of section 404 
violations. However, even after a compliance plan has been approved, 
penalties continue to accumulate. In effect, existing law gives the EPA 
the authority to continue punishing local governments while they are 
trying to comply with the law.

  When I talk with South Dakotans, few topics raise their blood 
pressure faster than their frustrating dealings with the Federal 
bureaucracy. Government is supposed to work for us, not against us. Mr. 
President, this is clearly a case where the Government is working 
against those cities and towns trying in good faith to comply with the 
Clean Water Act.
  In South Dakota, the city of Watertown's innovative/alternative 
technology wastewater treatment facility was built as a joint 
partnership with the EPA, the city and the State of South Dakota in 
1982. The plant was constructed with the understanding that EPA would 
provide assistance in the event the new technology failed. The facility 
was modified and rebuilt in 1991 when it was unable to comply with 
Clean Water Act discharge requirements. Unfortunately, the newly 
reconstructed plan still was found to violate Federal regulations. The 
city now faces a possible lawsuit by the Federal Government and is 
incurring fines of up to $25,000 per day.
  The city of Watertown, under the very capable guidance of Mayor 
Brenda Barger, has entered into a municipal compliance plan with the 
EPA. Under the agreed plan, Watertown should achieve compliance by 
December 1996. However, that plan does not address the issue of the 
civil and administrative penalties that continue to accumulate against 
the city.

  Under the law, Watertown could accumulate an additional $14 million 
in penalties before its treatment facility is able to comply with the 
Clean Water Act requirements.
   Mr. President, no city in South Dakota can afford such steep 
penalties.
  My legislation would offer relief to cities like Watertown. Under my 
bill, local governments would stop accumulating civil and 
administrative penalties once a municipal compliance plan has been 
negotiated and the locality is acting in good faith to carry out the 
plan. Further, my bill would be an incentive for governments to move 
quickly toward achieving compliance with the Clean Water Act.
  This legislation is designed simply to address an issue of fairness. 
Local governments must operate with a limited pool of resources. 
Localities should not be forced to devote their tax revenues both to 
penalties and programs designed to comply with the law. It defies 
common sense for the EPA to penalize a local government at the same 
time it is working in good faith to comply with the law. My legislation 
restores common sense and fairness to local governments. By eliminating 
unfair penalties, local governments could better concentrate their 
resources to meet the intent of the law in protecting our water 
resources from pollution.
   Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this 
commonsense legislation for our towns and cities.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BAUCUS:
  S. 1392. A bill to impose temporarily a 25-percent duty on imports of 
certain Canadian wood and lumber products, to require the administering 
authority to initiate an investigation under title VII of the Tariff 
Act of 1930 with respect to such products, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Finance.


                      emergency timber legislation

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to give 
our timber industry emergency relief in the face of a surge of 
subsidized lumber imports from Canada.
  I have said before that when it comes to trade Canada does not play 
for the love of the game. Canada plays rough. Canada plays to win. 
Canada plays hardball.
  You see that in fisheries, wheat, beer, intellectual property, and 
maybe most of all in timber. And if the game is hardball, we have to 
put on our helmets, pick up our bats and show that we can play too.


                       provisions of legislation

  That is what my bill will do. It contains three tough but fair 
measures:
  First, temporary duty: We impose a temporary 25-percent tariff on 
Canadian lumber. This figure is based on the best estimates of the 
value of Canadian subsidies to Canadian timber exporters.
  Second, countervailing duty investigation: We direct the Department 
of Commerce to investigate Canadian subsidization. At the end of the 
investigation, the temporary duty would be lifted.
  If Commerce finds subsidization and damage to U.S. industry, the 
International Trade Commission would impose a permanent countervailing 
duty at a level appropriate to the damage. If the investigation were to 
find no subsidy, Commerce would refund the money collected under the 
temporary duty. Likewise, if the damage were under 25 percent, the 
difference would be refunded to Canada.
  Third, renegotiate dispute settlement panels: We declare that no 
American judicial function or authority can be delegated to an 
international body under any trade agreement and give the President 
authority to renegotiate the so-called chapter 19 dispute settlement 
panels of the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement and NAFTA.
  The general effect of this would be to eliminate the jurisdiction of 
international dispute settlement panels over our countervailing duty 
decisions. In the specific case of timber, it would repeal the 1992, 
1993, and 1994 decisions of the United States-Canada dispute panels 
which have barred us from using our countervailing laws against 
subsidized Canadian softwood lumber exports.
  Now, some will say, ``Max, gee, that is pretty tough.'' I agree. 
Sometimes tough measures are necessary. That is because today we face a 
surge of imported timber which has depressed prices, closed mills, and 
put Americans out of work.
  The first two sections of this legislation respond to this crisis in 
a reasonable, fair way. We have the right to emergency relief under our 
domestic laws, and all our trade agreements so provide. This is a case 
where we definitely need it.
  The third section responds to the longer term, but equally grave 
problem with the decisions dispute panels have made on United States-
Canada timber disputes. Again, it does so in a tough but limited way. 
So, yes, this is tough but it is also fair.
  Now, let me explain the situation and my proposed response in more 
detail. We will begin with the facts and figures 

[[Page S 16664]]
on the immediate crisis, the Canadian subsidies and the import surge 
they have created.
  Our bill deals with two forms of subsidies. The first is the 
extremely low stumpage fees the Canadian provinces charge for logging 
on their public land. Do not forget almost all the land in Canada on 
which timber is harvested is public land, called Crown land--the land 
owned by the provinces: very low stumpage; timber sale, very low, low 
prices.
  The other subsidy is Canada's ban on all export of raw logs, which 
lowers the price of logs in Canada's market and gluts Canadian mills.
  Some have a broader definition of subsidy. The Raincoast Conservation 
Society, a Canadian environment group based in Victoria, BC, says.

       * * * low stumpage rates, unsustainable rates of timber 
     cutting, inadequate environmental controls, and the continued 
     destruction of natural habitat constitute a massive network 
     of public subsidies to the British Columbia timber industry.

  Canada's timber practices have created an environmental disaster. 
British Columbia, for example, requires neither sustainable forestry; 
we do. Nor environmental assessments of forest practices; we do. It has 
minimal riparian protection; we have a lot. Allows clearcuts up to four 
times what is legal in the United States and requires no protection of 
endangered species and habitat.
  Compare that with our Endangered Species Act. It gives the public 
virtually no role in forest management. Think of all the appeals and 
all the private rights of action we have in our country. If you take a 
boat up the coast of Washington State, you can literally see the border 
because Canadians have cut right down to the shore.
  Our bill defines subsidies much more narrowly. All by themselves, the 
artificially low-stumpage rates on the ban on raw log exports have 
caused a trade disaster as profound as the environmental disaster in 
British Columbia.
  Imports of Canadian lumber have risen 121 percent since 1991, from 
$2.56 billion to $5.65 billion last year. During this period, Canada's 
share of the American lumber market rose from 27 percent to 36 percent.
  Mr. President, 36 percent of all the softwood timber consumed in the 
United States is Canadian. Last year we imported more than 16 billion 
board feet of timber; 3 billion board miles of softwood timber. That is 
enough to build a wooden bridge to the Moon 12.5 feet wide.
  By comparison, we sold Canada about .3 of a billion board feet of 
lumber. That is a fiftieth of Canada's exports.
  Canada's subsidies vastly inflate our imports of timber. We estimate 
that they cost American timber companies about $829 million last year 
and cost American workers 25,100 jobs.
  This is an emergency. Every mill worker and mill operator in Montana 
can tell you the pressure from these subsidies is intolerable and the 
situation is getting worse all the time. That is the reason for part 1 
of the bill, the temporary duty, and also for part 2, under which the 
Commerce Department will investigate Canadian timber practices and 
arrive at a long-term countervailing duty.
  Now, let us turn to part 3. That is renegotiation of the application 
of the dispute settlement panels established in chapter 19 of the 
United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement to our domestic 
countervailing duty or CVD decisions. To start, we need to review a bit 
of history.
  During the drafting of the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement 
in the 1980's, a Canadian negotiator told the American side:

       You must understand that the Canadian people are committed 
     to helping their industries that cannot compete. Our 
     Constitution requires that funds be transferred to assist 
     companies in noncompetitive locations to compete in 
     international trade.

