[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 29, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S804-S818]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GREGG:
  S. 227. A bill to establish a locally oriented commission to assist 
the city of Berlin, NH, in identifying and studying its region's 
historical and cultural assets, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                 THE BERLIN, NH, COMMISSION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the 100th 
anniversary of Berlin, NH, and to introduce legislation that will 
assist Berlin in preserving this history.
  While the city of Berlin is 100 years old this year, its history goes 
back further. The first settlers came to Berlin for no apparent reason. 
They were farmers and the land there did not promise to be any more 
fruitful than the land they left just down the Androscoggin River; but, 
they were restless and independent so they came across the mountains to 
start a new community in this isolated area.
  The Plantation of Maynesborough, as Berlin was called, was named 
after the most illustrious of the English gentlemen to whom it was 
granted by the Crown in 1771. Although the land was rugged and it was a 
hard place to live, food was plentiful. The woods consisting of 
seemingly endless stands of timber were filled with deer and game; the 
brooks and river were loaded with trout.
  Those first farmers who made the move from down the river found good 
farmland upstream from the falls. In 1824, William Sessions cleared 5 
acres of land on the east side of the river and came back in 1825 with 
his nephew to plant crops and build a log house. William Sessions did 
not stay around long enough to see Maynesborough become officially 
incorporated as the city of Berlin 1897, but his nephew Cyrus Wheeler 
did.
  Nearly half a century before, however, the character of Berlin began 
its change from farms to industry. In 1851, J.B. Brown and three other 
businessmen from Portland, ME, formed a partnership under the name of 
H. Winslow & Co. and purchased the land on top of the falls. They 
started a successful lumber business in the thick forest and used the 
natural water power of the river to power their mill. The J.B. Brown 
Co., saw the railroad coming to Berlin, thus, opening a direct line of 
transportation to Portland and market centers for the first time.
  In the 1920's, Berlin, NH, was the capital of the papermaking world 
and was becoming known as the city that trees built. The Brown family's 
Berlin Mills Co., controlled 3 million acres in New England and Quebec 
and was world renowned for cutting-edge forestry, research, and 
papermaking. The mills along the Androscoggin River made not only pulp 
and an array of paper products but also lumber, wood flour, conduit 
pipes, and furniture. Brown's staff of 4,000 to 5,000 swelled Berlin to 
a population of 20,000.
  The growth of Berlin reflects the diversity of people who came to 
stay: French Canadians, Yankees from northern New England farms, 
Norwegians, Italians, Irish, and Russians. They sought a chance to make 
a better living and found it in the mills, blacksmith shops, machine 
shops, farms,

[[Page S805]]

stores, railroad yards, and in the winter logging camps. Berlin 
deserves recognition for many other reasons as well. For example 
tupperware and the Feron Rap and Rule, the first retractable ruler, 
were invented in Berlin. But one aspect of the city calls for special 
attention: Its heritage as a leader in introducing skiing to America.
  Scandinavian immigrants were highly sought after by mill recruiters 
not only for their expertise in logging, but also because they were 
acquainted with long, severe winters similar to those of the North 
Country. They chose to develop their individual neighborhoods in 
clusters as did most of the immigrants. As a whole, the entire 
Scandinavian neighborhood was commonly known as Norwegian Village. 
Because of their love for winter, they, more than any other groups, 
forged the way for winter sports in Berlin. Both cross-country ski 
racing and competition ski jumping were introduced to the region by the 
Scandinavian community. These events were featured at many of the 
winter carnivals that Berlin hosted.
  Other than its socioeconomic forest-based heritage, Berlin is 
probably best known for its major contribution to the development of 
skiing in the country. The use of skis by newly arriving Scandinavians 
was at first utilitarian, winter travel around the community. In time, 
cross-country ski racing became popular and Berlin became known as the 
Cradle of Nordic Skiing in America. The Nansen Ski Club, which is named 
in honor of arctic explorer Fridtjof Nansen, was founded in 1872 as the 
Skii Klubbin. Today, it remains the oldest continuously organized ski 
club in the United States. Starting in the 1890's, skiers used a small 
hill in Norwegian Village to practice and perform their jumps.
  Then, in 1936, a new jump was constructed here at this site thanks to 
a cooperative effort between the city of Berlin and the Nansen Ski 
Club. This 80-meter jump has a 171.5-foot tower, a 225-foot vertical 
drop, and a descent angle of approximately 37.5 degrees. For almost 50 
years, this was the largest ski jump in the Eastern United States and 
the foremost jump in the country. Also, this was the site of all major 
championship ski jumping competitions, as well as many Olympic tryouts. 
Several famous ski jumpers were competitors here including a host of 
Berlinites who went on to compete in the Olympics.
  Mr. President, I have only touched on a few of the historical aspects 
that make Berlin, NH, unique. The legislation that I am introducing, 
the Androscoggin River Valley Heritage Area Act, will establish a 
locally oriented commission to assist the city of Berlin in identifying 
and studying its region's historical and cultural assets of the past 
100 years.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. 
        Abraham, and Mr. Ashcroft):
  S. 228. A bill to amend title 31, United States Code, to provide for 
continuing appropriations in the absence of regular appropriations; to 
the Committee on Appropriations.


                 THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN PREVENTION ACT

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today Senators Stevens, Hutchison, 
Abraham, Ashcroft, and I are introducing the Government Shutdown 
Prevention Act. This bill creates a statutory continuing resolution 
[CR]--a safety net CR which would trigger only if the appropriations 
acts do not become law or if there is no governing CR in place. This 
legislation ensures that the Government will not shutdown and that 
Government shutdowns cannot be used for political gains.
  This safety net CR would set spending at the lowest of the following 
spending levels:
  First, the previous year's appropriated levels;
  Second, the House-passed appropriations bill;
  Third, the Senate-passed appropriations bill;
  Fourth, the President's budget request; or
  Fifth, any levels established by an independent CR passed by the 
Congress subsequent to the passage of this act.
  By setting the spending level for the safety net CR at the lowest 
possible level, there is new incentive to actually pass the 
appropriations bills on time. In addition, it restores the bias in 
appropriations negotiations toward saving the taxpayers money instead 
of spending it. We cannot afford another replay of last year's 
successful effort by the administration that forced Congress to spend 
billions more just to avoid a third Government shutdown. Passage of 
this legislation will guarantee that we are not faced with a choice 
between a Government shutdown and spending taxpayer dollars 
irresponsibly.
  We all saw the effects of gridlock last year. No one wins when the 
Government shuts down. Shutdowns only confirm the American people's 
suspicions that we are more interested in political gain than doing the 
Nation's business. The American people are tired of gridlock. They want 
the Government to work for them--not against them.
  The budget process in the last Congress was a fiasco. Our Founding 
Fathers would have been ashamed by our inability to execute the power 
of the purse in a responsible fashion. I am sure they would have been 
quite shocked by the 27 days the Government was shut down, 13 
continuing resolutions and almost $6 billion in blackmail money given 
to the administration to ensure that the Government did not shut down a 
third time.
  Although Republicans shouldered the blame for the Government 
shutdown, President Clinton and his Democrat colleagues were equally at 
fault for using it for their political gain. Republicans were outfoxed 
by President Clinton because we were not prepared for him to use the 
budget process for his own political gains. We thought that by doing 
the right thing--passing the first balanced budget in a generation and 
fiscally sound appropriations bills--we would eventually prevail. What 
we did not realize was that President Clinton was more interested in 
playing politics with the budget than actually balancing it. This year, 
we have to be prepared for these games and launch a preemptive strike 
to ensure that basic Government operations will not be put at risk 
during the next budget battle.
  This legislation does not erode the power of the appropriators and 
gives them ample opportunity to do their job. It is only if the 
appropriations process is not completed by the beginning of the fiscal 
year, as was the case in the last Congress that this safety net CR will 
go into effect. In addition, I want to emphasize that entitlements are 
fully protected in the legislation. The bill specifically states that 
entitlements such as Social Security--as obligated by law--will be paid 
regardless of what appropriations bills are passed.
  Mr. President, according to President Clinton the combined cost of 
last year's Government shutdowns was $1.5 billion. However, this figure 
does not begin to account for the millions of dollars that were lost by 
small businesses who depend on the Government being open. In my State 
of Arizona, during the Government shutdown the Grand Canyon was closed 
for the first time in 76 years. I heard from people who work close to 
the Grand Canyon. These were not Government employees. They were 
independent small businessmen and women. They told me that the shutdown 
cost them thousands of dollars because people couldn't go to the park. 
According to a CRS report, local communities near national parks lost 
an estimated $14.2 million per day in tourism revenues as a direct 
result of the Government shutdown--for a total of nearly $400 million 
over the course of the shutdown.
  The cost of the Government shutdown cannot be measured in just 
dollars and cents. During the shutdown millions of Americans could not 
get crucial social services. For example: 10,000 new Medicare 
applications, 212,000 Social Security card requests, 360,000 individual 
office visits, and 800,000 toll-free calls for information and 
assistance were turned away each day. There were even more delays in 
services for some of the most vulnerable in our society including 13 
million recipients of AFDC, 273,000 foster care children, over 100,000 
children receiving adoption assistance services and over 100,000 Head 
Start children. Not to mention the new patients that were not accepted 
into clinical research centers, the 7 million visitors who could not 
attend national parks or the 2 million visitors turned away at museums 
and monuments. And the list could go on and on.
  In addition our Federal employees were left in fear wondering whether

[[Page S806]]

they would be paid, would they have to go to work or would they be able 
to pay their bills on time. In my State of Arizona for example, of the 
40,383 Federal employees over 15,000 of them were furloughed in the 
last Government shutdown. I do not want to put these workers at risk 
ever again.
  A 1991 GAP report confirmed that permanent funding lapse legislation 
as necessary. In their report they stated, ``shutting down the 
Government during temporary funding gaps is an inappropriate way to 
encourage compromise on the budget.''
  Mr. President, neither party can afford another break of faith with 
the American people. Our constituents are tired of constantly being 
disappointed by the actions of Congress and the President. They are 
tired of us not being prepared for what appears to be the inevitable. 
This is why this legislation is so important. We want the American 
people to know that there are some of us in Congress who are thinking 
ahead and who do not want a replay of the last Congress.
  I want to especially note the support of my good friend Senator 
Stevens, the distinguished Senator from Alaska and chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee. His support of this bill is crucial and I 
thank him for it. I wish him well in overseeing the appropriations 
process. While I am sure we will have our differences, I am confident 
that he will do his best to ensure that the Senate enacts the 
appropriations bills in an efficient and expeditious manner.
  Let us show the American people that we learned our lessons from the 
last Congress. Passing this preventive measure will go a long way to 
restore American's faith that politics or stalled negotiations will not 
stop government operations. It will prove to our constituents that we 
will never again allow a Government shutdown, or the threat of a 
Government shutdown, to be used for political gain. I hope the Senate 
will act quickly on this important matter.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BUMPERS (for himself, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 229. A bill to provide for a voluntary system of public financing 
of Federal elections, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.


