[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 13 (Monday, February 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S837-S846]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CLELAND:
  S. 1664. A bill to reform Federal election campaigns; to the 
Committee on Rules and Administration.


       THE FEDERAL ELECTION ENFORCEMENT AND DISCLOSURE REFORM ACT

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, the year 1996 witnessed both a record 
high in the amount of money spent in pursuit of federal office--a 
staggering $1 billion, an increase of 73 percent just since 1992--and 
the second worst turnout in American history. In 1996, some $220 
million was spent on Senate races alone--an average of $4.5 million per 
campaign. Members of Congress combined currently raise an average of 
about $1 million a day. It has been estimated that if these trends 
continue, by the year 2025 it will take $145 million to finance an 
average Senate campaign. This is truly a ridiculous situation.
  When I came to the Senate last year, I volunteered to serve on the 
Governmental Affairs Committee. Sitting in the Committee's hearings on 
campaign finance abuses and listening to the sordid tale of the 1996 
money chase was a most unsettling experience. What I witnessed, heard 
and read made me even more convinced that we must strengthen our 
campaign financing laws, now, and provide strong enforcement through 
the Federal Election Commission of these laws, now, or risk seeing our 
election process be swept away in a tidal wave of money.
  At the conclusion of the Governmental Affairs hearings, I wrote to 
the Committee Chairman to make four basic recommendations as 
appropriate follow-ons to the investigation:
  (1) That we refer all evidence in the Committee's possession of 
alleged illegal acts to the Justice Department;
  (2) That we hold additional hearings on both FEC enforcement and 
``gray areas'' in current law, such as the Pendleton Act and the 
definition of campaign coordination;
  (3) That we mutually work for passage of McCain-Feingold as the best 
first step in curing our system-wide campaign finance problem; and
  (4) That, to the maximum extent feasible, the Majority and Minority 
work to produce a joint final report, with bipartisan conclusions and 
recommendations.
  While the jury is still out on my first three suggestions, clearly 
the final one--concerning a bipartisan committee report--will, 
unfortunately, not be adopted. The separate, partisan reports which are 
apparently to be released this week represent a lost opportunity to 
present a strong, united case for reform.
  Regardless of what action the Senate takes, or fails to take, on 
McCain-Feingold, we need to turn to additional reforms in order to 
further improve our electoral process. I am pleased today to introduce 
the Federal Election Enforcement and Disclosure Reform Act which is 
aimed at dealing with two of the biggest problems confronting our 
current federal campaign system: the inability of the Federal Election 
Commission (FEC), as currently constituted and funded, to adequately 
enforce election laws; and the significant gaps in existing campaign 
finance disclosure requirements.
  Let me be very clear that I continue to believe that enactment of 
McCain-Feingold, even in its reduced form, is an essential step for the 
Senate to take this year in beginning the process of repairing a 
campaign finance system which is totally out of control. Banning soft 
money and imposing disclosure and contribution requirements on sham 
issue ads aired close to an election, as provided for under McCain-
Feingold, are absolutely vital reforms, without which the campaign 
finance system will only grow less accountable, and more vulnerable to 
the appearance, if not the fact, of undue influence by big money.
  Nonetheless, I recognize that the issues raised by McCain-Feingold, 
in all of its forms, have become highly politicized and polarized, and 
continue to face a filibuster which threatens the Senate's ability to 
act on this legislation. Consequently, in addition to continuing to 
urge Senate adoption of McCain-Feingold, I want to broaden the scope of 
debate, and to begin the process of seeking common ground on important 
reforms which are, by and large, outside of the purview of McCain-
Feingold.
  As previously discussed, one of the most glaring deficiencies in our 
current federal campaign system is the ineffectiveness of its supposed 
referee, the Federal Election Commission. The FEC, whether by design or 
through circumstance, has been beset by partisan gridlock, uncertain 
and insufficient resources, and lengthy proceedings which offer no hope 
of timely resolution of charges of campaign violations.
  Thus, the first major element of my bill is to strengthen the ability 
of the Federal Election Commission to be an effective and impartial 
enforcer of federal campaign laws. Among the most significant FEC-
related changes I am proposing are the following:
  Alter the Commission structure to remove the possibility of partisan 
gridlock by establishing a 7-member Commission, appointed by the 
President based on qualifications, for single 7-year terms. The 
Commission would be composed of two Republicans, two Democrats, one 
third party member, and two members nominated by the Supreme Court.
  Give the FEC independent litigating authority, including before the 
Supreme Court, and establish a right of private civil action to seek 
court enforcement in cases where the FEC fails to act, both of which 
should dramatically improve the prospects for timely enforcement of the 
law.
  Provide sufficient funding of the FEC from a source independent of 
Congressional intervention by the imposition of filing fees on federal 
candidates, with such fees being adequate to meet