  That is to say, in areas where free trade means a competitive United 
States industry will do well, Canada will subsidize its own industry to 
do its best to make sure that we cannot do well.
  This sort of practice is, for obvious reasons, the most controversial 
issue we considered when the Reagan administration negotiated the 
United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement in the 1980's. The Canadians, 
as was their right, refused to change their subsidy policies, but they 
also asked us to guarantee that we, Americans, would not use our 
countervailing duties laws against their subsidies.
  Obviously, that was unacceptable. A free trade agreement which let 
Canada subsidize exports, while we gave up our right to combat the 
subsidies of domestic trade laws, would not be a free trade agreement 
at all. It would have been an agreement to give Canada a captive 
market, and we would have opposed it.
  So we essentially agreed to disagree. Canada did not give up its 
subsidies and neither did we give up our trade laws. We agreed that the 
United States would continue to settle subsidy disputes through our 
domestic CVD laws. That is, dispute settlement panels setting up in the 
agreement's so-called chapter 19 would be available to Canada in these 
cases only to make sure that we had properly used our laws. That was 
the only point of that provision.
  That was fine in theory. Unfortunately, at least in the timber case, 
it has not worked very well in practice. The past 10 years of this 
dispute have gone as follows.
  On December 30, 1986, Canada and the United States signed, agreed to 
a joint memorandum of understanding on softwood lumber, under which 
Canada agreed to charge its timber companies a 15-percent export tax to 
make up for the value subsidies. Canada agreed.
  In September 1991, 5 years later, Canada unilaterally abrogated this 
memorandum of understanding--just walked away from it, threw it in the 
trash bin. On October 1991, a month later, the Commerce Department 
opened up, as we obviously should have done, an investigation of the 
Canadian lumber subsidies.
  In June 1992, this legislation ended with a finding that the 
subsidies damage the American industry. The ITC imposed countervailing 
duties, as is our right and is what we really should have done and did 
do.
  Canada then challenged this finding at the dispute panels set up 
under chapter 19 of the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement. 
Later in 1992, and in appeal decisions in 1993 and 1994, the panels 
split along national lines and upheld Canada's cases. In each one, 
Canada had a majority of judges. There were more Canadian judges than 
American judges. At least two of the judges had serious conflicts of 
interest and one had even worked for the Canadian timber industry. In 
each case they all voted as a bloc to deny justice to the U.S. 
industry.
  The last of these cases, our appeal to the Extraordinary Challenge 
Committee, which decided in the spring of 1994. Judge Malcolm Wilkey 
was the only American panelist and he describes the decision this way:

       The Panel started, of course, by giving us the litany of 
     the standard of review of administrative agency action as 
     enunciated in United States law, all thoroughly familiar. The 
     Panel then preceded to violate almost every one of those 
     canons of review of agency action * * *. This Binational 
     Panel Majority opinion may violate more principles of 
     appellate review of agency action than any opinion by a 
     reviewing body I have ever read.

  That is the opinion of the American panelists--the only American 
panelists; the rest are Canadian. As Wilkey says, ``The panel reached 
egregiously wrong results.'' Those are his words. It was allowed to 
review only whether we applied our CVD laws as the United States Code 
requires. That is what we were supposed to do.
  Instead, the panel declared our laws should not apply at all. That is 
what the panel said, totally above and beyond its jurisdiction. The 
panel had no right to make that decision, but it made it. Under the 
United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement, the panel has no right to 
make such decision, yet the Canadian majority went ahead and did it 
anyway. Worst of all, have been the concrete real results of these 
decisions.
  Since 1993, imports of Canadian timber have skyrocketed. The price of 
lumber has fallen by more than a third. Mills have closed in Superior, 
Libby, Bonner, and elsewhere in Montana, putting hundreds of good folks 
out of work. The same thing has happened all over America.
  Our timber workers have been cheated, cheated by the dispute panels. 
There is no other word for it. We need to make sure nobody else suffers 
the same injustice. 

[[Page S 16665]]

  Since Canada refuses to a fair settlement through negotiation, I see 
no alternative other than to remove the cause of the trouble.
  Now, these are tough measures, but if your partner is playing hard 
ball, you need more than a golfing cap and a whiffle bat, you need a 
hard plastic helmet and Louisville slugger. You need tough measures 
like the ones my bill will provide.
  I say let us stand up, restore fairness in the timber market, let us 
give a hand to some workers who have suffered grave injustice. I ask 
support for my bill, which I think, once enacted, we can restore the 
playing field so it is fair and give people in our country the justice 
they deserve.
                                 ______

      By Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN (for herself and Mr. Simon):
  S. 1393. A bill to extend the deadline for commencement of 
construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Illinois; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                   hydroelectric project legislation

 Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing 
today, on behalf of myself and Senator Simon, grants the city of Alton, 
IL, a 6-year extension of its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
[FERC] license to begin construction of a hydroelectric power project 
next to lock and dam 26R on the Mississippi River. This extension is 
necessary because the Alton license expired October 15, 1995.

  A license to permit construction for this proposed plant was first 
issued by FERC to the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility 
Commission [MJMEUC] on October 15, 1987. MJMEUC transferred the license 
to the city of Alton with FERC approval on April 5, 1990. At the time 
of the transfer, the city of Alton entered into an agreement with Sithe 
Energies, a developer, which was granted a licensing extension pursuant 
to the Federal Power Act and Public Law No. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 
section 1075 (b) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act of 1991.
  Between 1990 and 1995, Sithe Energies developed plans for a 
hydroelectric plant. However, there were several problems with its 
proposal. Sithe Energies was depending on State subsidies to support 
the estimated $190 million cost of the plant. The Illinois General 
Assembly did not provide those subsidies. Further, Sithe Energies was 
unable to comply with several FERC license requirements. For example, 
Sithe was unable to meet the FERC requirement for a fish mortality 
study. The proposed plant could have had a substantial effect on fish 
and other aquatic life in the Mississippi. Finally, due to the high 
rate per kilowatt hour that would be required to retire the debt that 
would be associated with the project and provide an attractive return 
on investment, Sithe Energies was unable to negotiate a purchase and 
sale agreement for the plant's electricity.
  In May 1995, Sithe Energies terminated its relationship with the city 
of Alton. Subsequently, the city was contacted by Bedford Energies with 
a new plan that happens to be more economically feasible. Bedford 
Energies is proposing a smaller plant, using turbines that move more 
slowly and which should therefore reduce the plant's impact on fish and 
aquatic life in the Mississippi. The cost of the project is estimated 
to be $110 million--much less than the Sithe Energies' project. The 
projected costs per kilowatt hour is approximately one-half of Sithe's 
estimates.
  The city of Alton and the River Bend area have been hit hard by plant 
closings and the loss of manufacturing jobs over the past 20 years. 
During the 1980's, Alton alone lost nearly 4,000 jobs. Alton's per 
capita income is significantly below the State of Illinois' average per 
capita income and, since 1970, Alton's population has declined from 
39,700 to 33,064 residents. Alton's unemployment rate currently exceeds 
9 percent and has consistently exceeded State and national averages. 
One-hundred to one-hundred fifty jobs are expected to be created during 
the 2- or 3-year construction phase of this project, and 6 to 12 
permanent power plant operator jobs will be created once the plant is 
operational. The royalties from power sales will provide revenue to the 
city for capital improvements and other needed city projects which 
impact employment.
  Lock and dam 26R on the Mississippi was designed and constructed for 
a hydroelectric plant. Because of the difficulties the city experienced 
with Sithe Energies, there was simply no way that construction could 
have begun in accordance with the schedule anticipated by the current 
license. This FERC license extension is a reasonable proposition for 
the residents of Alton who are counting on this project. Mr. President, 
this type of license extension has precedent in previous congressional 
action, and it is my hope that the Congress can move this 
noncontroversial bill forward as soon as possible.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1393

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION DEADLINE 
                   FOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN THE STATE OF 
                   ILLINOIS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified 
     in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that 
     would otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission project numbered 3246, the Commission shall, at 
     the request of the licensee for the project, in accordance 
     with the good faith, due diligence, and public interest 
     requirements of that section and the Commission's procedures 
     under that section, extend until October 15, 2001, the time 
     period during which the licensee is required to commence 
     construction of the project.
       (b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall take effect on the 
     expiration of the extension, issued by the Commission under 
     section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806), of the 
     period required for commencement of construction of the 
     project described in subsection (a).
       (c) Reinstatement of Expired License.--If the license for 
     the project described in subsection (a) has expired prior to 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall 
     reinstate the license effective as of the date of its 
     expiration and extend until October 15, 2001, the time 
     required for commencement of construction of the 
     project.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SIMPSON:
  S. 1394. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
reform the legal immigration of immigrants and nonimmigrants to the 
United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                   THE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 1995

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have stood before my good colleagues so 
many times over the last 15 years seeking their support for reform of 
the immigration laws of our country. Today I do so once again, and this 
time the proposed change is fundamental.
  The bill I am introducing today is the product of many years. It 
would reform the law relating to legal immigration--to reduce the level 
and to revise the criteria of selection. Many of the proposals are 
consistent with recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Immigration 
Reform and its very able Chairwoman, that remarkable and impressive 
woman, former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. She and a bipartisan group 
of people put together some very important recommendations for us. The 
members of the Commission were appointed by the Speaker, by the 
Republicans, by the Democrats, by the majority leader, the minority 
leader. I ask unanimous consent that their names be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the names were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                       Members of the Commission

       Barbara Jordan, Chair.
       Lawrence H. Fuchs, Vice Chair.
       Michael S. Teitelbaum, Vice Chair.
       Richard Estrada.
       Harold Ezell.
       Robert Charles Hill.
       Warren R. Leiden.
       Nelson Merced.
       Bruce A. Morrison.