             THE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN CAMPAIGNS ACT OF 1997

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce 
the Public Confidence in Campaigns Act of 1997 for Senator Murray and 
myself. We chose that title because the purpose of the bill is to 
establish public finance of political campaigns in this country.
  The McCain-Feingold bill, of course, is the topic right now. That is 
the one that the press talks about. That is the one that everybody in 
the Senate is looking at. I am for the McCain-Feingold bill--and I have 
the utmost respect for the authors of the bill--but I can tell you that 
the McCain-Feingold bill is only a small step in the right direction, 
if the people of this body are really interested in reversing the 
pervasive cynicism about the political process that is abroad in our 
country.
  Everybody knows that the money game is out of control in politics. 
Contributions during the last 2 years--that is, soft money and hard 
money combined--was up 73 percent from 1993 and 1994. You think about 
it. A 73-percent increase. I have no reason to believe that the 
increase will not be another 50 to 100 percent in the 2-year cycle 
prior to the year 2000. Why wouldn't the American people be cynical? 
The average Senate race today costs $4 million. I have never spent more 
than $1.5 million, not because of choice but because I am a lousy 
fundraiser. I never had it. But the average Senate race is $4 million. 
In California, $20 to $25 million is now typical for each of the 
candidates.
  More and more millionaires are running for Congress because it is 
obvious that money dictates the outcome. Ninety percent of the people 
who are elected to Congress spent more money than their opponents. That 
means if you are a millionaire, or if you have the ability to raise 
more money than your opponent, you have a 90-percent chance of being 
elected. That is what the statistics show. The Congress is supposed to 
be a microcosm of America. There are at least 25 to 35 millionaires in 
the U.S. Senate. There are hardly 25 percent of the American people who 
are millionaires.
  In 1995 and 1996, 400 corporations, labor unions, and individuals--
400--gave the two major parties $100,000 or more in soft money. I 
repeat: Soft and hard money to the political parties is up 73 percent 
in 2 years. Even the stock market has not gone up that fast. And 
rightly or wrongly the cynicism of the American people about our 
political system is reflected in the small number of people in this 
country who contribute to campaigns. Why? Because ``Joe Lunch Bucket'' 
out there has this nagging suspicion that $100,000 contributions, 
$500,000 contributions, or even $5,000 individual contributions, are 
completely out of his league. He knows that his $10 or $15 is going 
nowhere. That is the one of the reasons he does not bother to vote. He 
has no confidence in his own ability to participate and make a 
difference, the very foundation of a democracy. And ``Joe Lunch 
Bucket'' knows that people who give $100,000 are not giving money out 
of patriotism and altruism.
  For the whole process of Federal election in the last 2 years the 
parties and the individual candidates spent $2 billion. That is a 
staggering sum of money. Campaign spending 20 years ago when we started 
reforming the system was a mere fraction of $2 billion.
  This morning, yesterday morning, every morning you pick up the 
Washington Post and the New York Times, and you'll see a story in there 
about the influence of money. It isn't just soft money given by 
Indonesians or aliens. The Times last week had a story showing that 
Members who vote right on particular issues get five times as much 
money later on from the people who benefit from that right vote than 
they had gotten in the past.
  As long as we finance campaigns the way we are financing them now, 
the Post and the Times will continue to have a field day, and the 
Members of Congress will be like gladiators in the arena for the 
amusement and enjoyment of people who like to watch the battle. I am 
not being critical of the press for reporting these stories. All I am 
saying is that democracy is threatened by cynicism.
  The formula for voluntary limits in the McCain-Feingold bill is a 
step in the right direction. It's the same formula we have in our bill: 
$400,000 plus 30 cents for the first 4 million eligible voters in your 
State; 25 cents for every eligible voter over 4 million with a minimum 
of $950,000 and maximum of $5.5 million. My State of Arkansas would get 
the minimum, $950,000, in a Senate race, and a maximum of $5.5 million 
would apply in California. And the figure of $5.5 million as a maximum 
is not an inducement for a Senate candidate in California to accept 
public funding and comply with that kind of a maximum when they are 
spending $20 to $25 million each in California. But let us admit it: 
Even $5.5 million is an obscene amount of money. That is what you get 
if you voluntarily limit the amount of money you are going to spend. If 
you agree, if you are from Arkansas, to accept $950,000, in the general 
election you will get full funding from the U.S. Treasury. And I will 
come back to where the money comes from in just a moment.
  Mr. President, there is a fundamental question being asked in this 
country. And, if it isn't being asked, it ought to be; that is, how 
long can a democracy survive when the laws we pass and the people we 
elect depend on how much special interest money is put into a campaign? 
And consider the fact that the candidate with the most money wins 90 
percent of the time. That speaks volumes. When you consider the fact 
that if you vote right on a bill that benefits somebody, and you get 
five times as much money from that somebody as you got in the past, 
that speaks volumes. Of course, our democracy is threatened when we 
continue this money game.
  There is a study by the Library of Congress--and anybody who is 
interested in it, if they will drop me a line or call me, I will send 
them a copy of it--of campaign finance in 19 nations. And other than 
the United States only 1 of the 19 nations, Malaysia, finances 
campaigns with private contributions. We are the only Western nation 
that finances campaigns with private contributions in this way.

  Mr. President, we may not pass this bill, but until a public finance 
bill

[[Page S807]]

passes, the media will continue to have a field day, and you can expect 
a story, not because you did anything illegal or unethical, but you can 
depend on a story anytime you vote on a major piece of legislation if 
anybody who benefited from that gave you money in the last election in 
any significant amount. And the people will harbor those same 
suspicions.
  Why would the people of this body and the House of Representatives 
not want to get rid of such a system? They are the ones who are most 
vulnerable, to say nothing of the destruction of our democracy. Even 
under the McCain-Feingold bill, which I will support, you still are 
going to have special interest money, and it is not going to eliminate 
the basic problem, which is cynicism about what that money buys.
  So, Mr. President, it is an interesting thing that the people of this 
body--and I have talked to a number trying to recruit cosponsors, 
Republicans and Democrats--almost without exception say, ``I know 
public financing is where we are going, but not yet. Later.''
  Why later? McCain-Feingold has gotten all the attention, and perhaps 
McCain-Feingold is the most we can hope for this year, but it is time 
to start the debate on the public finance legislation that everybody in 
this body knows is absolutely essential to our future. It is going to 
pass. I may not be here when it passes, but I can promise you it is 
going to pass.
  Everybody is playing the stock market today. The market has been on a 
roll, up about 30 percent in 1996. You cannot lose. Just put it on 
anything, they say. You cannot lose. I will tell you of a better 
investment than putting your money in the stock market, and that is to 
put your money into this Congressional Election Campaign Fund we are 
proposing and take special interest money out of the political process. 
You talk about a return on your investment. That will be the biggest 
return America ever got on every dollar it puts in.
  People in the coffee shops of America do not do as they used to. One 
time about 2 years ago, I was in my hometown in the coffee shop where I 
used to drink coffee in this little town of 1,500, 2,000 people, and 
the subject came up with some of my old coffee-drinking buddies about 
public financing. The first thing I heard was, ``I don't want my tax 
money going to politicians to finance campaigns.'' And I gave that 
friend of mine a lesson in 103-A civics and 103-A economics. No. 1, he 
has a civic duty to participate, which he does not do. He is not giving 
any of his private money, which is his right, and he does not want his 
tax money to be used, which is an abdication of his responsibility and 
an abdication of everything he believes about campaign finance because 
he is willing to let the rich people and wealthy organizations of the 
country give the money and yet it causes the very cynicism he 
exemplifies and that we are trying to remedy.
  Why would the people of this body say ``later'' to public finance? 
Admittedly, 10 years ago, only 27 percent of the people believed public 
financing of campaigns was a good idea. But it has worked beautifully 
since 1976 for the Presidential campaign, and it will work for us. Why 
would it not? And why would Senators in 1997 be afraid to vote for 
public financing of campaigns when 68 percent of the people in a Mark 
Mellman Poll this fall said they favor the law in Maine, the only State 
in the Nation which has passed a full public funding campaign bill. And 
68 percent of the people, when you explain the Maine bill, say, ``I 
favor it.'' And 65 percent of the people in this country in a Gallup 
Poll said they favored banning all private contributions and believed 
in 100 percent public financing of campaigns.
  Let me describe the details of the bill very quickly and then I will 
introduce the bill.
  First of all, it establishes a Congressional Election Campaign Fund. 
And here is the way it works. When you file your tax returns today, 
there is a provision there which says that if you would like to direct 
$3 of your tax payment to the Presidential campaign fund, check here. 
It does not cost you a thing. You think about that. It does not cost 
you a thing; it is deducted from your taxes, and yet people are 
declining all the time to check the $3 contribution box even though 
their taxes are reduced by $3. It is really Federal funds. And yet we 
have to constantly prop people up and tell them it is their patriotic 
duty to contribute to that.

  I found it very healthy in the last campaign to know that Senator 
Dole and President Clinton were using money in equal amounts. They were 
not out asking for private contributions. Each one of them said, ``I 
will participate,'' and each one of them received about $60 million, 
and they got along just fine.
  Under our bill, you can give $10, if you want, $3 to the Presidential 
campaign, $7 to the congressional campaign. As I said, that $10 
contribution will pay you bigger dividends by far than any investment 
you ever made in your life. You will not have to worry why somebody 
voted for or against a bill; at least you will know they did not do it 
because somebody gave them money in the last campaign or has promised 
to give them money in a future campaign. And, in addition to the $10, 
we allow Americans to add on to their tax payment a contribution to the 
Congressional Election Campaign Fund. Wealthy people--and there are 
about 5 times as many millionaires right now as there were 10 years 
ago--would be allowed to give up to $5,000 to this campaign fund just 
because they are patriots. Up to $100 of this add-on is tax deductible. 
And if their spouses join in it, they have a $200 tax deduction. It is 
not much, a small incentive. But wouldn't it be wonderful if all the 
people worth $1 million, $5 million, $10 million in this country, or 
even those of ordinary means, would contribute $5,000 to that fund just 
because they love the country, believe in democracy and want to see it 
thrive?

  We also have a provision that, if the fund runs dry, Congress will 
appropriate the deficiency. If Congress refuses to appropriate the 
deficiency, then everybody will be reduced on a pro rata basis.
  Let me repeat. You do not qualify for this money unless you agree to 
limit your spending according to the formula that is set out in the 
bill. How do you get to the general election for full funding, since we 
have primaries before the general? Well, we will participate in that, 
too. And here is the way we do that. You can spend 60 percent of what 
you can spend in a general.
  Back to my home State of Arkansas, let us assume we are eligible for 
$1 million. We can spend 60 percent of that in the primary, or 
$600,000, and, of the $600,000, you must raise 50 percent of that, or 
$300,000. So, to that extent, you still have to go out with your tin 
cup and raise $300,000. Contributions are still limited to $1,000, just 
as they are under existing law. But before you can even qualify for 
primary money, you have to raise $25,000 in $100 contributions from 
within your State. That is not harsh. Anybody in the State of Arkansas, 
or any other State, that cannot get 250 people to give $100 does not 
have any business running. He is not credible. But, once you raise 
$25,000, then you become eligible for 50 percent Federal funding in the 
primary.
  We eliminate totally soft money. Soft money is what the investigation 
of contributions to the DNC is all about. When you consider the fact 
that soft money contributions and hard money contributions to the 
parties is up 73 percent--get rid of it. Who needs this investigation 
we are getting ready to launch here in the Congress? You think about 
all the people's business that we need to be conducting, and what are 
we doing? Holding an investigation about all the Indonesian money and 
alien money. Not only do we eliminate soft money, we say that no 
illegal alien, or even a legal alien, can contribute, unless they are 
eligible to vote. Nobody--nobody can contribute in these campaigns 
unless they are eligible to vote. I think that is about as good a test 
as you can find.
  Let us assume, in the next election, I say, ``OK, I am going to limit 
my spending to $1 million.'' That is the limit under my bill for this 
State. And I agree I will limit my spending to $1 million. My opponent, 
who happens to be worth $100 million says, ``You have to be kidding. I 
am planning to buy this election. I have $100 million to do it with.'' 
Then, for every dollar he spends above $1 million, we will match up to 
100 percent, which would be $2 million.
  If you are running against a man or a woman who is willing to spend 
$10

[[Page S808]]

million of his or her own money, I think you could win. I can tell you 
a story of a Governor's race in Arkansas in 1970. There was a young, 
good looking, dynamic man running for Governor down there who spent 
$300,000 dollars and beat somebody who spent $3.5 million.
  You can shame people. You can shame people for spending too much 
money of their own. Sometimes shame is not enough because, as I have 
already pointed out, 90 percent of the time the candidate who spends 
the most money wins. So maybe our bill is not perfect on that score, 
but it will exact a political price from those who seek to buy an 
election by outspending a candidate who accepts these limits.
  And, on independent expenditures, the bane of the Nation, these 
unnamed, unseen people who run television ads calling you every 
scurrilous name under the shining Sun, they don't mention the name of 
the guy running against you, they just tell the voters what a terrible 
guy you are--using whatever is a hot issue at the time, ``He voted to 
burn American flags''--they never mention the opponent. Under our bill, 
if you have an independent expenditure of $1,000 or more, you have to 
report it within 24 hours, and if you spend more than $10,000 on 
independent expenditures, we will match that for the poor guy who has 
volunteered to limit his spending. The only difference between our bill 
and McCain-Feingold on PAC's is that we allow a $2,000 PAC 
contribution, and McCain-Feingold only allows $1,000. The current level 
is $5,000.
  Let me elaborate just a moment on that. I am not a person who thinks 
PAC's are inherently evil. I think any time a group of people who get 
together and contribute to a fund because they would like to have some 
influence, rather than just giving $10, $20, $50, $100 apiece, they 
ought to be allowed to do that.
  As I have already said, we only allow people who can vote in this 
country in Federal elections to contribute. And, if you agree to accept 
Federal funding, $10,000 is the maximum amount of your own money you 
can spend. And our bill takes effect in all elections after December 
31, 1998.
  Mr. President, while my bill is not perfect, we have been working on 
it for 4 months. We have met through staff conferences. I have talked 
to other Senators. I can tell you, the time has come to deal with 
public finance. I guess the best way to close--I think about a movie, 
one of my three or four all-time favorite movies, ``To Kill A 
Mockingbird.'' Gregory Peck was a country lawyer, and I guess I relate 
to it because I was a country lawyer. You remember, he was defending a 
black man charged with rape, who was totally innocent, in a small 
Southern town. The case was charged with racism.
  He made the most eloquent speech to the jury in his closing argument, 
and he finished by saying, ``For God's sake, do your duty.'' I cannot 
think of a better way to end this statement to my colleagues. The time 
has come to do our duty to salvage, to save our democracy.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
additional material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 229

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF ELECTION ACT; TABLE OF 
                   CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Public 
     Confidence in Campaigns Act of 1997''.
       (b) Amendment of Election Act.--As used in this Act, the 
     term ``FECA'' means the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.).
       (c) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; amendment of Election Act; table of contents.