[[Page S838]]

the needs of the Commission--estimated to be $50 million a year.
  A second major component of the Federal Election Enforcement and 
Disclosure Reform Act is to create a new Advisory Committee on Federal 
Campaign Reform to provide for a body outside of Congress to 
continually review and recommend changes in our federal campaign 
system. The Committee would be charged, ``to study the laws (including 
regulations) that affect how election campaigns for Federal office are 
conducted and the implementation of such laws and may make 
recommendations for change,'' which are to be submitted to Congress by 
April 15 of every odd-numbered year. As with the FEC, the Advisory 
Committee would receive independent and sufficient funding via the new 
federal candidate filing fees.
  The impetus for the Advisory Committee is two-fold: (1) To build a 
``continuous improvement'' mechanism into the Federal campaign system, 
and (2) to address the demonstrable fact that Congress responds slowly, 
if a all, to the need for changes and updates in our campaign laws. In 
both instances, the conclusion is the same: we cannot afford to wait 
twenty-five years or until a major scandal develops to adapt our 
campaign finance system to changing circumstances.
  The final section of my bill seeks to enhance the effectiveness of 
campaign contribution disclosure requirements. As Justice Brandeis 
observed, ``Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and 
industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; 
electric light the most effective policeman.'' This is certainly true 
in the realm of campaign finance, and perhaps the most enduring legacy 
of the Watergate Reforms of a quarter-century ago is the expanded 
campaign and financial disclosure requirements which emerged. By and 
large, they have served us well, but as with everything else, they need 
to be periodically reviewed and updated in light of experience. 
Therefore, based in part on testimony I heard during last year's 
Governmental Affairs Committee investigation and in part on the FEC's 
own recommendations for improved disclosure, my bill will make several 
changes in current disclosure requirements.
  Specifically, I am recommending two reforms which will make it more 
difficult for contributors and campaigns alike to turn a blind eye to 
current disclosure requirements by, first, preventing a campaign from 
depositing a contribution until all of the requisite disclosure 
information is provided; and second, requiring those who contribute 
$200 or more to provide a signed certification that their contribution 
is not from a foreign national, and is not the result of a contribution 
in the name of another person.
  In addition, my legislation adopts a number of disclosure 
recommendations made by the FEC in its 1997 report to Congress, 
including provisions: requiring all reports to be filed by the due date 
of the report; requiring all authorized candidate committee reports to 
be filed on a campaign-to-date basis, rather than on a calendar year 
cycle; and mandating monthly reporting for multi candidate committees 
which have raised or spent, or anticipate raising or spending, in 
excess of $100,000 in the current election cycle.
  In developing this legislation, I have been pleased to have the input 
and advice from a variety of individuals and organizations interested 
in the subject of campaign finance reform. In particular, while none of 
them bear any responsibility for the finished product, I would like to 
acknowledge and thank the Reform Party and its founder Ross Perot, and 
chairman Russ Verney, Common Cause, and its president Ann McBride and 
vice president Meredith McGehee, and the Federal Election Commission 
and its assistant general counsel Susan Propper for their insights.
  It is easy to be pessimistic when considering campaign finance reform 
efforts. The public and the media are certainly expecting this Congress 
to fail to take significant action to clean up the scandalous campaign 
system under which we now run. But ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, 
I suggest that we cannot afford the luxury of complacency. We may think 
we will be able to win the next re-election because the level of 
outrage and the awareness of the extent of the vulnerability of our 
political system have perhaps not yet reached critical mass. But I am 
confident that it is only a matter of time, and perhaps the next 
election cycle--which will undoubtedly feature more unaccountable soft 
money, more sham issue ads of unknown parentage, more circumvention of 
the spirit and in some cases the letter of current campaign finance 
law--before the scales are decisively tilted in favor of reform.
  We will have campaign finance reform. The only question is whether 
this Congress will step up to the plate, and fulfill its 
responsibilities, to give the American public a campaign system they 
can have faith in and which can preserve and protect our noble 
democracy as we enter a new century.
  Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of my bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Summary of the Federal Election Enforcement and Disclosure Reform Act