  Mr. SIMPSON. They are wonderful, contributing members of this 
society.
  Mr. President, there are those in this country, including some in 
this body, who eternally say, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' I 
have heard that old, tired canard too many times. They assert that the 
present immigration-related problems of this country relate entirely to 
illegal immigrants, to the failure to prevent rampant violation of 
immigration law--not only by the hundreds of thousands per year who 
cross this border illegally, but also by a perhaps equal number of 
persons who 

[[Page S 16666]]
enter legally on temporary visas, and then remain here even after their 
approved period of stay has expired.
  Mr. President, illegal immigration is, indeed, a major problem, and I 
introduced legislation earlier this year which would greatly improve 
our ability to combat that. In June, that bill, S. 269, was favorably 
reported out of the Immigration Subcommittee, which I have the honor to 
chair.
  Perhaps the most important element of that bill is its proposed 
enhancement of the employer sanction system that is so necessary if we 
are ever to control both forms of illegal immigration, visa overstays, 
as well as illegal border crossing. The employer sanction system has 
been left incomplete and ineffective in the years since enactment of 
the 1986 immigration reform bill, because expected improvements in the 
system that is used to verify work authorization have never been made. 
S. 269 would require a series of pilot programs and within 8 years a 
final verification system. This system would be used not only for 
employment but for welfare or any other form of public assistance.
  The proposals for an improved verification system have been 
controversial. Ironically, I point out to my colleagues that anyone 
getting on an airplane in the United States in the last 3 weeks has 
been asked to present a picture ID of themselves. I have not seen much 
media squawk about that, or any concerned and high-emotion editorials 
about the ``slippery slope,'' or threats to our privacy or civil 
liberties. Perhaps it was partly because no Federal card was involved. 
Yet, even when the President held up before the joint session of 
Congress 2 years ago a card and said, ``This is a health care card and 
everyone will have one,'' not much was said about ``the card'' then--a 
great deal about health care but not much about ``the card.''
  Maybe it was also because such actions have to do with their personal 
interest and their health and safety.
  In any case, the system I favor would involve no ``national ID 
card,'' no new card of any kind--just improvements in various ID and 
other systems that are already in use. I refer to telephone 
verification of a Social Security number--a service already available 
to employers--plus improvements in the State driver's license or ID 
card, and in the birth certificate. That would be it. I honestly do not 
believe the American people have any reason for concern, and I honestly 
do not believe that they will be concerned, else we would have heard a 
little bit about that in these past weeks with what is happening to 
them at each and every airport in this country.
  But, Mr. President, curbing or even stopping illegal immigration is 
not enough. Why do I say this? A major reason is that the American 
people are increasingly troubled about the impact legal immigration is 
having on their country. Poll after poll shows us this.
  The people have made it so very clear they believe the level of 
immigration is too high. The people have been saying more or less the 
same thing for a very long time.
  According to a recent article in the American Enterprise, which 
reviewed 11 major polls taken since 1955, well over 60 percent of the 
American people favor a reduction in immigration, according to most 
polls since 1980--and that has always included legal immigration 
whenever it was specifically asked about.
  Yet, what do people see going on, year after year after year? They 
see steady increases. In 1953, 170,000 new legal immigrants. In 1963, 
306,000; 1973, 400,000; 1983, 560,000; in 1993, 904,000. Thus, in these 
40 years since 1953, the annual level of new immigrants has gone up 
fivefold, rising from 170,000 to 904,000.
  The American people have become increasingly restless and 
dissatisfied at seeing their will ignored. Proposition 187 may be only 
the first of many indicators of their real displeasure.
  Mr. President, there are individuals and groups who are actively and 
obsessively working against the efforts of those of us here and in the 
other body--and on the Commission on Immigration Reform--who are all 
doing our level best to develop and enact into law an immigration 
policy that will better promote the long-term best interests of this 
entire Nation. These individuals and groups form an unholy alliance 
composed of, one, those wanting to preserve the historically high 
current level of immigration and all aspects of current law which 
enable a person to bring to this country extended family members, not 
even part of the nuclear family--a nuclear family being spouses and 
minor children--joined with, two, certain employers who want to avoid 
paying wages high enough to attract U.S. workers, or to preserve their 
``right'' to bring in the employee they really want, notwithstanding 
the impact on any U.S. workers.
  I submit that we must break through all of this clatter. We must not 
allow these defenders of the status quo to deter us from the national 
interest-based policy the American people so deeply want--and deserve.
  Now, I have recently read that one in the other body claimed that to 
reduce legal immigration is to ``punish legal immigrants'' for the 
actions of the illegals. That is surely quite an extraordinary claim. 
To use the word ``punish'' in this way is another fine example of 
rhetorical exuberance--not uncommon around this village, of course. 
But, still, let us try to keep at least one foot on the ground.
  No one has the ``right'' to immigrate to the United States. Hear 
that. There are apparently hundreds of millions who would like to do 
so, but none of them has any ``right'' to do so. For the citizens of 
this country and their legislators to decide to reduce the level of 
legal immigration is not to ``punish'' anybody. ``Punishment'' is 
something imposed because of a judgment that the punished person has 
done ``something wrong.'' It is most usually meted out with an intent 
to encourage more acceptable behavior.
  The issue involved in legal immigration reform is not whether 
individual aliens abroad, who would like to be legal immigrants--or 
even aliens who have already succeeded in becoming legal immigrants--
have done anything ``blameworthy.'' It is simply that the annual 
addition of 800,000 new residents, including hundreds of thousands of 
new workers, has some major consequences--and some of these 
consequences are ones the American people simply and clearly do not 
want. No mystery here; no evil reasoning.
  Taking it as a given that a majority of the American people believe 
that immigration, under current law, has consequences which are harmful 
to their interests, it is appropriate that they demand change. And that 
is exactly what they are doing: demanding change--not punishment--but 
change.
  Mr. President, the American people are so very fed up with being 
told--when they want immigration laws enacted which they believe will 
serve their national interest and when they also want the law to be 
enforced--that they are being cruel and mean-spirited and racist. They 
are fed up with the efforts to make them feel that Americans do not 
have that most fundamental right of any people: to decide who will join 
them here and help form the future country in which they and their 
posterity will live.
  We must not allow ourselves to be distracted by these 
wretched rhetorical excesses and the confused non sequiturs and the 
babble used by so many of the opponents of the direly needed reform. 
Let us focus our attention always on the main issue: What will promote 
the best interest of the entire Nation.

  We are so fortunate in having the substantial assistance in our 
efforts of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, who have worked 
so diligently and so well to produce their recommendations on changes 
to be made to the system of legal immigration. Their ideas have been of 
immense help to me. As I describe my bill, I will refer frequently to 
their well-founded and thoughtful recommendations.
  We are also most fortunate in having such talented and dedicated 
legislators working in a consistent, bipartisan fashion in the other 
body, the House of Representatives--especially my friends, Lamar Smith 
and John Bryant. The steady, patient, and fair way they have proceeded 
in the processing of a bill under the chairmanship of Senator Henry 
Hyde--a lovely friend of many years--is something we would do well to 
keep in mind as we go forward with our work here. I and my immigration 
sidekick here in the Senate, Senator Ted Kennedy, will heed their 
lessons. 