              TITLE I--REFORM OF SENATE CAMPAIGN FINANCING

  Subtitle A--Voluntary Congressional Senate Campaign Financing System

Sec. 101. Senate election campaign financing.
Sec. 102. Reporting requirements.
Sec. 103. Reporting requirements for certain independent expenditures.

     Subtitle B--Reduction in Limit on PAC Contributions to Senate 
                               Candidates

Sec. 111. Reduction in limit on PAC contributions to Senate candidates.

                   TITLE II--PUBLIC FINANCING SYSTEM

Sec. 201. Increase in current voluntary checkoff system.
Sec. 202. Voluntary contributions to Congressional Election Campaign 
              Fund.

   TITLE III--PROVISIONS RELATING TO SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES

Sec. 301. Soft money of political parties.
Sec. 302. State Party Grassroots Funds.
Sec. 303. Reporting requirements.

  TITLE IV--PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY INDIVIDUALS INELIGIBLE TO 
                                  VOTE

Sec. 401. Prohibition of contributions by individuals ineligible to 
              vote.
              TITLE I--REFORM OF SENATE CAMPAIGN FINANCING
  Subtitle A--Voluntary Congressional Senate Campaign Financing System

     SEC. 101. SENATE ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCING.

       (a) In General.--FECA is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new title:
            ``TITLE V--ELECTION SPENDING LIMITS AND BENEFITS

            ``TITLE V--ELECTION SPENDING LIMITS AND BENEFITS

                ``Subtitle A--Senate Election Campaigns

``Sec. 501. Expenditure limitations.
``Sec. 502. Contribution limitations.
``Sec. 503. Eligibility to receive benefits.
``Sec. 504. Benefits eligible candidate entitled to receive.

                ``Subtitle B--Administrative Provisions

``Sec. 521. Certifications by Commission.
``Sec. 522. Examination and audits; repayments and civil penalties.
``Sec. 523. Judicial review.
``Sec. 524. Reports to Congress; certifications; regulations.
``Sec. 525. Closed captioning requirement for television commercials of 
              eligible candidates.

           ``Subtitle C--Congressional Election Campaign Fund

``Sec. 531. Establishment and operation of the Fund.
``Sec. 532. Designation of receipts to the Fund.
                ``Subtitle A--Senate Election Campaigns

     ``SEC. 501. EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--An eligible Senate candidate may not 
     make expenditures with respect to any election aggregating 
     more than the limit applicable to the election under 
     subsection (b).
       ``(b) Applicable Limits.--For purposes of subsection (a), 
     except as otherwise provided in this subtitle--
       ``(1) General election expenditure limit.--
       ``(A) In general.--The limit for a general election shall 
     be equal to the lesser of--
       ``(i) $5,500,000; or
       ``(ii) the greater of--

       ``(I) $950,000; or
       ``(II) $400,000, plus an amount equal to the sum of 30 
     cents multiplied by the voting age population not in excess 
     of 4,000,000, and 25 cents multiplied by the voting age 
     population in excess of 4,000,000.

       ``(B) Special rule where only 1 transmitter.--In the case 
     of an eligible Senate candidate in a State which has no more 
     than 1 transmitter for a commercial Very High Frequency (VHF) 
     television station licensed to operate in that State, 
     subclause (II) of paragraph (1)(B)(ii) shall be applied by 
     substituting `80 cents' for `30 cents' and `70 cents' for `25 
     cents'.
       ``(2) Primary election expenditure limit.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the limit for a primary election is an amount equal to 60 
     percent of the general election expenditure limit under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Certain primary elections treated as general 
     elections.--If a primary election may result in the election 
     of a person to a Federal office, the limit for the election 
     is the general election expenditure limit under paragraph 
     (1).
       ``(3) Runoff election expenditure limit.--The limit for a 
     runoff election is an amount equal to 30 percent of the 
     general election expenditure limit under paragraph (1).
       ``(c) Payment of Taxes.--The limitations under subsection 
     (b) shall not apply to any expenditure for Federal, State, or 
     local taxes with respect to earnings on contributions raised.
       ``(d) Exceptions for Complying Candidates Running Against 
     Noncomplying Candidates.--
       ``(1) Excessive contributions to, or personal expenditures 
     by, opposing candidate.--
       ``(A) 10 percent excess.--If any opponent of an eligible 
     Senate candidate is a noneligible candidate who--
       ``(i) has received contributions; or
       ``(ii) has made expenditures from a source described in 
     section 502(a);

     in an aggregate amount equal to 110 percent of the general 
     election expenditure limit, primary election expenditure 
     limit, or runoff election expenditure limit applicable to the 
     eligible Senate candidate, the general election expenditure 
     limit, primary election expenditure limit, or runoff election 
     expenditure limit (as the case may be) applicable to the 
     eligible Senate candidate shall be increased by 20 percent.

[[Page S809]]

       ``(B) 50 percent excess.--If any opponent of an eligible 
     Senate candidate is a noneligible candidate who--
       ``(i) has received contributions; or
       ``(ii) has made expenditures from a source described in 
     section 502(a);

     in an aggregate amount equal to 150 percent of the general 
     election expenditure limit, primary election expenditure 
     limit, or runoff election expenditure limit applicable to the 
     eligible Senate candidate, the general election expenditure 
     limit, primary election expenditure limit, or runoff election 
     expenditure limit (as the case may be) applicable to the 
     eligible Senate candidate (without regard to subparagraph 
     (A)) shall be increased by 50 percent.
       ``(C) 100 percent excess.--If any opponent of an eligible 
     Senate candidate is a noneligible candidate who--
       ``(i) has received contributions; or
       ``(ii) has made expenditures from a source described in 
     section 502(a);

     in an aggregate amount equal to 200 percent of the general 
     election expenditure limit, primary election expenditure 
     limit, or runoff election expenditure limit applicable to the 
     eligible Senate candidate, the general election expenditure 
     limit, primary election expenditure limit, or runoff election 
     expenditure limit (as the case may be) applicable to the 
     eligible Senate candidate (without regard to subparagraph (A) 
     or (B)) shall be increased by 100 percent.
       ``(2) Revocation of eligibility of opponent.--If the status 
     of eligible Senate candidate of any opponent of an eligible 
     Senate candidate is revoked under this title, the general 
     election expenditure limit applicable to the eligible Senate 
     candidate shall be increased by 20 percent.
       ``(e) Expenditures in Response to Independent 
     Expenditures.--If an eligible Senate candidate is notified by 
     the Commission under section 304(c)(4) that independent 
     expenditures totaling at least $1,000 or more have been made 
     in the same election in favor of another candidate or against 
     the eligible candidate, the eligible candidate shall be 
     permitted to spend an amount equal to the amount of the 
     independent expenditures, and any such expenditures shall not 
     be subject to any limit applicable under this title to the 
     eligible candidate for the election.

     ``SEC. 502. CONTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS.

       ``(a) Personal Contributions.--
       ``(1) In general.--An eligible Senate candidate may not, 
     with respect to an election cycle, make contributions or 
     loans to his or her own campaign from personal funds totaling 
     more than $10,000.
       ``(2) Aggregation.--For purposes of paragraph (1), any 
     contribution or loan to a candidate's campaign by a member of 
     the candidate's immediate family shall be treated as made by 
     the candidate.
       ``(b) Aggregate Contributions.--
       ``(1) General election.--An eligible Senate candidate may 
     not solicit or receive contributions with respect to a 
     general election.
       ``(2) Primary and runoff elections.--An eligible Senate 
     candidate may, subject to any limits, prohibitions, or other 
     requirements of this Act, receive contributions with respect 
     to a primary or runoff election equal to an amount not 
     greater than 50 percent of the applicable limit for the 
     election under section 501 (determined without regard to 
     subsection (d) or (e) thereof).

     ``SEC. 503. ELIGIBILITY TO RECEIVE BENEFITS.

       ``(a) In General.--For purposes of this subtitle, a 
     candidate is an eligible Senate candidate if the candidate--
       ``(1) meets the filing requirements of subsection (b);
       ``(2) meets, and continues to meet, the expenditure and 
     contribution limits of sections 501 and 502; and
       ``(3) in the case of a primary election, meets the 
     threshold contribution requirements of subsection (c).
       ``(b) Filing Requirements.--
       ``(1) Primary.--The requirements of this subsection are met 
     with respect to a primary election if, not later than the 
     date the candidate files as a candidate for the election with 
     the appropriate State election official (or, if earlier, not 
     later than 30 days before the election), the candidate files 
     with the Secretary of the Senate a declaration that--
       ``(A) the candidate will meet the expenditure and 
     contribution limits of this subtitle;
       ``(B) the candidate will not accept any contributions in 
     violation of section 315; and
       ``(C) the candidate will meet requirements similar to the 
     requirements of clauses (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), and 
     (vii) of paragraph (2)(A).
       ``(2) General election.--
       ``(A) In general.--The requirements of this subsection are 
     met with respect to a general election if the candidate 
     certifies, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of the 
     Senate that--
       ``(i) the candidate has met the expenditure and 
     contribution limits of this subtitle with respect to any 
     primary or runoff election and will meet such limits for the 
     general election;
       ``(ii) at least one other candidate has qualified for the 
     same general election ballot under the law of the State 
     involved;
       ``(iii) the candidate will deposit all payments received 
     under this subtitle in an account insured by the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Corporation from which funds may be 
     withdrawn by check or similar means of payment to third 
     parties;
       ``(iv) the candidate will furnish campaign records, 
     evidence of contributions, and other appropriate information 
     to the Commission;
       ``(v) the candidate will cooperate in the case of any audit 
     and examination by the Commission under section 522 and will 
     pay any amounts required to be paid under that section;
       ``(vi) the candidate will meet the closed captioning 
     requirements of section 525; and
       ``(vii) the candidate intends to make use of the benefits 
     provided under section 504.
       ``(B) Time for filing.--The certification under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be filed not later than 7 days after 
     the earlier of--
       ``(i) the date the candidate qualifies for the general 
     election ballot under State law; or
       ``(ii) 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.
       ``(c) 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 not less than $25,000.
       ``(2) Only $100 contributions taken into account.--
     Allowable contributions of an individual shall not be taken 
     into account under paragraph (1) to the extent such 
     contributions exceed $100.
       ``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Allowable contribution.--The term `allowable 
     contribution' means a contribution that is made as a gift of 
     money by an individual pursuant to a written instrument 
     identifying the individual as the contributor.
       ``(B) Applicable period.--The term `applicable period' 
     means 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 (b)(1) is filed by the candidate.

     ``SEC. 504. BENEFITS ELIGIBLE CANDIDATE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE.

       ``(a) In General.--An eligible Senate candidate shall be 
     entitled to payments from the Congressional Election Campaign 
     Fund in an amount equal to--
       ``(1) in the case of a general election, an amount equal to 
     the general election expenditure limit applicable to the 
     candidate under section 501, and
       ``(2) in the case of a primary or runoff election, an 
     amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(A) the amount of contributions received by the candidate 
     with respect to the election not in excess of the limitation 
     under section 502(b), plus
       ``(B) the amount of any increases in the applicable limit 
     for such election by reason of subsections (d) and (e) of 
     section 501 (relating to opponents exceeding limits and 
     independent expenditures).
       ``(b) Use of Payments.--Payments received by a candidate 
     under subsection (a) shall be used to defray expenditures 
     incurred with respect to the applicable election period for 
     the candidate.
                ``Subtitle B--Administrative Provisions

     ``SEC. 521. CERTIFICATIONS BY COMMISSION.

       ``(a) General Eligibility.--The Commission shall determine 
     whether a candidate is eligible to receive benefits under 
     subtitle A. The initial determination shall be based on the 
     candidate's filings under this title. Any subsequent 
     determination shall be based on relevant additional 
     information submitted in such form and manner as the 
     Commission may require.
       ``(b) Certification of Benefits.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 5 business days after an 
     eligible Senate candidate files a request with the Secretary 
     of the Senate to receive benefits under section 504, the 
     Commission shall certify eligibility for, and the amount of, 
     such benefits.
       ``(2) Requests.--Any request for payments under paragraph 
     (1) shall contain--
       ``(A) such information and be made in accordance with such 
     procedures as the Commission may provide by regulation; and
       ``(B) a verification signed by the candidate and the 
     treasurer of the principal campaign committee of such 
     candidate stating that the information furnished in support 
     of the request, to the best of their knowledge, is correct 
     and fully satisfies the requirement of this title.
       ``(3) Partial certification.--If the Commission determines 
     that any portion of a request does not meet the requirement 
     for certification, the Commission shall withhold the 
     certification for that portion only and inform the candidate 
     as to how the request may be corrected.
       ``(4) Certification withheld.--The Commission may withhold 
     certification if it determines that a candidate who is 
     otherwise eligible has engaged in a pattern of activity 
     indicating that the candidate's filings under this title 
     cannot be relied upon.