                             I. FEC Reform

       A. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) would be 
     restructured as follows:
       The Commission will be composed of 7 members appointed by 
     the President who are specially qualified to serve on the 
     Commission by reason of relevant--
       --two Republican members appointed by the President;
       --two Democratic members appointed by the President;
       --one member appointed by the President from among all 
     other political parties whose candidates received at least 3% 
     of the national popular vote in the most recent Presidential 
     or U.S. House or U.S. Senate elections; in the event no third 
     party reaches this threshold, the President may consider all 
     third parties in making this appointment; and
       --two members appointed by the President from among 10 
     nominees submitted by the U.S. Supreme Court. One of these 
     two members would be chosen by the Commission to serve as 
     Chairman, and the other would serve as Vice Chairman.
       Relevant knowledge (for purposes of qualification for 
     appointment to the FEC) is defined to include:
       --A higher education degree in government, politics, or 
     public or business administration, or 4 years of relevant 
     work experience in the fields of government or politics, and
       --A minimum of two years experience in working on or in 
     relation to Federal election law or other Federal electoral 
     issues, or four years of such experience at the state level.
       Commissioners will be limited to one 7 year term.
       B. The FEC would be given the following additional powers:
       Electronic filing of all reports required to be filed with 
     the FEC would be mandatory, with a waiver permitted for 
     candidates or other entities whose total expenditures or 
     receipts fall below a threshold amount set by the Commission 
     (similar to Section 301(a) of modified McCain-Feingold bill). 
     The requirement for the submission of hard (paper) copies of 
     such reports would be continued.
       The Commission would be authorized to conduct random audits 
     and investigations in order to increase voluntary compliance 
     with campaign finance laws (same as Section 303 of modified 
     McCain-Feingold bill).
       The FEC would be authorized to seek court enforcement when 
     the Commission believes a substantial violation is occurring, 
     failure to act will result in ``irreparable harm'' to an 
     affected party, expeditious action will not cause ``undue 
     harm'' to the interests of other parties, and the public 
     interest would best be served by the issuance of an 
     injunction (same as Section 303 of S. 25).
       The Commission would be authorized to implement expedited 
     procedures for complaints filed within 60 days of a general 
     election (same as Section 309 of S. 25).
       Penalties for knowing and willful violations of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act would be increased (same as Section 305 
     of S. 25).
       The Commission would be expressly granted independent 
     litigating authority, including before the Supreme Court 
     (same as Section 304 of HR 493).
       Private individuals or groups would be authorized to 
     independently seek court enforcement when the FEC fails to 
     act within 120 days of when a complaint is filed. A ``loser 
     pays" standard would apply in such proceedings.
       The Commission would be authorized to levy fines, not to 
     exceed $5,000, for minor reporting violations, and to publish 
     a schedule of fines for such violations.
       Candidates for the Senate would be required to file with 
     the FEC rather than the Secretary of the Senate (same as 
     Section 301(b) of modified McCain-Feingold bill).
       C. The FEC would be provided with resources in the 
     following manner:
       Consistent with its expanded duties, the FEC would be 
     authorized to receive $50 million in FY1999 and FY2000, with 
     this amount indexed for inflation thereafter.
       The funding would be derived from a ``user fee'' imposed on 
     federal candidate and party committees. The FEC would 
     establish a fee schedule and determine the requisite fee