[[Page S 16667]]

  Mr. President, the people are demanding change--and soon--and they 
are so right.
  Most immigration to our United States is of a legal nature and, thus, 
many of the impacts the people find most troubling are due to legal 
immigration.
  For too many U.S. workers, the impact of immigration includes adverse 
affects on their own wages and individual job opportunities.
  At this time--when major U.S. employers like IBM, AT&T, and GM are 
laying off workers by the tens of thousands, when the defense industry 
has undergone a major downsizing, when we read of the difficulty so 
many young American college graduates are facing in finding a job in 
their own field--we must then reconsider some of the increases that we 
authorized in 1990, before so many of these events had occurred and 
when certain experts were predicting to us shortages of scientists and 
engineers, shortages that would not have occurred even if the 1990 
increases in immigration had not come about.
  The current major reform of the Nation's welfare system, which we 
will complete this session, is another reason why we must revise the 
present system. It is expected that these reforms will add large 
numbers of unskilled workers to the labor market. That is how the law 
will read: ``After 2 years on welfare, if you are able bodied, you will 
work.'' As a result, it is increasingly inappropriate for U.S. 
employers to be able to continue to petition for unskilled or low-
skilled workers. That adversely affects the job opportunities and wages 
of the least-advantaged U.S. workers.
  Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today contains new and lower 
limits on immigration; and assigns a ``higher priority'' to immigrants 
with skills and other characteristics that are consistent with the 
needs of the entire Nation--rather than primarily the needs or wishes 
of those abroad who would wish to come to this country, or the fraction 
of our own population who wish to bring in their relatives or who want 
to employ foreign workers.
  Mr. President, in 1990 the level of legal immigration was increased 
substantially, by 37 percent. This was done partly because Congress and 
the President believed that the 1986 immigration reform law had 
instituted workable measures--including sanctions against employers who 
knowingly employ illegal aliens--that would greatly reduce illegal 
immigration. Unfortunately, the belief was overly optimistic. As a 
result, total immigration--legal plus illegal--had been in excess of 1 
million per year.
  For this reason--and because the American people so clearly want it--
the annual level of legal immigration to the United States must--at 
least for the time being--be significantly reduced.
  The bill I am introducing today would reduce the annual level of 
regular nonrefugee legal immigration from 675,000 to about 540,000. 
This would include 90,000 employment-related immigrants, plus 450,000 
family immigrants--composed of 300,000 of the ``nuclear family,'' that 
is, spouse and minor children citizens and permanent residents, and 
150,000 per year to reduce the backlog of spouses and unmarried minor 
children of permanent residents who are already eligible to come here.
  Mr. President, I believe my colleagues should be aware that most 
other bills in this area introduced in this Congress and in the last 
Congress have proposed nonrefugee totals much lower than mine. Most 
have proposed 300,000, or even less.
  Now, I do know that some do find the constant talk about numbers to 
be quite distasteful, but I sense that many who feel this way are not 
in very close touch with the American people--who observe firsthand 
just how much these ``numbers'' mean to conditions in the heavily 
impacted areas of this country. Yes, the issue of ``numbers'' is an 
essential element of the problem and the people will not let us forget 
that.
  Yes, I know full well that the numbers represent human beings--human 
faces--and that to reduce immigration because it is in the interest of 
the entire Nation, nevertheless has its cost. And this cost may, 
indeed, involve many fine individuals in many places outside of this 
country giving up their dreams of a lifetime. This is not easy for us, 
and that is why we must keep focused always on the ultimate issue of 
what will promote the long-term best interests of the American people--
those of us here.
  It is time to slow down, to reassess, to make certain that we are 
assimilating well the extraordinary level of immigration the country 
has been experiencing in recent years. Yes, I say ``assimilating.'' 
Barbara Jordan uses that term, too. That should not be a ``politically 
incorrect'' term. Terms like ``assimilation" and ``Americanization'' 
should not be ``politically incorrect.''
  Mr. President, my bill also proposes major reform of the criteria for 
selecting immigrants, including both family-sponsored and employment-
based immigrants.
  The bill would reserve family-sponsored immigration for those most 
likely actually to be living with the relatives in the United States 
with whom they are in theory being ``reunited.''
  Mr. President, in 1965 the United States adopted an immigration law 
that was primarily oriented toward family reunification. With some 
modifications, this emphasis has continued ever since.
  The policy has not been limited to reunification of the closest 
family members, those most likely to actually llive together in the 
United States; that is, spouses and unmarried minor children: what is 
called the ``nuclear family''--the family unit the American people 
believe is most conducive to the raising of healthy, productive, and 
happy children.
  No, the current policy has also given preference to adult or married 
children, parents, and brothers and sisters, who are much less likely 
to live with the U.S. relative who has petitioned for them. Last year, 
family immigrants outside of the nuclear family totaled more than 
150,000.
  This policy of admitting immigrants who are relatives of citizens and 
immigrants but outside of their nuclear families is serving primarily 
the interests of the immigrants themselves and those of their relatives 
in the United States
  Because the American people want immigration reduced, and because 
eliminating the preferences for nonnuclear family would not greatly 
offend the family values of the American people, this is an area where 
significant change should be made.
  Accordingly, the bill would narrow the presently numerically 
unlimited category of ``immediate relatives'' of U.S. citizens to 
include only: spouses and unmarried minor children, plus parents 65 or 
older, if the greatest number of their sons and daughters reside in the 
United States. It would also reserve numerically limited family 
immigration for spouses and unmarried minor children of lawful 
permanent resident aliens--``green card'' holders--at an annual ceiling 
of 85,000, still above the current level of new petitions coming in on 
behalf of such immigrants.

  The Commission on Immigration Reform also recommends this elimination 
of most family classifications not related to the nuclear family.
  In addition, ``special immigrant'' status would be provided for 
severely disabled adult sons and daughters of citizens or permanent 
residents, which is again consistent with the recommendations of the 
Commission on Immigration Reform. This provision would require a 
showing of being able to provide adequate medical and long-term care 
insurance for any such dependent immigrants.
  The bill would also provide for a very generous program to reduce the 
current backlog of spouses and unmarried minor children of permanent 
residents--now 1.1 million. The bill would authorize 150,000 additional 
visa numbers per year until all who are now ``on the waiting list'' 
have been reached. This too was recommended by the Commission.
  Mr. President, I want to remind my colleagues of a final point on 
family immigration. Neither the Government of these United States, nor 
the American people are responsible in any way for ``breaking up'' 
extended families abroad. Please hear that. No, immigrants who have 
come here consciously chose to do so and, by doing so, they personally 
chose to leave most of their family behind--to ``break up'' their 
family. No one else is responsible.
  The American people will continue to generously favor allowing 
individual citizens and permanent residents to 

[[Page S 16668]]
``sponsor'' members of their immediate family--their spouse or 
unmarried minor children, even those disabled sons and daughters and 
elderly parents who they want to have live with them. But it is not in 
the best interests of the American people to continue to allow the 
immigration of the entire ``rest of the family'' they made a conscious 
choice to leave behind, and then witness the spawning of the chain 
migration of the in-laws, and in-laws of in-laws, to which this clearly 
leads.
  Mr. President, the bill's proposed changes in the employment-related 
classifications are intended to protect the wages and job opportunities 
of our U.S. workers, especially those who are first entering upon their 
careers, and to preserve long-term incentives for Americans to acquire 
needed skills and education, and for employers to continually encourage 
them to do so.
  We have a wonderful group of fine young people who have acquired an 
excellent and often very expensive education--and much of it, 
interestingly enough, paid for directly or indirectly by the U.S. 
taxpayers. It is in the national interest that their learned and 
natural abilities be fully utilized before employers are permitted to 
employ foreign workers.
  At this time then I will review briefly the bill's employment-related 
provisions.