     ``SEC. 522. EXAMINATION AND AUDITS; REPAYMENTS AND CIVIL 
                   PENALTIES.

       ``(a) Examinations and Audits.--
       ``(1) General elections.--After each general election, the 
     Commission shall conduct an examination and audit of the 
     campaign accounts of 5 percent of the eligible Senate 
     candidates, as designated by the Commission through the use 
     of an appropriate statistical method of random selection, to 
     determine whether such candidates have complied with the 
     conditions of eligibility and other requirements of this 
     title. The Commission shall conduct an examination and audit 
     of the accounts of all candidates for election to an office 
     where any eligible candidate for the office is selected for 
     examination and audit.
       ``(2) Special election.--After each special election 
     involving an eligible candidate, the

[[Page S810]]

     Commission shall conduct an examination and audit of the 
     campaign accounts of all candidates in the election to 
     determine whether the candidates have complied with the 
     conditions of eligibility and other requirements of this Act.
       ``(3) Affirmative vote.--The Commission may conduct an 
     examination and audit of the campaign accounts of any 
     eligible Senate candidate in a general election if the 
     Commission determines that there exists reason to believe 
     whether such candidate may have violated any provision of 
     this title.
       ``(b) Repayments.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the Commission determines that any 
     amount of a payment to a candidate under this title was in 
     excess of the aggregate payments to which such candidate was 
     entitled, or was not used as provided for in this title, the 
     Commission shall so notify such candidate, and such candidate 
     shall pay the amount of such payment.
       ``(2) Excess expenditures of candidates.--If the Commission 
     determines that any eligible candidate who has received 
     benefits under this title has made expenditures in excess of 
     any limit under subtitle A, the Commission shall notify the 
     candidate and the candidate shall pay the amount of the 
     excess.
       ``(c) Civil Penalties.--
       ``(1) Excess expenditures.--
       ``(A) Low amount of excess expenditures.--Any eligible 
     Senate candidate who makes expenditures that exceed a 
     limitation under subtitle A by 2.5 percent or less shall pay 
     to the Commission an amount equal to the amount of the excess 
     expenditures.
       ``(B) Medium amount of excess expenditures.--Any eligible 
     Senate candidate who makes expenditures that exceed a 
     limitation under subtitle A by more than 2.5 percent and less 
     than 5 percent shall pay to the Commission an amount equal to 
     three times the amount of the excess expenditures.
       ``(C) Large amount of excess expenditures.--Any eligible 
     Senate candidate who makes expenditures that exceed a 
     limitation under subtitle A by 5 percent or more shall pay to 
     the Commission an amount equal to three times the amount of 
     the excess expenditures plus, if the Commission determines 
     such excess expenditures were willful, a civil penalty in an 
     amount determined by the Commission.
       ``(2) Misused funds of candidates.--If the Commission 
     determines that an eligible Senate candidate used any amount 
     received under this title in a manner not provided for in 
     this title, the Commission may assess a civil penalty against 
     such candidate in an amount not greater than 200 percent of 
     the amount involved.
       ``(d) Unexpended Funds.--Any amount received by an eligible 
     Senate candidate under this title and not expended on or 
     before the date of the general election shall be repaid 
     within 30 days of the election, except that a reasonable 
     amount may be retained for a period not exceeding 120 days 
     after the date of the general election for the liquidation of 
     all obligations to pay expenditures for the general election 
     incurred during the general election period. At the end of 
     such 120-day period, any unexpended funds received under this 
     title shall be promptly repaid.
       ``(e) Limit on Period for Notification.--No notification 
     shall be made by the Commission under this section with 
     respect to an election more than 3 years after the date of 
     such election.

     ``SEC. 523. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       ``(a) Judicial Review.--Any agency action by the Commission 
     made under the provisions of this title shall be subject to 
     review by the United States Court of Appeals for the District 
     of Columbia Circuit upon petition filed in such court within 
     30 days after the agency action by the Commission for which 
     review is sought. It shall be the duty of the Court of 
     Appeals, ahead of all matters not filed under this title, to 
     advance on the docket and expeditiously take action on all 
     petitions filed pursuant to this title.
       ``(b) Application of Title 5.--The provisions of chapter 7 
     of title 5, United States Code, shall apply to judicial 
     review of any agency action by the Commission.
       ``(c) Agency Action.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term `agency action' has the meaning given such term by 
     section 551(13) of title 5, United States Code.

     ``SEC. 524. REPORTS TO CONGRESS; CERTIFICATIONS; REGULATIONS.

       ``(a) Reports.--The Commission shall, as soon as 
     practicable after each election, submit a full report to the 
     Senate and House of Representatives setting forth--
       ``(1) the expenditures (shown in such detail as the 
     Commission determines appropriate) made by each eligible 
     candidate and the authorized committees of such candidate;
       ``(2) the amounts of benefits certified by the Commission 
     as available to each eligible candidate under this title; and
       ``(3) the amount of repayments, if any, required under 
     section 522, and the reasons for each repayment required.
       ``(b) Determinations by Commission.--Subject to sections 
     522 and 523, all determinations (including certifications 
     under section 521) made by the Commission under this title 
     shall be final and conclusive.
       ``(c) Rules and Regulations.--The Commission is authorized 
     to prescribe such rules and regulations, in accordance with 
     the provisions of subsection (d), to conduct such audits, 
     examinations and investigations, and to require the keeping 
     and submission of such books, records, and information, as it 
     deems necessary to carry out the functions and duties imposed 
     on it by this title.
       ``(d) Report of Proposed Regulations.--The Commission shall 
     submit to the House of Representatives and to the Senate a 
     report containing a detailed explanation and justification of 
     each rule and regulation of the Commission under this title. 
     No such rule, regulation, or form may take effect until a 
     period of 30 calendar days has elapsed after the report is 
     received. As used in this subsection, the terms `rule' and 
     `regulation' mean a provision or series of interrelated 
     provisions stating a single, separable rule of law.

     ``SEC. 525. CLOSED CAPTIONING REQUIREMENT FOR TELEVISION 
                   COMMERCIALS OF ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES.

       ``No eligible Senate candidate may receive amounts under 
     subtitle A unless such candidate has certified that any 
     television commercial prepared or distributed by the 
     candidate will be prepared in a manner that contains, is 
     accompanied by, or otherwise readily permits closed 
     captioning of the oral content of the commercial to be 
     broadcast by way of line 21 of the vertical blanking 
     interval, or by way of comparable successor technologies.
           ``Subtitle C--Congressional Election Campaign Fund

     ``SEC. 531. ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF THE FUND.

       ``(a) In General.--There is hereby established on the books 
     of the Treasury of the United States a special fund to be 
     known as the Congressional Election Campaign Fund (hereafter 
     in this title referred to as the `Fund'). The amounts 
     designated for the Fund shall remain available without fiscal 
     year limitation for purposes of providing benefits under this 
     title and making expenditures for the administration of the 
     Fund. The Secretary shall maintain such accounts in the Fund 
     as may be required by this title or which the Secretary 
     determines to be necessary to carry out the provisions of 
     this title.
       ``(b) Payments Upon Certification.--Upon receipt of a 
     certification from the Commission under section 521, except 
     as provided in subsection (c), the Secretary shall issue 
     within 48 hours to an eligible candidate the amount of 
     payments certified by the Commission to the eligible 
     candidate out of the Fund.
       ``(c) Reductions in Payments if Funds Insufficient.--
       ``(1) In general.--If, at the time of a certification by 
     the Commission under section 521 for payment to an eligible 
     candidate, the Secretary determines that the monies in the 
     Fund are not, or may not be, sufficient to satisfy the full 
     entitlement of all eligible candidates, the Secretary shall 
     withhold from the amount of such payment such amount as the 
     Secretary determines to be necessary to assure that each 
     eligible candidate will receive the same pro rata share of 
     such candidate's full entitlement.
       ``(2) Payment upon finding of sufficient monies.--Amounts 
     withheld under paragraph (1) shall be paid during the same 
     election cycle when the Secretary determines that there are 
     sufficient monies in the Fund to pay all, or a portion 
     thereof, to all eligible candidates from whom amounts have 
     been withheld, except that if only a portion is to be paid, 
     it shall be paid in such manner that each eligible candidate 
     receives an equal pro rata share of such portion.
       ``(3) Estimates.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than March 31 of any calendar 
     year in which there is a regularly scheduled general 
     election, the Secretary, after consultation with the 
     Commission, shall make an estimate of--
       ``(i) the amount of monies in the Fund which will be 
     available to make payments required by this title in the 
     succeeding calendar year, taking into account the amounts 
     estimated to be transferred to the Fund during the calendar 
     year of the election; and
       ``(ii) the amount of expenditures which will be required 
     under this title in such calendar year.
       ``(B) Notice of estimated reduction.--If the Secretary 
     determines that there will be insufficient monies in the Fund 
     to make the expenditures required by this title for any 
     calendar year, the Secretary shall notify each candidate on 
     April 30 of such calendar year (or, if later, the date on 
     which an individual becomes a candidate) of the amount which 
     the Secretary estimates will be the pro rata reduction in 
     each eligible candidate's payments under this subsection. 
     Such notice shall be by registered mail.
       ``(d) Notification.--The Secretary shall notify the 
     Commission and each eligible candidate by registered mail of 
     any reduction of any payment by reason of subsection (c).

     ``SEC. 532. DESIGNATION OF RECEIPTS TO THE FUND.

       ``(a) Appropriation.--There are hereby appropriated to the 
     Fund the following amounts:
       ``(1) Designated amounts.--Amounts designated to the Fund 
     under sections 6096(a)(2) and 6097 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986.
       ``(2) Payments and penalties.--Payments and civil penalties 
     received by the Commission under section 522.
       ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--These are 
     authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year to the 
     Fund the excess (if any) of--
       ``(1) the aggregate payments required to be made from the 
     Fund under this title for the fiscal year, over
       ``(2) the sum of the balance in the Fund as of the close of 
     the preceding fiscal year plus

[[Page S811]]

     amounts paid into the Fund under subsection (a).''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to elections occurring after December 31, 1998.

     SEC. 102. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       Title III of FECA is amended by adding after section 304 
     the following new sections:


             ``REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR SENATE CANDIDATES

       ``Sec. 304A. (a) Candidate Other Than Eligible Senate 
     Candidate.--(1) Each candidate for the office of United 
     States Senator who does not file a certification with the 
     Secretary of the Senate under section 503(b)(2) shall file 
     with the Secretary of the Senate a declaration as to whether 
     such candidate intends to make expenditures for any primary, 
     runoff, or general election in excess of the expenditure 
     limit applicable to an eligible Senate candidate under 
     section 501. Such declaration shall be filed at the time 
     provided in section 503(b)(2)(B).
       ``(2) Any candidate for the United States Senate who 
     qualifies for the ballot for a general election--
       ``(A) who is not an eligible Senate candidate under section 
     503; and
       ``(B) who either raises aggregate contributions, or makes 
     or obligates to make aggregate expenditures, for any primary, 
     runoff, or general election which exceed 75 percent of the 
     expenditure limit applicable to an eligible Senate candidate 
     under section 501,