[[Page S839]]

     level to fund the operations of the FEC and the new Advisory 
     Committee on Federal Campaign Reform. This determination will 
     include a waiver for the first $50,000 raised by campaigns.


           ii. advisory committee on federal campaign reform

       A. A new Advisory Committee on Federal Campaign Reform 
     would be created.
       B. The Committee would be composed of 9 members, who are 
     specially qualified to serve on the Committee by reason of 
     relevant knowledge, to be appointed as follows: 1 appointed 
     by the President of the United States, 1 appointed by the 
     Speaker of the House, 1 each appointed by the Majority and 
     Minority Leaders of the U.S. House and Senate, 1 appointed by 
     the Supreme Court, 1 appointed by the Reform Party (or 
     whatever third party's candidate for President received the 
     largest number of popular votes in the most recent 
     Presidential election), and 1 appointed by the American 
     Political Science Association. Committee members would elect 
     the Chairman.
       C. Committee members would each serve four-year terms, and 
     would be limited to two consecutive terms.
       D. The appointees by the Supreme Court, the Reform Party 
     (or other third party), and the American Political Science 
     Association must be individuals who, during the five years 
     before their appointment, have not held elective office as a 
     member of the Democratic or Republican Parties, have not 
     received any wages or salaries from the Democratic or 
     Republican Parties, or have not provided substantial 
     volunteer services or made any substantial contribution to 
     the Democratic or Republican Parties, or to a Democratic or 
     Republican Party public office-holder or candidate for 
     office.
       E. Relevant knowledge (for purposes of qualification for 
     appointment to the Committee) is defined to include:
       A higher education degree in government, politics, or 
     public or business administration, or 4 years of relevant 
     work experience in the fields of government or politics, and
       A minimum of two years experience in working on or in 
     relation to national campaign finance or other electoral 
     issues, or four years of such experience at the state level.
       F. The Committee would be authorized to spend $1 million a 
     year in its first year, indexed for inflation thereafter. 
     Funding would be provided by the new campaign user fee 
     discussed above.
       G. The Committee would be required to monitor the operation 
     of federal election laws and to submit a report, including 
     recommended changes in law, to Congress by April 15 of every 
     odd numbered year.
       H. Congress would be required to consider the Committee's 
     recommendations under ``fast track'' procedures to guarantee 
     expeditious consideration in both houses of Congress.


               iii. enhanced campaign finance disclosure

       A. Campaigns would be prohibited from putting contributions 
     which lack all requisite contributor information into any 
     account other than an escrow account from which money cannot 
     be spent. Contributions placed in such an account would not 
     be subject to the current ten-day maximum holding period on 
     checks.
       B. A new requirement would be placed on contributions in 
     excess of $200 (aggregate): a written certification by the 
     contributor that the contribution is not derived from any 
     foreign income source, and is not the result of a 
     reimbursement by another party.
       C. The current option to file reports submitted by 
     registered or certified mail based on postmark date would be 
     deleted, thus requiring all reports to be filed by the due 
     date of the report.
       D. Authorized candidate committee reports would be required 
     to be filed on a campaign-to-date basis, rather than on a 
     calendar year cycle.
       E. Monthly reporting would be mandated for multi candidate 
     committees which have raised or spent, or anticipate raising 
     or spending, in excess of $100,000 in the current election 
     cycle.
       F. The requirement for filing of last-minute independent 
     expenditures would be clarified to make clear that such 
     report must be received within 24 hours after the independent 
     expenditure is made.
       G. Campaign disbursements to secondary payees who are 
     independent subcontractors would have to be reported.
       H. Political committees, other than authorized candidate 
     committees, which have received or spent, or anticipate 
     receiving or spending, $100,000 or more in the current 
     election cycle would be subjected to the same ``last minute'' 
     contribution reporting requirements as candidate committees. 
     (Under current law, all contributions of $1,000 or more 
     received after the 20th day, but before 48 hours, before an 
     election must be reported to the FEC within 48 hours.)
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Santorum):
  S. 1665. A bill to reauthorize the Delaware and Lehigh Navigation 
Canal National Heritage Corridor Act, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