                   Reform of preference requirements

  Section 103 would reform the ``employment-based'' preference 
classifications, generally again along the lines recommended by the 
Commission. Two of the three components of the existing first 
preference--priority workers--would be essentially retained in the 
first two new preferences: First, aliens with extraordinary ability--
the ``superstars''--and second, executives and managers of 
multinational firms. The first would be modified, as recommended by the 
Commission, by the addition of aliens with the clear potential for 
extraordinary achievement. The second provision, relating to 
multinational executives and managers, would be modified by the 
addition of a definition of the current multinational firm and a 
requirement for meeting a longer period of prior work experience.
  Both of these classifications would be exempt from the new labor 
certification requirements I will also explain.
  Also exempt from the labor certification requirement would be two 
other classifications in current law: third, investors and fourth, 
``special immigrants,'' which includes clergy and other religious 
workers, as well as several other classifications, such as former 
employees of the U.S. Government.
  The ``outstanding professors and researchers'' category would be 
dropped, but please be assured that more than enough ``numbers'' would 
be provided under our ``extraordinary ability classification'' to 
accommodate all of these genuinely outstanding individuals.
  In addition to the four classifications that would not be subject to 
the new labor certification requirements, the bill proposes three 
classifications that would then be subject to labor certification: 
fifth, professionals with an advanced degree and at least 3 years 
experience in the profession practiced outside of the United States 
after the receipt of their degree, sixth, professionals with a 
baccalaureate degree and at least 5 years experience in their 
profession practiced outside of the United States after the receipt of 
their degree, and (7) skilled workers with at least 5 years experience 
gained outside of the U.S., plus having at least a high school 
education, and 2 years of college or of specialized vocational 
training.
  The foreign work experience requirement is basically intended to 
provide protection for U.S. workers who are just beginning their 
careers.
  These three classifications would also require a minimum score on a 
test of the English language. Again, this is employment-based only. We 
are not talking about family. No test there.


                  New labor certification requirements

  Section 104 proposes that the present labor certification process be 
replaced with a new system involving two alternative approaches. Under 
the first alternative, a petitioning employer would be required to pay 
a fee equal to 25 percent of annual compensation and to demonstrate 
they have made appropriate efforts to recruit U.S. workers, including 
the offering of at least 100percent of the actual wage paid by the 
employer for such employment or 105percent of ``prevailing wage,'' 
whichever is higher. The fees would be paid into private, industry-
specific funds that would use the money solely to finance training or 
education programs or in other ways to reduce the industry's dependency 
on foreign workers.
  This section also proposes that the permanent resident status to be 
obtained under the preferences subject to the labor certification would 
be ``conditional''--as is the status obtained as the result of 
marriage. The conditional status would become full permanent resident 
status after 2 years if the alien were still employed by the 
petitioning employer and had also received the required wage.
  This first approach to labor certification generally follows the 
recommendations of the Commission, although they did not recommend a 
particular amount for the fee. Twenty-five percent was chosen because 
it is a balance between the standard fee charged by recruiters in the 
computer programming industry and ``recruitment'' for other positions. 
The goal is to make an employer's ``cost'' of obtaining and employing a 
foreign worker at least as expensive as the cost of paying a 
professional recruiter to find a U.S. worker and then paying all of the 
worker's wages and benefits.
  Under the second approach, the Secretary of Labor would be authorized 
to determine that a nationwide labor shortage or labor surplus does 
exist in the United States with respect to one or more occupational 
classifications. If there was a determination of labor shortage made, a 
labor certification would be deemed to have been issued. The fee would 
still be required, in order to provide funding for the private, 
industry-specific funds mentioned earlier, and to maintain the basic 
incentive of employers to seek--and to take action to increase the 
supply of--U.S. workers. If there were a determination of a labor 
surplus, no labor certification could be issued.


            Numerical limit for employment-based immigrants

  Section 112 would reduce the total for employment-related immigrants 
to 90,000. Although the total immigrants allowable under current law, 
as the result of the 1990 act, is 140,000, the actual entries in fiscal 
year 1994 were about 93,000--excluding unskilled workers and immigrants 
under the Chinese Student Adjustment Act. Thus, this provision of the 
bill would reduce the employment-based numerical limit to about the 
current level of new immigrants under the skilled-worker categories. We 
believe it to be fair.


                             Nonimmigrants

  The bill also contains provisions relating to nonimmigrants, 
including temporary foreign workers.


  Prohibition of ``dual intent''; reduction of maximum stay to 3 years

  Section 201 would, first, prohibit what is commonly known as ``dual 
intent'' for the visa classifications of H-1B--temporary foreign worker 
in a ``specialty occupation''--or L--intra-company transferee.
  Before 1990, an overseas consular officer could refuse a visa 
applicant if the officer thought the applicant ``intended'' to remain 
in the United States permanently--in other words, if he or she had the 
intent to become, ultimately, an immigrant, as well as the similar 
intent to be, initially, a temporary worker. The 1990 act authorized 
this ``dual intent'' for H-1B and L visas.
  After the change proposed by my bill, those visas would once again 
not be issued unless the applicant had a ``residence'' in a foreign 
country which he had no intention of ever abandoning--which is the rule 
for all other temporary visas.
  The second change proposed by this section is that the ``maximum 
stay'' under these visas would be reduced to 3 years--from 6 years--for 
H-1B and H-2B--or from either 5 or 7 years--for L. A 3-year maximum is 
more consistent with the ``supposedly'' temporary nature of the job--
and of the stay of the worker. It would also reduce the total number of 
such foreign workers who could be in the United States at any one time.


  Annual fee; recruitment and other attestations; foreign experience 
                              requirement

  Section 202 would require the petitioning employer to pay an annual 
fee 

[[Page S 16669]]
in order to employ an H-1B worker. The fee would be used for the same 
purposes as the fee for immigrants that I mentioned earlier, although 
the H-1B fee would be lower--5 percent in the first year, 7.5 percent 
in the second, and 10 percent in the third.
  The section would also require petitioning employers to make several 
``attestations'' in addition to those that are required under current 
law before entry of an H-1B worker could be approved: the employer 
would have to agree: First, to pay the H-1B worker at least 100 percent 
of the actual compensation as paid by the employer for such workers or 
105 percent of the ``prevailing wage,'' whichever is higher; second, 
not to replace U.S. workers with H-1B workers unless each replacement 
worker were paid at least 105 percent of the mean of the compensation 
paid to the replaced workers; third, to take ``timely, significant, and 
effective steps'' to end dependence on foreign workers; and fourth, if 
it is a job contractor, to require its clients to make the same 
attestations as would the direct employers. The employer would also 
have to attest that it had attempted to recruit a U.S. worker, offering 
at least 100 percent of the actual compensation paid by the employer 
for such workers or 105 percent of the ``prevailing wage,'' whichever 
is higher.
  Finally, the section would require that all H-1B workers have 2 years 
experience in their specialty while working outside of the United 
States after obtaining their most recently received degree. Similar to 
the foreign work experience required for immigrants, this is intended 
basically to protect job opportunities for U.S. workers who are just 
entering their careers.


              Definition of multinational firm for L visas

  Section 203 would apply to L visas--intracompany transferees--the 
same definition of ``multinational firm'' as is contained in the bill 
for purposes of describing the employment-based immigrant 
classification as used for certain multinational executives and 
managers.


                               Conclusion

  Mr. President, the citizens of this Nation very much want, and they 
do surely deserve, an immigration policy that is designed primarily to 
promote their own long-term interests--their Nation's--and the 
interests of their descendants. This has thus been the fundamental 
criterion in the drafting of my own bill--together with my own 
intuition and feelings about the realities of today's political world. 
We must remain reasonable and responsive in pursuing this legislation 
and avoid the efforts of extremists, revisionists, and restrictionist. 
And be assured, this fundamental national-interest criterion will be my 
constant and steady guide as I move the bill through the ofttimes 
treacherous waters of the legislative process.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section 
summary of the bill be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              Summary of the Immigration Reform Act of 1995

       This bill would amend provisions of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act, primarily those relating to the numerical 
     limits and selection criteria for immigrants and 
     nonimmigrants.


                   changes in family classifications

        Sec. 101. Immediate relative classification.
        This would narrow the immigrant classification ``immediate 
     relatives'' of U.S. citizens (a numerically unlimited 
     classification). At present, the classification includes 
     spouses and unmarried minor (under 21) children of citizens, 
     plus parents of adult citizens. After the change, only a 
     portion of the parents would be included: those 65 or older, 
     whose sons and daughters reside for the most part in the 
     United States (the latter is often called the ``Australian 
     rule''). The goal is to provide immigrant visas to 
     ``reunify'' the parents most likely to live with their U.S. 
     citizen sons or daughters, but only if there is not another 
     country with a greater number of sons and daughters with whom 
     the parent could live.
        The section also proposes an amendment to the ``public 
     charge'' exclusion that would condition admission of these 
     parents on adequate medical and long-term care insurance.
        Parents not qualified to immigrate to the U.S. under the 
     new ``immediate relative'' classification would be able to 
     immigrate through one of the employment-related 
     classifications or to visit their U.S. relatives with a 
     tourist visa.
        Sec. 102. Family-sponsored preference classifications.
       This would limit family preferences to the nuclear family 
     (spouse and unmarried minor children) of lawful permanent 
     residents. (However, severely disabled sons and daughters of 
     citizens or permanent residents would have ``special 
     immigrant'' status; see below.)
        Thus, the section would eliminate or greatly narrow 
     several non-nuclear family preferences, as recently 
     recommended by the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform:
        4th (brothers and sisters of adult citizens)
       3rd (married sons and daughters of citizens)
       1st (unmarried adult sons and daughters of citizens)
       2B (unmarried adult sons and daughters of permanent 
     residents)
        These classifications would be eliminated, except that 
     bill section 105 would create a new ``special immigrant'' 
     classification for ``disabled'' adult sons and daughters of 
     citizens or lawful permanent residents, consistent with the 
     Commission's recommendations.


