Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 9 (Wednesday, January 29, 1997)

[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.

____________________