 THE DELAWARE AND LEHIGH NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 
                                  1998

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to 
reintroduce legislation I originally introduced on November 8, 1997, to 
reauthorize the work of the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage 
Corridor Commission in Pennsylvania. The new bill makes some technical 
changes which deal with method of appointing Commission members, 
ensuring that the Commission will continue to be composed of 
representatives from local and state agencies who have worked on this 
successful public/private partnership with the federal government over 
the past 10 years. I am hopeful that the Subcommittee on National 
Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Senate Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources will hold hearings on this bill as soon as 
possible. Since authorization for the Commission is set to expire in 
November, 1998, it is vital that the Senate pass this legislation this 
year to enable the Commission to continue its unfinished work in 
eastern Pennsylvania.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN:
  S . 1666. A bill to amend Federal election laws to better define the 
requirements for Presidential candidates and political parties that 
accept public funding, to better define the limits on the election-
related activities of tax exempt organizations, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Finance.


                  CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM LEGISLATION

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
designed to prevent future occurrences of some of the more egregious 
campaign finance abuses that we learned of during the Senate 
Governmental Affairs Committee investigation into the 1996 federal 
election campaigns.
  What I have particularly in mind is the misuse of taxpayer money by 
our presidential candidates and by various tax-exempt organizations 
that intervened in both congressional and presidential elections in 
1996.
  Over the course of its inquiry, the Governmental Affairs Committee 
compiled a compelling record that leaves little question our political 
system was subverted in 1996 by overzealous presidential campaigns 
working with their parties to circumvent spending limits and by 
independent organizations abusing the special tax status conferred upon 
them. At times, the campaigns and outside groups conducted their 
business as if the election laws were written in invisible ink. Our 
democratic process suffered as a result.
  My proposal focuses on two specific areas of the law whose spirit and 
intent were violated in 1996. They are the campaign finance statutes 
regarding the public financing of presidential campaigns and the tax 
code, as it applies to the political activity of tax-exempt 
organizations.
  Let me first make clear that I am a steadfast supporter of the 
McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. I hope the ideas that I 
present today might be considered as supplemental to it, since they 
complement McCain-Feingold and fill in some of the gaps that only 
became apparent after our year-long Governmental Affairs Committee 
investigation.


        The Abuse of Public Financing for Presidential Campaigns

  Under the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act and the 
Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act, the taxpayers spent 
approximately $236 million on the 1996 presidential campaigns. The 
purpose of this support was to limit spending in order to protect 
presidential candidates from the potentially corrupting influence of 
full-time fund-raising and to reduce the flow of private money into 
campaign coffers.
  The two laws give public subsidies to presidential candidates and 
their parties at three stages. First, the Treasury matches 
contributions raised by certain primary candidates who agree to limit 
their primary spending to an amount specified in the statute. Second, 
political parties may receive a specified amount to fund their 
presidential nominating conventions if they agree to spend no more than 
that. Third, major party nominees who agree to limit their spending to 
the amount they receive in public funds are eligible for full public 
financing during the general election.
  Both of 1996's major party candidates accepted public financing and 
pledged in return to limit their spending to $37 million during the 
primary season and $62 million during the general election.