     shall file a report with the Secretary of the Senate within 2 
     business days after such contributions have been raised or 
     such expenditures have been made or obligated to be made (or, 
     if later, within 2 business days after the date of 
     qualification for the general election ballot), setting forth 
     the candidate's total contributions and total expenditures 
     for such election as of such date. Thereafter, such candidate 
     shall file additional reports (until such contributions or 
     expenditures exceed 200 percent of such limit) with the 
     Secretary of the Senate within 2 business days after each 
     time additional contributions are raised, or expenditures are 
     made or are obligated to be made, which in the aggregate 
     exceed an amount equal to 10 percent of such limit and after 
     the total contributions or expenditures exceed 100, 120, 140, 
     160, 180, and 200 percent of such limit.
       ``(3) The Commission--
       ``(A) shall, within 2 business days of receipt of a 
     declaration or report under paragraph (1) or (2), notify each 
     eligible Senate candidate in the election involved about such 
     declaration or report; and
       ``(B) if an opposing candidate has raised aggregate 
     contributions, or made or has obligated to make aggregate 
     expenditures, in excess of the applicable election 
     expenditure limit under section 501, shall certify, pursuant 
     to the provisions of subsection (d), such eligibility for 
     payment of any amount to which such eligible Senate candidate 
     is entitled under section 504(a).
       ``(4) Notwithstanding the reporting requirements under this 
     subsection, the Commission may make its own determination 
     that a candidate in a general election who is not an eligible 
     Senate candidate has raised aggregate contributions, or made 
     or has obligated to make aggregate expenditures, in the 
     amounts which would require a report under paragraph (2). The 
     Commission shall, within 2 business days after making each 
     such determination, notify each eligible Senate candidate in 
     the election involved about such determination, and shall, 
     when such contributions or expenditures exceed the election 
     expenditure limit under section 501, certify (pursuant to the 
     provisions of subsection (d)) such candidate's eligibility 
     for payment of any amount under section 504(a).
       ``(b) Reports on Personal Funds.--(1) Any candidate for the 
     United States Senate who during the election cycle expends 
     more than the limitation under section 502 during the 
     election cycle from his personal funds, the funds of his 
     immediate family, and personal loans incurred by the 
     candidate and the candidate's immediate family shall file a 
     report with the Secretary of the Senate within 2 business 
     days after such expenditures have been made or loans 
     incurred.
       ``(2) The Commission within 2 business days after a report 
     has been filed under paragraph (1) shall notify each eligible 
     Senate candidate in the election involved about each such 
     report.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding the reporting requirements under this 
     subsection, the Commission may make its own determination 
     that a candidate for the United States Senate has made 
     expenditures in excess of the amount under paragraph (1). The 
     Commission within 2 business days after making such 
     determination shall notify each eligible Senate candidate in 
     the general election involved about each such determination.
       ``(c) Certifications.--Notwithstanding section 521(a), the 
     certification required by this section shall be made by the 
     Commission on the basis of reports filed in accordance with 
     the provisions of this Act, or on the basis of the 
     Commission's own investigation or determination.
       ``(d) Shorter Periods for Reports and Notices During 
     Election Week.--Any report, determination, or notice required 
     by reason of an event occurring during the 7-day period 
     ending with the general election shall be made within 24 
     hours (rather than 2 business days) of the event.
       ``(e) Copies of Reports and Public Inspection.--The 
     Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of any report 
     or filing received under this section or under subtitle A of 
     title V as soon as possible (but no later than 4 working 
     hours of the Commission) after receipt of such report or 
     filing, and shall make such report or filing available for 
     public inspection and copying in the same manner as the 
     Commission under section 311(a)(4), and shall preserve such 
     reports and filings in the same manner as the Commission 
     under section 311(a)(5).
       ``(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, any term 
     used in this section which is used in title V shall have the 
     same meaning as when used in title V.''

     SEC. 103. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN INDEPENDENT 
                   EXPENDITURES.

       Section 304(c) of FECA (2 U.S.C. 434(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking the undesignated matter 
     after subparagraph (C);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (8); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (2), as amended by 
     paragraph (1), the following new paragraphs:
       ``(3)(A) Any person (including a political committee) 
     making, obligating to make, or intending to make independent 
     expenditures (including those described in subsection 
     (b)(6)(B)(iii)) with respect to a candidate in an election 
     aggregating $1,000 or more shall file a report within 24 
     hours after the date on which such person takes such action. 
     An additional report shall be filed each time the person 
     makes, obligates to make, or intends to make independent 
     expenditures aggregating $1,000 or more are made with respect 
     to the same candidate after the latest report filed under 
     this subparagraph.
       ``(B) A report under subparagraph (A) shall be filed with 
     the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the Secretary of 
     the Senate, or the Commission, whichever is applicable, and 
     the Secretary of State of the State involved, and shall 
     identify each candidate whom the expenditure is actually 
     intended to support or to oppose. The Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate shall as soon 
     as possible (but not later than 4 working hours of the 
     Commission) after receipt of a report transmit it to the 
     Commission. Not later than 2 business days after the 
     Commission receives a report, the Commission shall transmit a 
     copy of the report to each candidate seeking nomination or 
     election to that office.
       ``(4) The Commission may, upon a request of a candidate or 
     on its own initiative, make its own determination that a 
     person has made, has incurred obligations to make, or intends 
     to make independent expenditures with respect to any 
     candidate in any election which in the aggregate exceed the 
     applicable amounts under paragraph (3). The Commission shall 
     notify each candidate in such election of such determination 
     within 2 business days after making it. Any determination 
     made at the request of a candidate shall be made within 48 
     hours of the request.
       ``(5) At the time at which an eligible Senate candidate is 
     notified under paragraph (3) or (4) with respect to 
     expenditures during a general election period, the Commission 
     shall certify eligibility to receive benefits under section 
     504.
       ``(6) The Clerk of the House of Representatives and the 
     Secretary of the Senate shall make any report received under 
     this subsection available for public inspection and copying 
     in the same manner as the Commission under section 311(a)(4), 
     and shall preserve such statements in the same manner as the 
     Commission under section 311(a)(5).
       ``(7)(A) A person that makes a reservation of broadcast 
     time to which section 315(a) of the Communications Act of 
     1947 (47 U.S.C. 315(a)) applies, the payment for which would 
     constitute an independent expenditure, shall at the time of 
     the reservation--
       ``(i) inform the broadcast licensee that payment for the 
     broadcast time will constitute an independent expenditure;
       ``(ii) inform the broadcast licensee of the names of all 
     candidates for the office to which the proposed broadcast 
     relates and state whether the message to be broadcast is 
     intended to be made in support of or in opposition to each 
     such candidate; and
       ``(iii) provide the broadcast licensee a copy of the report 
     described in paragraph (3).
       ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `broadcast' 
     includes any cablecast.''
     Subtitle B--Reduction in Limit on PAC Contributions to Senate 
                               Candidates

     SEC. 111. REDUCTION IN LIMIT ON PAC CONTRIBUTIONS TO SENATE 
                   CANDIDATES.

       Section 315(a)(2)(A) of FECA (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(2)(A)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) to any candidate and the candidate's authorized 
     political committees with respect to--
       ``(i) any election for Federal office (other than United 
     States Senator) which, in the aggregate, exceed $5,000, or
       ``(ii) any election for the office of United States Senator 
     which, in the aggregate, exceed $2,000.''
                   TITLE II--PUBLIC FINANCING SYSTEM

     SEC. 201. INCREASE IN CURRENT VOLUNTARY CHECKOFF SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--Section 6096(a) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to designation by individuals) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--Every individual (other than a 
     nonresident alien) whose income tax liability for the taxable 
     year is $10 or more may designate that $10 shall be paid over 
     to the Federal election campaign funds as follows:
       ``(1) $3 to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund in 
     accordance with the provisions of section 9006(a).

[[Page S812]]

       ``(2) $7 to the Congressional Election Campaign Fund in 
     accordance with the provisions of subtitle C of title V of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
     In the case of a joint return of a husband and wife having an 
     income tax liability of $20 or more, each spouse may 
     designate that $10 shall be paid as provided in the preceding 
     sentence.''
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 9006(a) is amended by 
     striking ``section 6096'' and inserting ``section 
     6096(a)(1)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1996.

     SEC. 202. VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION 
                   CAMPAIGN FUND.

       (a) General Rule.--Part VIII of subchapter A of chapter 61 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to returns and 
     records) is amended by adding at the end the following:

    ``Subpart B--Designation of Additional Amounts to Congressional 
                         Election Campaign Fund

``Sec. 6097. Designation of additional amounts.

     ``SEC. 6097. DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS.

       ``(a) General Rule.--Every individual (other than a 
     nonresident alien) who files an income tax return for any 
     taxable year may designate an additional amount which is not 
     less than $1 and not more than $5,000 to be paid over to the 
     Congressional Election Campaign Fund established under 
     subtitle C of title V of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971.
       ``(b) Manner and Time of Designation.--A designation under 
     subsection (a) may be made for any taxable year only at the 
     time of filing the income tax return for the taxable year. 
     Such designation shall be made on the page bearing the 
     taxpayer's signature.
       ``(c) Treatment of Additional Amounts.--Any additional 
     amount designated under subsection (a) for any taxable year 
     shall, for all purposes of law, be treated as an additional 
     income tax imposed by chapter 1 for such taxable year.
       ``(d) Income Tax Return.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term `income tax return' means the return of the tax imposed 
     by chapter 1.''
       (b) Deductibility of Contributions.--
       (1) In general.--Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional 
     itemized deductions for individuals) is amended by 
     redesignating section 221 as section 222 and by inserting 
     after section 220 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 221. CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 
                   FUND.

       ``There shall be allowed as a deduction for any taxable 
     year an amount equal to the lesser of--
       ``(1) the amount designated on the income tax return for 
     the taxable year under section 6097(a), or
       ``(2) $100 ($200 in the case of a joint return).''
       (2) Above-the-line deduction.--Section 62(a) of such Code 
     is amended by adding after paragraph (16) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(17) Congressional campaign fund contributions.--The 
     deduction allowed by section 221.''
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Part VIII of subchapter A of chapter 61 of such Code is 
     amended by striking the heading and inserting:

     ``PART VIII--DESIGNATION OF AMOUNTS TO ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUNDS

``Subpart A. Federal Election Campaign Funds.
``Subpart B. Designation of additional amounts to Congressional 
              Election Campaign Fund.

            ``Subpart A--Federal Election Campaign Funds''.

       (2) The table of parts for subchapter A of chapter 61 of 
     such Code is amended by striking the item relating to part 
     VIII and inserting:

``Part VIII. Designation of amounts to election campaign funds.''
       (3) The table of sections for part VII of subchapter B of 
     chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 221 and inserting:

``Sec. 221. Contributions to Congressional Election Campaign Fund.
``Sec. 222. Cross reference.''
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1996.
   TITLE III--PROVISIONS RELATING TO SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES

     SEC. 301. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

       Title III of FECA (2 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 324. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

       ``(a) National Committees.--A national committee of a 
     political party (including a national congressional campaign 
     committee of a political party, an entity that is 
     established, financed, maintained, or controlled by the 
     national committee, a national congressional campaign 
     committee of a political party, and an officer or agent of 
     any such party or entity but not including an entity 
     regulated under subsection (b)) shall not solicit or receive 
     any contributions, donations, or transfers of funds, or spend 
     any funds, not subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and 
     reporting requirements of this Act.
       ``(b) State, District, and Local Committees.--
       ``(1) Limitation.--Any amount that is expended or disbursed 
     by a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     (including an entity that is established, financed, 
     maintained, or controlled by a State, district, or local 
     committee of a political party and an agent or officer of any 
     such committee or entity) during a calendar year in which a 
     Federal election is held, for any activity that might affect 
     the outcome of a Federal election, including any voter 
     registration or get-out-the-vote activity, any generic 
     campaign activity, and any communication that identifies a 
     candidate (regardless of whether a candidate for State or 
     local office is also mentioned or identified) shall be made 
     from funds subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and 
     reporting requirements of this Act.
       ``(2) Activity not included in paragraph (1).--
       ``(A) In general.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an 
     expenditure or disbursement made by a State, district, or 
     local committee of a political party for--
       ``(i) a contribution to a candidate for State or local 
     office if the contribution is not designated or otherwise 
     earmarked to pay for an activity described in paragraph (1);
       ``(ii) the costs of a State, district, or local political 
     convention;
       ``(iii) the non-Federal share of a State, district, or 
     local party committee's administrative and overhead expenses 
     (but not including the compensation in any month of any 
     individual who spends more than 20 percent of the 
     individual's time on activity during the month that may 
     affect the outcome of a Federal election) except that for 
     purposes of this paragraph, the non-Federal share of a party 
     committee's administrative and overhead expenses shall be 
     determined by applying the ratio of the non-Federal 
     disbursements to the total Federal expenditures and non-
     Federal disbursements made by the committee during the 
     previous presidential election year to the committee's 
     administrative and overhead expenses in the election year in 
     question;
       ``(iv) the costs of grassroots campaign materials, 
     including buttons, bumper stickers, and yard signs that name 
     or depict only a candidate for State or local office; and
       ``(v) the cost of any campaign activity conducted solely on 
     behalf of a clearly identified candidate for State or local 
     office, if the candidate activity is not an activity 
     described in paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Fundraising.--Any amount that is expended or 
     disbursed by a national, State, district, or local committee, 
     by an entity that is established, financed, maintained, or 
     controlled by a State, district, or local committee of a 
     political party, or by an agent or officer of any such 
     committee or entity to raise funds that are used, in whole or 
     in part, to pay the costs of an activity described in 
     subparagraph (A) shall be made from funds subject to the 
     limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this 
     Act.
       ``(c) Tax-Exempt Organizations.--No national, State, 
     district, or local committee of a political party shall 
     solicit any funds for or make any donations to an 
     organization that is exempt from Federal taxation under 
     section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(d) Candidates.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no 
     candidate, individual holding Federal office, or agent of a 
     candidate or individual holding Federal office may--
       ``(A) solicit or receive funds in connection with an 
     election for Federal office unless the funds are subject to 
     the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of 
     this Act; or
       ``(B) solicit or receive funds that are to be expended in 
     connection with any election for other than a Federal 
     election unless the funds--
       ``(i) are not in excess of the amounts permitted with 
     respect to contributions to candidates and political 
     committees under section 315(a) (1) and (2); and
       ``(ii) are not from sources prohibited by this Act from 
     making contributions with respect to an election for Federal 
     office.
       ``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to the 
     solicitation or receipt of funds by an individual who is a 
     candidate for a State or local office if the solicitation or 
     receipt of funds is permitted under State law for the 
     individual's State or local campaign committee.''