        Changes in employment preferences and special immigrants

       Sec. 103. Employment-based preference classifications.
       This would reform the employment-based preferences. Two of 
     the three components of the existing 1st preference (priority 
     workers) would be essentially retained in the first two new 
     preferences: (1) aliens with extraordinary ability (the 
     ``superstars''), and (2) executives and managers of 
     multinational firms. The first would be modified, as 
     recommended by the Commission, by the addition of aliens with 
     the potential for extraordinary achievement. The second 
     provision, relating to multinational executives and managers, 
     would be modified by the addition of a definition of 
     multinational firm and a requirement for a longer period of 
     prior work experience. These classifications would be exempt 
     from the new labor certification requirements (see below).
       Also exempt from the labor cert. requirement would be two 
     other classifications in current law: (3) investors and (4) 
     ``special immigrants.'' The investor classification would be 
     modified to eliminate the ``set-aside for targeted employment 
     areas'' and by a requirement that the new jobs which must be 
     created be for citizens or lawful permanent residents (not 
     ``other immigrants lawfully authorized to be employed in the 
     United States;'' thus, for example, jobs for H-1B temporary 
     workers would not be counted).
       ``Special immigrants'' include, among other classifications 
     (e.g., former employees of the U.S. government), clergy and 
     other religious workers. One proposed change: the required 
     two years of experience in religious work would have to have 
     been abroad. (The major change for the ``special immigrant'' 
     classifications, however, would be the addition, in section 
     105 of the bill, of a new classification: severely disabled 
     adult sons and daughters of citizens and lawful permanent 
     residents.)
       The outstanding professors category would be eliminated, 
     but more than enough numbers would be provided for the 
     extraordinary ability classification to accommodate 
     professors who are genuinely outstanding.
       In addition to the four classifications not subject to the 
     new labor certification requirements, the bill proposes three 
     classifications that would be subject to labor certification: 
     (5) professionals with an advanced degree and at least 3 
     years experience in the profession outside the U.S. after 
     receipt of the degree, (6) professionals with a baccalaureate 
     degree and at least 5 years experience in the profession 
     outside the U.S. after receipt of the degree, and (7) skilled 
     workers with at least 5 years experience outside the U.S. and 
     at least a high school education plus two years of college or 
     specialized vocational training. The foreign work experience 
     requirement is intended to provide additional protection for 
     U.S. workers just beginning their careers.
       The latter three classifications would also require a 
     minimum score on a test of English.
       The first of the seven employment-based classifications 
     would have complete priority over the second (only the visa 
     numbers available after demand under the first classification 
     had been completely satisfied would be available for the 
     second). Similarly, the 2nd classification would have 
     complete priority over the 3rd, the 3rd over the 4th, and so 
     on--with two exceptions: (a) there would be a numerical limit 
     on most ``special immigrants'' under the 4th classification, 
     and (b) the 5th classification (professionals with an 
     advanced degree) and 6th classification (professionals with a 
     baccalaureate degree) would each be allocated half of the 
     numbers available after demand in higher classifications had 
     been satisfied. The allocation between the 5th and 6th 
     classifications reflects their current relative levels, as 
     well as the fact that a professional with a baccalaureate 
     degree in a particular field may contribute more to the 
     economy than a professional with an advanced degree in a 
     different field, one in less demand.
       Sec. 104. Labor certification.
       This proposes that the present labor certification process 
     be replaced with a new system providing two alternative 
     approaches. Under the first alternative, a petitioning 
     employer would be required to pay a fee equal to 25% of 
     annual compensation and to demonstrate appropriate efforts to 
     recruit U.S. workers, including the offering of at least 

[[Page S 16670]]
     100% of the actual compensation paid by the employer for such 
     employment, or 105% of ``prevailing compensation,'' whichever 
     is higher.
       The lawful permanent resident status obtained under the 
     preferences subject to labor certification would be 
     conditional (like the status obtained as the result of 
     marriage). The conditional status would become full lawful 
     permanent resident status after 2 years if the alien were 
     still employed by the petitioning employer and had received 
     the required wage (105% of prevailing wage). This section of 
     the bill contains many provisions describing the procedure to 
     be followed to upgrade the conditional status. Such 
     provisions are modeled on INA section 216 (intended to combat 
     marriage fraud).
       Such approach generally follows recommendations of the 
     Commission. The Commission did not recommend a particular 
     amount for the fee. 25% was chosen because it is in the 
     middle of the range of fees charged by professional 
     recruiters in various industries. The goal is to make an 
     employer's cost of obtaining and employing a foreign worker 
     at least as expensive as the cost of paying a professional 
     recruiter to find a U.S. worker and then paying the worker's 
     wages and benefits. The fees would be paid into private, 
     industry-specific funds, which would use the money to finance 
     training or education programs or in other ways to reduce the 
     industry's dependence on foreign workers.
       Under the second approach, the Secretary of Labor would be 
     authorized to determine that a nationwide labor shortage or 
     labor surplus existed in the United States with respect to 
     one or more occupational classifications. If there were a 
     determination of labor shortage, a labor certification would 
     be deemed to have been issued. The 25% fee would still be 
     required, in order (a) to provide additional funding for the 
     industry-specific private funds, and (b) to maintain the 
     incentive of employers to seek--and to take action to 
     increase the supply of--U.S. workers. If there were a 
     determination of a labor surplus, no labor certification 
     could be issued.
       Any person could request that the Secretary make such a 
     determination, by submitting evidence relevant to whether or 
     not the claimed labor shortage (or surplus) existed. The 
     burden of proof would be on the person making the request. 
     The request could not be considered unless the requester had 
     provided notice to other persons with an interest (as 
     determined by the Secretary). Such other persons, or anyone 
     else, could submit documentary evidence relevant to the 
     Secretary's determination.
       Sec. 105. Special immigrant classifications.
       This section would create a new ``special immigrant'' 
     classification for severely disabled sons or daughters of 
     citizens or lawful permanent residents. It contains a 
     definition of ``disabled son or daughter'' which would 
     require a ``severe mental or physical impairment'' that is 
     likely to continue indefinitely and that causes 
     ``substantially total inability to perform functions 
     necessary for independent living.'' Providing such a 
     classification is consistent with recommendations of the 
     Commission.
       The definition is based on several Federal statutes 
     relating to disability, modified to refer to the degree of 
     disability consistent with the policy of this ``special 
     immigrant'' classification. Such policy is that it should 
     cover only the sons and daughters who cannot take care of 
     themselves and whose parents in the U.S. want to care for 
     them at home.
       The section also proposes an amendment to the ``public 
     charge'' exclusion that would condition admission of these 
     disabled sons and daughters on a showing of adequate medical 
     and long-term care insurance. Failure to provide such 
     insurance would subject the sponsor to civil penalties.


   new provision on the effect of an approved immigrant visa petition

       Sec. 106. Effect of approved immigrant visa petition.
       This would reduce a problem in current visa practice which 
     arises from the division of visa responsibility between INS 
     and the State Department. At present, when an applicant is 
     found ineligible for an immigrant visa by a consular 
     officer--e.g., because the alien does not have the claimed 
     occupation or family relationship--the officer may only 
     ``suspend action'' and return the petition to INS. At that 
     point, INS caseload is frequently such that the petition is 
     once again approved, without additional investigation, and 
     sent back to the consular officer. If the officer does not 
     have additional factual evidence indicating that the alien is 
     not entitled to immigrant status, the visa is issued. Section 
     106 would authorize the officer to deny the visa and return 
     the petition to INS for appropriate action. This section is 
     based on the view that the consular officer, who has the 
     petition beneficiary before him, is in a better position to 
     make the final determination of eligibility than an INS 
     officer considering only the paperwork, usually hundreds of 
     miles from the petitioner and thousands of miles from the 
     beneficiary.