     SEC. 302. STATE PARTY GRASSROOTS FUNDS.

       (a) Individual Contributions.--Section 315(a)(1) of FECA (2 
     U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) to--
       ``(i) a State Party Grassroots Fund established and 
     maintained by a State committee of a political party in any 
     calendar year which, in the aggregate, exceed $20,000; and
       ``(ii) any other political committee established and 
     maintained by a State committee of a political party in any 
     calendar year which, in the aggregate, exceed $5,000;

     except that the aggregate contributions described in this 
     subparagraph that may be made by a person to the State Party 
     Grassroots Fund and all committees of a State Committee of a 
     political party in any State

[[Page S813]]

     in any calendar year shall not exceed $20,000; or''.
       (b) Multicandidate Committee Contributions to State 
     Party.--Section 315(a)(2) of FECA (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(2)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) to--
       ``(i) a State Party Grassroots Fund established and 
     maintained by a State committee of a political party in any 
     calendar year which in the aggregate, exceed $15,000; and
       ``(ii) any other political committee established and 
     maintained by a State committee of a political party which, 
     in the aggregate, exceed $5,000;

     except that the aggregate contributions described in this 
     subparagraph that may be made by a multicandidate political 
     committee to the State Party Grassroots Fund and all 
     committees of a State Committee of a political party in any 
     State in any calendar year shall not exceed $15,000; or''.
       (c) Overall Limit.--
       (1) In general.--Section 315(a) of FECA (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)) 
     is amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(3) Overall limit.--
       ``(A) Election cycle.--No individual shall make 
     contributions during any election cycle that, in the 
     aggregate, exceed $60,000.
       ``(B) Calendar year.--No individual shall make 
     contributions during any calendar year--
       ``(i) to all candidates and their authorized political 
     committees that, in the aggregate, exceed $25,000; or
       ``(ii) to all political committees established and 
     maintained by State committees of a political party that, in 
     the aggregate, exceed $20,000.
       ``(C) Nonelection years.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (B)(i), any contribution made to a candidate or the 
     candidate's authorized political committees in a year other 
     than the calendar year in which the election is held with 
     respect to which the contribution is made shall be treated as 
     being made during the calendar year in which the election is 
     held.''
       (2) Definition.--Section 301 of FECA (2 U.S.C. 431) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(20) Election cycle.--The term `election cycle' means--
       ``(A) in the case of a candidate or the authorized 
     committees of a candidate, the period beginning on the day 
     after the date of the most recent general election for the 
     specific office or seat that the candidate seeks and ending 
     on the date of the next general election for that office or 
     sea; and
       ``(B) in the case of all other persons, 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.''
       (d) State Party Grassroots Funds.--
       (1) In general.--Title III of FECA (2 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) 
     (as amended by section 301) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 325. STATE PARTY GRASSROOTS FUNDS.

       ``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `State or 
     local candidate committee' means a committee established, 
     financed, maintained, or controlled by a candidate for other 
     than Federal office.
       ``(b) Transfers.--Notwithstanding section 315(a)(4), no 
     funds may be transferred by a State committee of a political 
     party from its State Party Grassroots Fund to any other State 
     Party Grassroots Fund or to any other political committee, 
     except a transfer may be made to a district or local 
     committee of the same political party in the same State if 
     the district or local committee--
       ``(1) has established a separate segregated fund for the 
     purposes described in section 324(b)(1); and
       ``(2) uses the transferred funds solely for those purposes.
       ``(c) Amounts Received by Grassroots Funds From State and 
     Local Candidate Committees.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any amount received by a State Party 
     Grassroots Fund from a State or local candidate committee for 
     expenditures described in section 324(b)(1) that are for the 
     benefit of that candidate shall be treated as meeting the 
     requirements of 324(b)(1) and section 304(d) if--
       ``(A) the amount is derived from funds which meet the 
     requirements of this Act with respect to any limitation or 
     prohibition as to source or dollar amount specified in 
     section 315(a) (1)(A) and (2)(A); and
       ``(B) the State or local candidate committee--
       ``(i) maintains, in the account from which payment is made, 
     records of the sources and amounts of funds for purposes of 
     determining whether those requirements are met; and
       ``(ii) certifies that the requirements were met.
       ``(2) Determination of compliance.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1)(A), in determining whether the funds 
     transferred meet the requirements of this Act described in 
     paragraph (1)(A)--
       ``(A) a State or local candidate committee's cash on hand 
     shall be treated as consisting of the funds most recently 
     received by the committee; and
       ``(B) the committee must be able to demonstrate that its 
     cash on hand contains funds meeting those requirements 
     sufficient to cover the transferred funds.
       ``(3) Reporting.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any State 
     Party Grassroots Fund that receives a transfer described in 
     paragraph (1) from a State or local candidate committee shall 
     be required to meet the reporting requirements of this Act, 
     and shall submit to the Commission all certifications 
     received, with respect to receipt of the transfer from the 
     candidate committee.''
       (2) Definition.--Section 301 of FECA (2 U.S.C. 431) (as 
     amended by subsection (c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(21) State party grassroots fund.--The term `State Party 
     Grassroots Fund' means a separate segregated fund established 
     and maintained by a State committee of a political party 
     solely for the purpose of making expenditures and other 
     disbursements described in section 324(b).''

     SEC. 303. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Reporting Requirements.--Section 304 of FECA (2 U.S.C. 
     434) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Political Committees.--(1) The national committee of 
     a political party, any congressional campaign committee of a 
     political party, and any subordinate committee of either, 
     shall report all receipts and disbursements during the 
     reporting period, whether or not in connection with an 
     election for Federal office.
       ``(2) A political committee (not described in paragraph 
     (1)) to which section 324(b)(1) applies shall report all 
     receipts and disbursements.
       ``(3) Any political committee shall include in its report 
     under paragraph (1) or (2) the amount of any contribution 
     received by a national committee which is to be transferred 
     to a State committee for use directly (or primarily to 
     support) activities described in section 324(b)(2) and shall 
     itemize such amounts to the extent required by subsection 
     (b)(3)(A).
       ``(4) Any political committee to which paragraph (1) or (2) 
     does not apply shall report any receipts or disbursements 
     that are used in connection with a Federal election.
       ``(5) If a political committee has receipts or 
     disbursements to which this subsection applies from any 
     person aggregating in excess of $200 for any calendar year, 
     the political committee shall separately itemize its 
     reporting for such person in the same manner as required in 
     subsection (b) (3)(A), (5), or (6).
       ``(6) Reports required to be filed under this subsection 
     shall be filed for the same time periods required for 
     political committees under subsection (a).''
       (b) Report of Exempt Contributions.--Section 301(8) of FECA 
     (2 U.S.C. 431(8)) is amended by inserting at the end the 
     following:
       ``(C) The exclusion provided in subparagraph (B)(viii) 
     shall not apply for purposes of any requirement to report 
     contributions under this Act, and all such contributions 
     aggregating in excess of $200 shall be reported.''
       (c) Reports by State Committees.--Section 304 of FECA (2 
     U.S.C. 434), as amended by subsection (a), is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Filing of State Reports.--In lieu of any report 
     required to be filed by this Act, the Commission may allow a 
     State committee of a political party to file with the 
     Commission a report required to be filed under State law if 
     the Commission determines such reports contain substantially 
     the same information.''
       (d) Other Reporting Requirements.--
       (1) Authorized committees.--Section 304(b)(4) of FECA (2 
     U.S.C. 434(b)(4)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (H);
       (B) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (I); 
     and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(J) in the case of an authorized committee, disbursements 
     for the primary election, the general election, and any other 
     election in which the candidate participates;''.
       (2) Names and addresses.--Section 304(b)(5)(A) of FECA (2 
     U.S.C. 434(b)(5)(A)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``within the calendar year''; and
       (B) by inserting ``, and the election to which the 
     operating expenditure relates'' after ``operating 
     expenditure''.
  TITLE IV--PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY INDIVIDUALS INELIGIBLE TO 
                                  VOTE

     SEC. 401. PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY INDIVIDUALS 
                   INELIGIBLE TO VOTE.

       (a) Prohibition.--Section 319 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441e) is amended--
       (1) in the heading by adding ``AND INDIVIDUALS NOT 
     QUALIFIED TO REGISTER TO VOTE'' at the end; and
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``(a) It shall'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) Prohibitions.--
       ``(1) Foreign nationals.--It shall''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Individuals not qualified to vote.--It shall be 
     unlawful for an individual who is not qualified to register 
     to vote in a Federal election to make a contribution, or to 
     promise expressly or impliedly to make a contribution, in 
     connection with a Federal election; or for any person to 
     solicit, accept, or receive a contribution in connection with 
     a Federal election from an individual who is not qualified to 
     register to vote in a Federal election.''.

[[Page S814]]

       (b) Inclusion in Definition of Identification.--Section 
     301(13) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431(13)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' the first place it appears; and
       (B) by inserting ``, and an affirmation that the individual 
     is an individual who is not prohibited by section 319 from 
     making a contribution'' after ``employer''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B) by inserting ``and an affirmation 
     that the person is a person that is not prohibited by section 
     319 from making a contribution'' after ``such person''.
                                                                    ____


     Bumpers/Murray ``Public Confidence in Campaigns Act of 1997''


voluntary spending limits and public financing to restore faith in our 
                            political system

       Establishes Congressional Election Campaign Fund to provide 
     public financing to eligible Senate candidates who agree to 
     voluntary spending limits similar to McCain/Feingold. 
     Provides eligible candidates with matching funds in primary, 
     full public financing in the general election.
       The Fund is financed by expansion of the Presidential tax 
     return check-off from $3 to $10 and creation of a voluntary 
     tax return add-on allowing citizens to contribute to the 
     Fund. The first $100 contributed through the add-on is tax 
     deductible. ($200 for joint filers.)
       Eliminates soft money contributions to political parties.
       Requires reporting of independent expenditures, including 
     identification of the candidate the independent expenditure 
     seeks to support or oppose. Provides additional matching 
     funds to eligible candidates who are targeted by independent 
     expenditures of greater than $10,000.
       Reduces limit on PAC contributions to candidates to $2000 
     for the primary, $2000 for the general election.
       Prohibits contributions by foreign nationals and others who 
     are ineligible to vote in federal elections.
       Eligible candidates may not spend more than $10,000 of 
     their own funds.
       Applies to all elections held after December 31, 1998.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THURMOND (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 230. A bill to amend section 1951 of title 18, United States 
Code--commonly known as the Hobbs Act--and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                 hobbs anti-racketeering act amendments

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to 
amend the Hobbs Anti-Racketeering Act to reverse the 1973 Supreme Court 
decision in United States versus Enmons, and to address a serious, long 
term, festering problem under our Nation's labor laws. I am pleased to 
have Senator Hatch, chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, join me 
in introducing this bill. The United States regulates labor relations 
on a national basis and our labor management policies are national 
policies. These policies and regulations are enforced by laws such as 
the National Labor Relations Act that Congress designed to preempt 
comparable State laws.
  I believe it is time for the Government to act and respond to what 
the Supreme Court did when it rendered its decision in the case of 
United States versus Enmons in 1973. Although labor violence continues 
to be a widespread problem in labor management relations today, the 
Federal Government has not moved in a meaningful way to address this 
issue. It is this decision's unfortunate result which this bill is 
intended to rectify.
  The Enmons decision involved the Hobbs Anti-Racketeering Act which is 
intended to prohibit extortion by labor unions. It provides that: 
``Whoever in any way * * * obstructs, delays, or affects commerce in 
the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or 
extortion or attempts or conspires to do so or commits or threatens 
physical violence to any person or property  * * *'' commits a criminal 
act. This language clearly outlaws extortion by labor unions. It 
outlaws violence by labor unions.
  Although this language is very clear, the Supreme Court in Enmons 
created an exemption to the law which says that as long as a labor 
union commits extortion and violence in furtherance of legitimate 
collective-bargaining objectives, no violation of the act will be 
found. Simply put, the Court held that if the ends are permissible, the 
means to that end, no matter how horrible or reprehensible, will not 
result in a violation of the act.
  The Enmons decision is wrong. This bill will make it clear that the 
Hobbs Act is intended to punish the actual or threatened use of force 
or violence, or fear thereof, to obtain property irrespective of the 
legitimacy of the extortionist's claim to such property and 
irrespective of the existence of a labor management dispute.
  Let me discuss the Enmons case. In that case, the defendants were 
indicted for firing high-powered rifles at property, causing extensive 
damage to the property owned by a utility company--all done in an 
effort to obtain higher wages and other benefits from the company for 
striking employees. The indictment was, however, dismissed by the 
district court on the theory that the Hobbs Act did not prohibit the 
use of violence in obtaining legitimate union objectives. On appeal, 
the Supreme Court affirmed.
  The Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act does not proscribe violence 
committed during a lawful strike for the purpose of achieving 
legitimate collective-bargaining objectives, like higher wages. By its 
focus upon the motives and objectives of the property claimant who uses 
violence or force to achieve his or her goals, the Enmons decision has 
had several unfortunate results. It has deprived the Federal Government 
of the ability to punish significant acts of extortionate violence when 
they occur in a labor management context. Although other Federal 
statutes prohibit the use of specific devices or the use of channels of 
commerce in accomplishing the underlying act of extortionate violence, 
only the Hobbs Act proscribes a localized act of extortionate violence 
whose economic effect is to disrupt the channels of commerce. Other 
Federal statutes are not adequate to address the full effect of the 
Enmons decision.

  The Enmons decision affords parties to labor-management disputes an 
exemption from the statute's broad proscription against violence which 
is not available to any other group in society. This bill would make it 
clear that the Hobbs Act punishes the actual or threatened use of force 
and violence which is calculated to obtain property without regard to 
whether the extortionist has a colorable claim to such property, and 
without regard to his or her status as a labor representative, 
businessman, or private citizen.
  Mr. President, attempts to rectify the injustice of the Enmons 
decision have been before the Senate on several occasions. Shortly 
after the decision was handed down, a bill was introduced which was 
intended to repudiate the decision. Over the next several years, 
attempts were made to come up with language which was acceptable to 
organized labor and at the same time restored the original intent of 
the Hobbs Act.
  Although bills achieving the same goals as the bill I am introducing 
today have made progress and one even passed the Senate, none has been 
enacted. It is time for the Senate to re-examine this issue and to 
restate its opposition to violence in labor disputes. Encouraged by 
their special exemption from prosecution for acts of violence committed 
in pursuit of legitimate union objectives, union officials who are 
corrupt routinely use terror tactics to achieve their goals.
  From January 1975 to June 1996, the National Institute for Labor 
Relations Research has documented more than 8,700 reported cases of 
union violence. This chilling statistic gives clear testimony to the 
existence of a pervasive national problem.
  Mr. President, violence has no place in our society, regardless of 
the setting. Our national labor policy has always been directed toward 
the peaceful resolution of labor disputes. It is ironic that the Hobbs 
Act, which was enacted in large part to accomplish this worthy goal, 
has been virtually emasculated. The time has come to change that. I 
think that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share a common 
concern that violence in labor disputes, whatever the source, should be 
eliminated. Government has been unwilling to deal with this problem for 
too long. It is time for this Congress to act.
  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. 230

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

[[Page S815]]

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Freedom From Union Violence 
     Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. INTERFERENCE WITH COMMERCE BY THREATS OR VIOLENCE.

       Section 1951 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 1951. Interference with commerce by threats or 
       violence

       ``(a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (c), 
     whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects 
     commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in 
     commerce, by robbery or extortion, or attempts or conspires 
     so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any 
     person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do 
     anything in violation of this section, shall--
       ``(1) if death results, be fined in accordance with this 
     title, imprisoned for any term of years or for life or 
     sentenced to death, or both; or
       ``(2) in any other case, be fined in accordance with this 
     title, imprisoned for a term of not more than 20 years, or 
     both.
       ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `commerce' means any--
       ``(A) commerce within the District of Columbia, or any 
     territory or possession of the United States;
       ``(B) commerce between any point in a State, territory, 
     possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside 
     thereof;
       ``(C) commerce between points within the same State through 
     any place outside that State; and
       ``(D) other commerce over which the United States has 
     jurisdiction;
       ``(2) the term `extortion' means the obtaining of property 
     from any person, with the consent of that person, if that 
     consent is induced--
       ``(A) by actual or threatened use of force or violence, or 
     fear thereof; or
       ``(B) by wrongful use of fear not involving force or 
     violence; or
       ``(C) under color of official right;
       ``(3) the term `labor dispute' has the same meaning as in 
     section 2(9) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 
     152(9)); and
       ``(4) the term `robbery' means the unlawful taking or 
     obtaining of personal property from the person or in the 
     presence of another, against his or her will, by means of 
     actual or threatened force or violence, or fear of injury, 
     immediate or future--
       ``(A) to his or her person or property, or property in his 
     or her custody or possession; or
       ``(B) to the person or property of a relative or member of 
     his or her family, or of anyone in his or her company at the 
     time of the taking or obtaining.
       ``(c) Exempted Conduct.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subsection (a) does not apply to any 
     conduct that--
       ``(A) is incidental to otherwise peaceful picketing during 
     the course of a labor dispute;
       ``(B) consists solely of minor bodily injury, or minor 
     damage to property, or threat or fear of such minor injury or 
     damage; and
       ``(C) is not part of a pattern of violent conduct or of 
     coordinated violent activity.
       ``(2) State and local jurisdiction.--Any violation of this 
     section that involves any conduct described in paragraph (1) 
     shall be subject to prosecution only by the appropriate State 
     and local authorities.
       ``(d) Effect on Other Law.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed--
       ``(1) to repeal, amend, or otherwise affect--
       ``(A) section 6 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 17);
       ``(B) section 20 of the Clayton Act (29 U.S.C. 52);
       ``(C) any provision of the Norris-LaGuardia Act (29 U.S.C. 
     101 et seq.);
       ``(D) any provision of the National Labor Relations Act (29 
     U.S.C. 151 et seq.); or
       ``(E) any provision of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 
     et seq.); or
       ``(2) to preclude Federal jurisdiction over any violation 
     of this section, on the basis that the conduct at issue--
       ``(A) is also a violation of State or local law; or
       ``(B) occurred during the course of a labor dispute or in 
     pursuit of a legitimate business or labor objective.''.
      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 231. A bill to establish the National Cave and Karst Research 
Institute in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


       The National Cave and Karst Research Institute Act of 1997

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
create a National Cave and Karst Research Institute in Carlsbad, NM. 
This bill will continue the efforts started by Congress in 1988 to 
develop the information needed to effectively manage and preserve the 
Nation's cave and karst resources.
  In 1988, Congress directed the Secretaries of the Interior and 
Agriculture to provide an inventory of caves on Federal lands and to 
provide for the management and dissemination of information about the 
caves. The results of that effort have increased our awareness that 
cave and karst land forms are a resource we must learn how to manage 
for our future welfare. For example, in America, the majority of the 
Nation's fresh water is groundwater--25 percent of which is located in 
cave and karst regions. As we look to the 21st century, the protection 
of our groundwater resources is of critical importance, especially in 
the arid West. Furthermore, recent studies have indicated that caves 
contain valuable information related to global climate change, waste 
disposal, groundwater supply and contamination, petroleum recovery, and 
biomedical investigations. Caves also often have historical or cultural 
significance. Many have religious significance for native Americans. 
Yet, academic programs on these systems are virtually nonexistent; most 
research is conducted with little or no funding and the resulting data 
is scattered and often hard to locate.
  To begin addressing this problem, in 1990 Congress directed the 
National Park Service to establish a cave research program and to study 
the feasibility of a centralized cave and karst research institute. In 
December 1994, the National Park Service submitted to Congress the 
National Cave and Karst Research Institute Study. As directed by Public 
Law 101-578, the report studied the feasibility of creating a National 
Research Institute in the vicinity of Carlsbad Caverns National Park. 
The report not only supported the establishment of the National Cave 
and Karst Research Institute, but also concluded that now is the ideal 
time to consider it.
  The report to Congress lists several serious threats to our cave 
resources from continued uninformed management paractices. These 
threats include alterations in the surface waterflow patterns in karst 
regions, alternations in or pollution of water recharge zones, 
inappropriately placed toxic waste repositories, and poorly managed or 
designed sewage systems and landfills. The findings of the report 
conclude that it is only through a better understanding of cave 
resources that we can prevent detrimental impacts to America's natural 
resources and cave and karst systems.
  The goals of the National Cave and Karst Research Institute, as 
outlined in the report, would be to develop and centralize scientific 
knowledge of cave resources, foster interdisciplinary cooperation in 
cave and karst research programs, and to promote environmentally sound, 
sustainable resource management practices. The National Cave and Karst 
Research Institute would be jointly administered by the National Park 
Service and another public or private agency, organization, or 
institution as determined by the Secretary.
  Mr. President, the Park Service report to Congress also notes that 
the vicinity of Carlsbad Caverns National Park is ideal particularly in 
light of the incredibly diverse cave and karst resources found 
throughout the region and the community support which already exists 
for the establishment of the institute. Numerous varieties of world 
class caves are located nearby. Furthermore, the Carlsbad Department of 
Development, after reviewing the National Cave and Karst Research 
Institute study report, has developed proposals to obtain financial 
support from available and supportive organizational resources--
including personnel, facilities, equipment, and volunteers. The 
Department of Development also believes that it can obtain serious 
financial support from the private sector and would seek a matching 
grant from the State of New Mexico equal to the available Federal 
funds.
  Mr. President, my legislation will help provide the necessary tools 
to help discover the wealth of knowledge contained in these important, 
but largely unexplored landforms. Carlsbad, NM already has in place 
many of the needed cooperative institutions, facilities, and volunteers 
that will work toward the success of this project. It is imperative 
that we take advantage of these conditions and establish the National 
Cave and Karst Research Institute.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Murray, 
        Mr. Inouye, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 232. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
prohibit discrimination in the payment of wages on account of sex, 
race, or national origin, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Labor and Human Resources.

[[Page S816]]