  new provision on judicial review of agency actions on visa petitions

       Sec. 107. Judicial review.
       This would establish limitations and conditions on judicial 
     review of agency actions relating to petitions for a visa or 
     adjustment of status.


           changes in numerical limits for family preferences

       Sec. 111. World-wide numerical limitation on family-
     sponsored immigration.
       This would reduce the numerical limit for family preference 
     immigrants to 85,000, approximately the current level of new 
     petitions for spouses and unmarried minor children of 
     permanent residents (the only remaining family preference 
     classification in the new system). Unused visa numbers would 
     not carry over from one year to the next.
       The result would be a decrease of about 140,000 from the 
     current annual total of about 226,000 (for the full current 
     group of 4 family preferences). Together with the likely 
     reduction of at least 35,000 in ``immediate relatives'' of 
     citizens that would result from limiting the admission of 
     parents to those 65 or older, this provision would result in 
     a level of family immigrants of about 300,000, a reduction of 
     about 175,000 per year. Most of this saving (up to 150,000 
     per year) would be devoted to reducing the 1.1 million 
     backlog in spouses and unmarried minor children of lawful 
     permanent residents, resulting in overall family immigration 
     of about 450,000 until the backlog is eliminated.


         changes in numerical limits for employment preferences

       Sec. 112. World-wide numerical limitation on employment-
     based immigration.
       This would reduce the limit to 90,000. The total allowable 
     under current law is 140,000. However, the actual entries in 
     FY94 were about 93,000 (excluding unskilled workers and 
     immigrants under the Chinese Student Adjustment Act). Thus, 
     this provision of the bill would reduce the annual numerical 
     limit for employment-based immigrants to approximately the 
     current level of new immigrants under the skilled-worker 
     categories.


                    Changes in the per-country limit

       Sec. 113. Numerical limitation on immigration from a single 
     foreign state.
       This would reestablish the per-country limit of 20,000 for 
     preference immigrants in effect before 1990 (a 40,000 limit 
     is proposed for ``contiguous countries'' and 5,000 for 
     ``dependent areas''). The limit would not, however, affect 
     spouses and unmarried minor children of lawful permanent 
     residents as long as the backlog-clearance numbers were being 
     provided (see sec. 114 below).
       As under current law, this limit would not restrict the 
     level of ``immediate relatives'' of citizens. However, the 
     bill proposes to reduce the limit for a particular foreign 
     state in a fiscal year by the number of immediate relatives 
     of citizens above the 20,000 (40,000 for ``contiguous 
     countries'' and 5,000 for ``dependent areas'') such 
     foreign state sent in the prior year. For example, if in 
     fiscal year 1995 the number of nationals from a non-
     contiguous country who entered as immediate relatives was 
     30,000, then the per-country limit for such country for 
     fiscal year 1996 would be 10,000 fewer than the normal 
     20,000.


                           Backlog reduction

       Sec. 114. Transition for certain backlogged spouses and 
     children of lawful permanent residents.
       This would authorize 150,000 additional visa numbers in the 
     first fiscal year beginning on or after the bill's effective 
     date for reduction of the current backlog of spouses and 
     unmarried minor children of permanent residents (now 1.1 
     million). After such first year, the quantity of backlog 
     reduction numbers would be equal to the lesser of 150,000 and 
     the amount by which the level of family immigration in the 
     prior fiscal year was below the current level of about 
     475,000. The full 150,000 would be available, for example, if 
     the level of nuclear family of permanent resident aliens were 
     85,000 (the limit provided in the bill) and the level of 
     immediate relatives of citizens were no more than about 
     240,000 (if the bill's provisions were now in effect, the 
     current level would be no more than 215,000, probably much 
     less). The goal is for the total level of family immigrants 
     (including those using backlog reduction numbers) to be no 
     higher than currently.
       The backlog numbers would go first to the spouses and 
     children of permanent resident aliens who had not obtained 
     immigrant status through the amnesty program of the 
     Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (``IRCA''). 
     Backlog numbers would be provided for as long as anyone now 
     on the waiting list had not been reached.


                 review of numerical limits by congress

       Sec. 115. Congressional review of numerical limitations.
       This would require that after the present backlog of 
     spouses and children of permanent resident aliens had 
     declined to 10,000, or 5 years after enactment, whichever 
     came later, the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate 
     each hold a hearing on the subject of whether the annual 
     numerical limitations on family-sponsored or employment-based 
     immigrant classifications should be changed. If, within 30 
     days of such a hearing, a bill pertaining solely to such a 
     change was reported, that bill would be considered by the 
     House and Senate under expedited procedures described in this 
     section.


                             nonimmigrants

       Sec. 201. Changes in H and L classifications.
       This would, first, prohibit ``dual intent'' (present intent 
     to work temporarily, but with the ultimate intent to 
     immigrate permanently). After the change, an H-1B 
     (temporary foreign worker in a ``specialty occupation'') 
     or L (intra-company transferee) visa could not be issued 
     unless the applicant had a residence in a foreign country 
     which he had no intention of abandoning, which is the rule 
     for all other nonimmigrant visas.

[[Page S 16671]]

        Second, the maximum stay under these visas would be 
     reduced to three years--from six years (for H-1B and H-2B) or 
     from either five or seven years (for L).
        Sec. 202. Changes in H-1B classification.
       This would require a petitioning employer to pay an annual 
     fee in order to employ an H-1B temporary foreign worker. The 
     fee would be used for the same purposes as the fee under bill 
     section 104.
        The section would also require petitioning employers to 
     make several additional attestations before entry of an H-1B 
     worker could be approved: the employer must agree (1) to pay 
     the H-1B worker at least 100% of the actual compensation paid 
     by the employer for such workers or 105% of the prevailing 
     compensation (whichever was higher); (2) not to replace U.S. 
     workers with H-1B workers unless each replacement worker were 
     paid at least 105 percent of the mean of the compensation 
     paid to the replaced workers; (3) to take ``timely, 
     significant, and effective steps'' to end dependence on 
     foreign workers; and (4) if it is a job contractor, to 
     require its clients to make the same attestations as direct 
     employers. The employer would also have to attest that it had 
     attempted to recruit a U.S. worker, offering at least its 
     current actual compensation for the job, or 105 percent of 
     the prevailing compensation in the area, whichever was 
     higher.
        The section would also provide that ``prevailing 
     compensation'' for an occupational classification, such as 
     researcher, could not be considered to vary depending on the 
     characteristics of the employer, except to the extent there 
     is a difference in either (a) working conditions (for example 
     the presence or absence of conditions that could make the job 
     so attractive or unattractive relative to similar jobs for 
     other employers that wages would be affected), or (b) the 
     functional requirements of the job.
        Finally, the section would require that all H-1B workers 
     have two years experience in their specialty outside the U.S. 
     after obtaining their most recently received degree.
        Sec. 203. Changes in L classification.
       This would provide the same definition of ``multinational 
     firm'' contained in bill section 103 for purposes of the new 
     employment-based immigrant classification for certain 
     multinational executives and managers.
        Sec. 204. Pilot program on information and tracking system 
     relating to nonimmigrant foreign students.
       This would establish a pilot program to collect from 
     colleges and universities certain information relating to 
     nonimmigrant students and make it available in electronic 
     form to selected U.S. consulates and INS officers. Such 
     information would include whether an alien is enrolled, or 
     has been accepted for enrollment, in a U.S. college or 
     university; current U.S. address; and whether the alien is a 
     full-time or part-time student and is making normal progress 
     toward the degree.