                        the fair pay act of 1997

 Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, there is perhaps no other form of 
discrimination that has as direct an impact on the day-to-day lives of 
workers as wage discrimination. When women aren't paid what they are 
worth, we all get cheated.
  The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits sex-based discrimination in 
compensation for doing the same job. However, this statute fails to 
address other components of the pay equity problem such as job 
segregation. Current law has not reached far enough to combat wage 
discrimination when employers routinely pay lower wages to jobs that 
are dominated by women. More than 30 years after the passage of the 
Equal Pay Act, women's wages still lag behind their male counterparts' 
wages. This important issue demands our attention.
  In the last Congress, I introduced the Fair Pay Act so we could close 
the wage gap once and for all. I am reintroducing this legislation in 
the 105th Congress so we can continue to fight for fairness on behalf 
of working families.
  The Fair Pay Act is designed to pick up where the Equal Pay Act left 
off. The heart of the bill seeks to eliminate wage discrimination based 
upon sex, race, or national origin. This important legislation would 
amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to require employers to 
provide equal pay for work in jobs that are comparable in skill, 
effort, responsibility, and working conditions. The Fair Pay Act would 
apply to each company individually and would prohibit companies from 
reducing employees' wages to achieve pay equity.
  Wage gaps can result from differences in education, experience, or 
time in the work force and the Fair Pay Act does not interfere with 
that. But just as there is a glass ceiling in the American workplace, 
there is also what I call a glass wall--where women are on the exact 
same level as their male coworkers. They have the same skills, they 
have the same responsibilities, but they are still obstructed from 
receiving the same pay. It's a hidden barrier, but a barrier all the 
same. The Fair Pay Act is about knocking down the glass wall. It's a 
fundamental issue of fairness to provide equal pay for work of equal 
value to an employer.
  Fair pay is a commonsense business issue. Women make up almost half 
of the work force and fair pay is essential to attract and keep good 
workers.
  Fair pay is an economic issue. Working women, after all, don't get 
special discounts when they buy food and clothing for their families. 
They don't pay less for a ticket to the movies or gasoline for their 
cars.
  And fair pay is a family issue. When women aren't paid what they are 
worth, families get cheated too. Over a lifetime the average woman 
loses $420,000 due to unequal pay practices. Such gaps in income are 
life changing for women and their families. The income gap can mean the 
difference between welfare and self-sufficiency, owning a home or 
renting, sending kids to college or to a minimum wage job, or having a 
secure retirement tomorrow instead of scrimping to survive today.
  The Fair Pay Act has already been endorsed by a wide variety of 
groups and organizations. In addition, polling data consistently shows 
that over 70 percent of the American people support a law requiring the 
same pay for men and women in jobs requiring skills and 
responsibilities. The American people want fair pay legislation. Their 
elected representatives ought to want it too.
  I would ask my colleagues to review this important legislation and 
come to me or my staff with any questions you may have. I welcome your 
comments and suggestions and urge your support. It's a simple issue of 
fairness for women to earn equal pay for work of equal value to an 
employer.
 Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am privileged to join Senator Tom 
Harkin to introduce the Fair Pay Act.
  Early in the next century, women--for the first time ever--will 
outnumber men in the U.S. workplace. In 1965, women held 35 percent of 
all jobs. That has grown to more than 46 percent today. And in a few 
years, women will make up a majority of the work force.
  Fortunately, there are more business and career opportunities for 
working women today than 30 years ago. Unlike 1965, Federal, State, and 
private sector programs now offer women many opportunities to choose 
their own future. Working women also have opportunities to gain the 
knowledge and skills to achieve their own economic security.
  But despite these gains, working women still face a unique 
challenge--achieving pay equity. Women currently earn, on average, 28 
percent less than men. That means for every dollar a man earns, a woman 
earns only 72 cents. Over a lifetime, the average woman will earn 
$420,000 less than the average man based solely on her sex. This is 
unacceptable.
  We must correct this gross inequity, and we must correct it now.
  How is this possible with our Federal laws prohibiting 
discrimination? It is possible because we in Congress have failed to 
protect one of the most fundamental human rights--the right to be paid 
fairly for an honest day's work.
  Unfortunately, our laws ignore wage discrimination against women, 
which continues to fester like a cancer in workplaces across the 
country. The Fair Pay Act of 1997 would close this legal loophole by 
prohibiting discrimination based on wages.
  I do not pretend that this act will solve all the problems that women 
face in the workplace. But it is an essential piece of the puzzle.
  Equal pay for equal work is often a subtle problem that is difficult 
to combat. And it does not stand alone as an issue that women face in 
the workplace. It is deeply intertwined with the problem of unequal 
opportunity. Closing this loophole is not enough if we fail to provide 
the opportunity for women, regardless of their merit, to reach higher 
paying positions.
  The Government, by itself, cannot change the attitudes and 
perceptions of individuals or private businesses in hiring and 
advancing women, but it can set an example. Certainly, President 
Clinton has shown great leadership by appointing an unprecedented 
number of women to his administration. Just last week, Madeleine 
Albright became the first woman Secretary of State for the United 
States of America. I am confident she will do a great job, and I look 
forward to the day when a woman reaching this high an office is not 
news simply because of her gender. We are moving toward that day, but 
we are not there yet.
  The private sector also has a long way to go to provide equal 
opportunity. The report released recently by the Glass Ceiling 
Commission found that 95 percent of the senior managers of Fortune 1000 
industrial and Fortune 500 companies are white males. The Glass Ceiling 
Commission also found that when there are women in high places, their 
compensation is lower than white males in similar positions. This wage 
inequality is the issue we seek to address today.
  For the first time in our country's long history, this bill outlaws 
discrimination in wages paid to employees in equivalent jobs solely on 
the basis of a worker's sex. I say it is about time. I commend Senator 
Harkin for introducing the Fair Pay Act, and I am proud to be an 
original cosponsor of it.
  The Fair Pay Act would remedy gender wage gaps under a balanced 
approach that takes advantage of the employment expertise of the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], while providing flexibility 
to small employers . In addition, it would safeguard legitimate wage 
differences caused by a seniority or merit pay system. And the 
legislation directs the EEOC to provide educational materials and 
technical assistance to help employers design fair pay policies.
  A few months ago, I was privileged to help organize the first annual 
Vermont Women's Economic Security Conference in Burlington, VT. At this 
conference, I heard about the daily triumph of Vermont women succeeding 
in the workplace, even though many of them are paid below their male 
counterparts. These woman did not complain. No, they are proud to be 
earning a living. But they want to be paid fairly, and they should be 
paid fairly.
  It is a basic issue of fairness to provide equal pay for work of 
equal value. The Fair Pay Act makes it possible for women to finally 
achieve this fundamental fairness. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 233. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 
the

[[Page S817]]

deduction for health insurance costs of self-employed individuals, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                   THE SMALL BUSINESS ENHANCEMENT ACT

 Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I introduce legislation designed to 
help America's small business. This legislation will assist small 
businesses by increasing the tax deduction for health care coverage, 
requiring an estimate of the cost of a bill on small businesses before 
Congress enacts the legislation, and creating an assistant U.S. Trade 
Representative for Small Business.
  Small business is the driving force behind our economy, and in order 
to create jobs--both in my home State of Maine and across the Nation--
we must encourage small businesses expansion. Businesses with fewer 
than 10 employees make up 77 percent of Maine's jobs, and nationally, 
small businesses employ 53 percent of the private work force. In 1995, 
small businesses created an estimated 75 percent of the 2.5 million new 
jobs. Small businesses truly are the backbone of our economy.
  Small businesses are the most successful tool we have for job 
creation. They provide about 67 percent of the initial job 
opportunities in this country, and are the original--and finest--job 
training program. Unfortunately, as much as small businesses help our 
own economy--and the Federal Government--by creating jobs and building 
economic growth, government often gets in the way. Instead of assisting 
small business, government too often frustrates small business efforts.
  Federal regulations create more than 1 billion hours of paperwork for 
small businesses each year, according to the Small Business 
Administration. Moreover, because of the size of some of the largest 
American corporations, U.S. commerce officials too often devote a 
disproportionate amount of time to the needs and jobs in corporate 
America rather than in small businesses.
  My legislation will address three problems facing our Nation's small 
businesses, and I hope it will both encourage small business expansion 
and fuel job creation.
  First, this legislation will allow self-employed small business men 
and women to fully deduct their health care costs for income tax 
purposes. This provision builds on legislation enacted during the 104th 
Congress, the Health Insurance Reform Act, which increased the health 
insurance deduction for the self-employed from 30 to 35 percent this 
year and will gradually increase it to 80 percent by the year 2006.
  My bill will allow the self-employed to deduct 100 percent of their 
insurance today. It will place small entrepreneurs on equal footing 
with larger companies by immediately increasing a provision in current 
law that limits deductions to 35 percent of the overall cost. At a time 
when America is facing challenges to its health care system, and the 
Federal Government is seeking remedies to the problem of uninsured 
citizens, this provision will help self-employed business people to 
afford health insurance without imposing a costly and unnecessary 
mandate.
  From inventors to startup businesses, self-employed workers make up 
an important and vibrant part of the small business sector--and too 
often they are forgotten in providing benefits and assistance. Indeed, 
9 percent of uninsured workers in America are self-employed. By 
extending tax credits for health insurance to these small businesses, 
we will help to provide health care coverage to millions of Americans.
  My bill will also require a cost analysis of legislative proposals 
before new requirements are passed on to small businesses. Too often, 
Congress approves well-intended legislation that shift the costs of 
programs to small businesses. This proposal will ensure that these 
unintended consequences are not passed along to small businesses. 
According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, small business 
owners spend at least 1 billion hours a year filling out government 
paperwork, at an annual cost that exceeds $100 billion. Before we place 
yet another obstacle in the path of small business job creation, we 
should understand the costs our proposals will impose on small 
businesses.
  This bill will require the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office to prepare for each committee an analysis of the costs to small 
businesses that would be incurred in carrying out provisions contained 
in new legislation. This cost analysis will include an estimate of 
costs incurred in carrying out the bill or resolution for a 4-year 
period, as well as an estimate of the portion of these costs that would 
be borne by small businesses. This provision will allow us to fully 
consider the impact of our actions on small businesses--and through 
careful planning, we will succeed in avoiding unintended costs.
  Finally, this legislation will direct the U.S. Trade Representative 
to establish a position of Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for 
Small Business. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is 
overburdened, and too often overlooks the needs of small business. The 
new Assistant U.S. Trade Representative will promote exports by small 
businesses and work to remove foreign impediments to these exports.
  Mr. President, I am convinced that this legislation will truly assist 
small businesses, resulting not only in additional entrepreneurial 
opportunities but also in new jobs. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HELMS:
  S. 234. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer 
administrative jurisdiction over certain land to the Secretary of the 
Army to facilitate construction of a jetty and sand transfer system, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


                THE OREGON INLET PROTECTION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in offering today the Oregon Inlet 
Protection Act of 1997, I must emphasize that this legislation is vital 
to thousands of North Carolinians, especially citizens who work along 
the northeastern coast of North Carolina known as the Outer Banks, 
where commercial and recreational fishermen risk their lives every day 
trying to navigate the hazardous waters of Oregon Inlet.
  These fishermen have been pleading for this legislation for decades 
because it is a matter of life or death for them. At last count, 20 
fishermen have lost their lives in Oregon Inlet during the past 30 
years, the latest tragedy having occurred on December 30, 1992, when a 
31-foot commercial fishing vessel sank in Oregon Inlet. This was the 
20th vessel to be lost in those waters since 1961. Fortunately, both 
crewmen were rescued, but the Coast Guard never found the wreckage.
  Mr. President, this legislation proposes neither the appropriation of 
money nor the authorization of new expenditures and projects; it merely 
requires the Secretary of the Interior to transfer two small parcels of 
Interior Department land to the Department of the Army so that the 
Corps of Engineers may begin work on a too-long-delayed project 
authorized by Congress in 1970--25 years ago. In doing so, 100 acres of 
land, adjacent to Oregon Inlet in Dare County, will be transferred to 
the Department of the Army.
  Reviewing the legislative history involving this project, in October 
1992, then Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan issued conditional permits 
for the Corps of Engineers to begin the construction process; the 
Clinton administration unwisely revoked those permits. Therefore, the 
bill I'm offering today serves notice to the self-proclaimed 
environmentalists who have for so long stalled this project that I will 
continue to do everything I can to protect the lives and livelihoods of 
the countless commercial and recreational fishermen who have been 
denied greater economic opportunities because of the failure of the 
Federal Government to do what it should have done more than a quarter 
of a century ago.
  Consider this bit of history, Mr. President: In 1970, Congress 
authorized the stabilization of a 400-foot wide, 20 foot deep channel 
through Oregon Inlet and the installation of a system of jetties with a 
sand-bypass system designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. But 
ever since 1970, this project has been repeatedly and deliberately 
stalled by bureaucratic roadblocks contrived by the fringe elements of 
the environmental movement.
  As a result, many lives and livelihoods have been lost. North 
Carolina's once thriving fishing industry has deteriorated, and access 
to the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge and the Cape Hatteras 
National Seashore has been

[[Page S818]]

threatened. Since 1970, critics of this project have repeatedly claimed 
that more studies and time were needed. This was nothing more than 
stalling tactics, pure and simple, Mr. President, while men died 
unnecessarily and livelihoods were destroyed.
  Mr. President, surely a quarter of a century devoted to deliberate 
delay is enough. The proposed Oregon Inlet project is bound to be the 
most over-studied project in the history of the Corps of Engineers and 
the Department of the Interior. Note this, Mr. President: Since 1969, 
the Federal Government has conducted 97--count them--97 major studies 
and three full-blown environmental impact statements; but, always 
environmentalists have demanded more and more delay.
  As for the cost-benefit factor, the Office of Management and Budget--
as recently as March 14, 1991--found the project to be economically 
justified. Then, in December 1991, a joint committee of the Corps of 
Engineers and the Department of the Interior recommended to then-
Interior Secretary Lujan and subsequent to that, to Assistant Secretary 
of the Army for Civil Works Page that the jetties be built. The people 
of the Outer Banks have waited in vain. And they still wait, Mr. 
President.
  Congress must act soon. Too many lives have been lost; the continued 
existence of the Outer Banks is now in question because nothing has 
been allowed to be done to manage the flow of sand from one end of the 
coastal islands to the other. If much more time is wasted, the self-
appointed environmentalists won't have to worry about turtles or birds 
on Cape Hatteras, because a few short years hence, Oregon Inlet will 
have disappeared.
  To understand why this project has become one of the Interior 
Department's most studied and controversial projects, the October 1992 
edition of The Smithsonian magazine is highly instructive. In an 
article titled, ``This Beach Boy Sings a Song Developers Don't Want to 
Hear,'' the magazine chronicles the adventures of a professor at a 
major North Carolina university who has made his living organizing 
opposition to all coastal engineering projects on the Outer Banks--
Oregon Inlet in particular. The article further relates the 
confrontation between the professor and an angry Oregon Inlet 
fisherman, a man whose livelihood has been made more hazardous by the 
bureaucratic failure to keep open a safe channel at Oregon Inlet. When 
questioned about his motives and actions this university professor 
retorted that he and his radical friends boasted that they would not be 
satisfied until all the houses are taken off the shore to leave it the 
way it was before.
  Mr. President, this is the response from a professor whose home 
occupies a large plot of land 200 miles west in the middle of North 
Carolina, a professor who is all too ready to deprive other North 
Carolinians of their rights to live and prosper.
  That is not environmental activism. It is environmental hypocrisy.
  Mr. President, the issue is clear. The time for delay is over. This 
legislation will mark the beginning of the end of the jetty debate on 
the Outer Banks, and will address the long-neglected concerns of North 
Carolina's coastal residents. Congress should not delay further in 
doing what it should have done a quarter of a century ago.

                          ____________________