                         note on total numbers

       Under the bill, the numerical limits are: 85,000 for family 
     preferences and 90,000 for employment preferences. The 
     current level of spouses and children of citizens, plus 
     parents 65 or older, is appropoximately 215,000. These 
     numbers together total 390,000. Adding the backlog reduction 
     of 150,000 brings the total to 540,000 (not including 
     refugees).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would very much like to commend the 
Senator from Wyoming for his work on immigration.
  I am privileged to serve on his subcommittee on immigration on the 
Judiciary Committee, and it has been very wonderful for me to be able 
to watch him work out various problems in what has been a most 
difficult arena in which to legislate.
  So I would just like to say to him, I am delighted he has presented 
his bill. I look forward to reading it. I hope I will be able to 
cosponsor it. I look forward to work with him in the committee as this 
bill is moved.
  I think, Mr. President, that the Senator from Wyoming understands the 
need to move a bill in this session of the Congress. So I would like 
him to know that I am very respectful and grateful for his work in this 
area.
                                 ______

      By Mr. PRESSLER (for himself and Mr. Exon):
  S. 1396. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to provide for 
the regulation of surface transportation; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


         THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION SUNSET ACT OF 1995

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Interstate 
Commerce Commission Sunset Act of 1995. I am very pleased to be joined 
in this effort by Senator Exon. It is a bipartisan bill and I urge my 
colleagues' bipartisan support as we work toward what must be very 
swift passage. Let me also make it clear at the outset that this bill 
is a work in progress. I introduce it today as the next step in a 
process of discussions and revisions that have been ongoing for months. 
This process will continue.
  I would like to begin by outlining some of the underlying philosophy 
that went into its drafting. In addition, I will address the procedural 
posture in which we find ourselves in relation to this bill.
  In preparation of the legislation we are introducing today, Senator 
Exon and I have worked together very closely. In fact, much of this 
legislation initially was written by my good friend and distinguished 
coauthor. Compromise and cooperation have produced what I feel is a 
balanced bill, addressing the immediate and compelling needs driving 
this legislation.
  Our staff members and those of other committee members have 
collaborated throughout this process. They have spent many long hours 
in joint meetings with various interest groups and constituents who 
have raised concerns or urged additions. We have worked very hard to 
address legitimate concerns, and have made numerous changes to the 
previously circulated staff draft in an effort to address those 
concerns. However, as hard as we have worked to please all parties, our 
policy decisions ultimately were driver, in part, by the need to 
produce a bill which could be passed and signed into law this year. In 
short, the clock is running.
  For reasons I shall address in a moment, however, we have made a 
conscious effort to avoid addressing broader transportation policy 
issues than those directly related to sunsetting the ICC and 
transferring its essential functions to its successor. To that extent, 
the Senate bill is more limited in scope than its House counterpart. 
Indeed, it remains largely unchanged from the staff draft which was 
circulated some time ago.
  Mr. President, I introduce this legislation with mixed feelings. On 
the one hand, I am a firm believer in a less-is-better approach when it 
comes to government. Too often in Congress, we gage accomplishment by 
quantity rather than quality. We need to reduce Federal Government. In 
that sense, this is historic legislation. The ICC is our oldest 
independent agency, yet its functions can and should be reduced. 
Indeed, this could be said about every agency, every executive 
department, and both Houses of Congress. Less would be better. Our bill 
moves us in that direction.
  However, the positive and necessary adjudicatory role of the ICC 
should not come to a screeching halt. Indeed, the ICC has performed and 
continues to perform important functions. For example, without its 
abandonment public interest review authority, my home State of South 
Dakota would today have hundreds of miles less rail service than we 
presently enjoy.

  Quite honestly, budget constraints and appropriations legislation 
which terminate the agency's functions at the end of this year renders 
moot any debate over whether or not we should keep the ICC. Given the 
realities of the budget situation, the issue is not whether the ICC 
should be terminated, but how it will be dismantled.
  Therefore, we must determine what ICC functions can continue to be 
effectively performed by a successor with a greatly reduced budget. 
Which functions can be subsumed into the Department of Transportation? 
Is there an ongoing need for a review process independent of political 
pressures? These are questions this legislation is designed to address.
  This bill provides a reasoned approach designated to ensure continued 
protections against industry abuse while at the same time assure the 
economic efficiencies of our Nation's surface transportation system can 
continue. We propose to sunset the ICC and transfer its necessary 
residual functions to an independent Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Board within the U.S. Department of Transportation. The Board would 
administer the residual regulations over rail carriers and pipelines 
and provide limited adjudicatory oversight over the motor carrier 
industry. The Secretary of Transportation would inherit the residual 
nonadjudicatory functions governing the motor carrier industry.
  Fundamentally, the approach taken in this legislation was to limit 
its 

[[Page S 16672]]
scope to the most efficient and simplest sunset and transfer bill, as 
opposed to a wholesale rewrite of transportation policy. But the very 
nature of the task--which is to close down an entire Federal agency--
there is of necessity a need to sunset certain of its functions, 
however, some changes to these functions also had to be made in light 
of the budget realities which will confront the remaining agency.
  None of this is to say concerns raised during the process through 
which this legislation was developed are not legitimate. Indeed, I 
believe they are. I am particularly concerned about the concerns of 
small rail shippers and operators in light of recent and continuing 
industry trends toward overwhelming industry concentration. More and 
more of this Nation's rail infrastructure is owned by fewer and fewer 
railroads.
  Competitive concerns continue to increase, and the leverage of the 
smaller shippers and small feeder railroads relative to the class I 
railroads decreases. I recall chairing a hearing in 1985 which 
addressed some of those concerns. Since that time, my concern has only 
heightened.
  Some have urged us to re-regulate the rail industry in this 
legislation. They argue that since the Staggers Act greatly deregulated 
the rail industry, shippers have been faced with difficult if not 
impossible relief mechanisms. They point out that the potential for 
shipper abuse increases with industry concentration. Their arguments 
are not entirely unpersuasive. However, a return to a pre-Staggers 
approach is not the answer at this time.

  The shipper complaint procedure at the current ICC is hopelessly 
complicated to the point where shippers with a legitimate grievance 
generally do not have an effective remedy available. The real question 
in my mind is the extent to which legitimate grievances can be 
identified, aired, and resolved. Most of the suggestions raised 
involved some form of re-regulation.
  Even though I voted against the Staggers Act over a decade ago, I 
must say it has proved to be extraordinarily successful in reviving a 
failing industry and on balance has been positive for shippers and 
industry alike. Therefore, at this juncture, it is premature to attempt 
to re-regulate, without a clearer identification and articulation of 
the problem, and an established record which provides some reasonably 
compelling evidence that the solution proposed actually fixes the 
problem.
  On both counts, it seems more effort could be made by all parties to 
attempt to develop industry solutions before seeking Government 
solutions. The fundamental problem I see developing in the industry 
today is that the shippers and others are, as I said, increasingly 
losing leverage in their relations with the class I railroads. In many 
ways, shippers and small railroads are in the same boat.
  Due to these concerns, I am proposing to establish a rail-shipper 
transportation advisory council in an attempt to give them a stronger 
voice, and a mechanism to resolve many of the concerns within the 
industry, rather than having the Government address them. It is clearly 
and intentionally weighted in favor of small shippers and small 
railroads in an effort to address the many issues in which they have 
mutual and legitimate public interest concerns. After a reasonable 
opportunity has been made available to review the varied issues 
confronting small shippers and railroads, I would anticipate a series 
of oversight hearings to review the advisory council's findings or 
recommendations, and, if necessary, appropriate legislative action will 
be taken.
  Whether the council is an effective tool or not will depend largely 
on the reasonableness of the small shippers and railroads position. It 
would be as much of a mistake for them to overplay their hand as it 
would for the large railroads not to treat their concerns seriously. If 
the smaller railroads and shippers overplay their hand by making 
unreasonable demands, the council will quickly lose credibility, both 
within the industry and with policy makers. At the same time, if class 
I's are indifferent or unresponsive to legitimate concerns raised, 
legislative solutions far more expansive than any proposed to date will 
be seriously considered. Re-regulation, antitrust protection, and 
everything else will be on the table.
  Mr. President, let me say it again. This chairman knows the concerns 
of the shippers and small railroads are very real. They need to be 
addressed. The message to both the rail industry and to shippers is 
simple. Be reasonable. Define and solve your problems to the best of 
your ability. Excessive Government involvement is a last resort. It 
will not happen without compelling need and a demonstration of good 
faith effort by those seeking Government intervention, that all 
reasonable avenues to develop a reasonable industry compromise have 
been blocked by relative unreasonableness.
  With respect to labor, there have been attempts to reach a negotiated 
solution to that issue as well. We have included language which is far 
less satisfactory in my view than the House bill, but I agree to it 
with the expectation that the parties can agree to compromise on this 
issue. It remains an issue that is unresolved, but which shall--as with 
other provisions of the bill--be addressed further.

                          ____________________