[[Page S840]]

  But, as the Governmental Affairs Committee's hearings demonstrated, 
the candidates effectively ignored their pledges. Instead of curtailing 
their fund-raising and limiting themselves to spending the amount they 
agreed to, the two major party candidates continued raising massive 
amounts of money which their parties then spent on TV ads that advanced 
the nominees' candidacies. In other words, the public did not get the 
behavior they were supposed to get in return for their $236 million.
  The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation, S. 25, would 
go a long way toward preventing these abuses by banning soft money and 
limiting the sources of funding available for running advertisements 
using a candidate's likeness or name within 60 days of an election.
  But because the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo explicitly 
sanctioned Congress's ability to impose even greater restrictions on 
those candidates who accept public financing, we should go beyond S. 
25's proposals in regard to publicly-funded presidential candidates.
  Therefore, I am introducing legislation that would underscore the 
original goal of the presidential public financing laws by banning 
candidates from raising soft money throughout their campaigns, 
requiring them to limit fundraising to hard money during the primary 
season, and prohibiting them from raising any money at all after they 
are nominated. My bill would further prevent presidential candidates 
from using the parties to circumvent spending limits by making illegal 
their involvement in any party spending on advertising that exceeds the 
amount federal law in 2 U.S.C. Sec.  441a(d) explicitly authorizes for 
candidate/party coordination.
  I am also proposing to limit what parties seeking public financing of 
their conventions can do. To get convention financing, parties would 
have to agree to use only hard money to pay for advertising using the 
name or likeness of the presidential candidates and would be limited in 
their coordinated or independent expenditures on behalf of presidential 
candidates to the amount set forth in Section 441a(d). Parties seeking 
convention financing also would have to agree to a ban on soft money 
and would be prohibited from soliciting or directing contributions for 
tax-exempt organizations.


                 The Abuse of Tax-Exempt Organizations

  And that leads me to an equally troubling phenomenon in the 1996 
elections, which was the improper use of tax-exempts to circumvent the 
tax-code and campaign finance laws so that they could conduct partisan 
campaign-related activity.
  The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) mandates strict limits on 
who may contribute to campaigns, and it imposes reporting and 
disclosure requirements on organizations involved in federal elections. 
The purpose is to ensure honest elections by limiting the sources of 
campaign funds and publicly identifying those trying to influence 
votes.

  Groups with Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) status --which 
confers not only tax-exempt status but also the ability to receive tax-
deductible contributions--may not intervene in any political campaign 
on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate. The tax code permits 
organizations with Section 501(c)(4) status--which qualify for tax-
exempt status, but whose contributors cannot deduct their 
contributions--to engage in non-partisan election advocacy as long as 
that is not the group's primary activity.
  Unfortunately, the scope of the activities some of these groups 
engaged in during the 1996 elections went far beyond what Congress 
intended.
  The Republican National Committee, (RNC), for example, infused the 
501(c)(4) organization Americans for Tax Reform, (ATR), with over $4.5 
million in the weeks leading up to the 1996 election. The RNC sent that 
money to ATR just in time for ATR to pay its bills for a direct mail 
and phone bank campaign involving four million calls and 19 million 
pieces of mail explicitly disputing the Democrats' position on Medicare 
as it related to the November 5th election.
  By funneling money through an outside group like ATR, the RNC was 
effectively able to hide the fact that it was behind the mail and phone 
calls. Recipients of the material funded by the RNC were left with the 
impression that it came from a disinterested organization, not the 
party itself.
  The RNC also steered large amounts of money to the American Defense 
Institute (ADI), a 501(c)(3) organization that runs a voter turnout 
program for military personnel, who tend to vote Republican. The 
Washington Post reported on October 23, 1997 that in September 1996, 
ADI returned $600,000 donated to it by the RNC because, according to 
the group's president, ``we didn't want to be controversial and we had 
funding from other sources.'' However, as the Post reported, that money 
was not returned until several days after the RNC itself sent checks 
totaling $530,000 from six donors to ADI. Around that time, RNC 
Chairman Haley Barbour also apparently solicited $500,000 from the 
Philip Morris Companies Inc. for ADI.
  The timing of these transactions raises the question of whether the 
RNC and ADI substituted the donor's money for the RNC's money to avoid 
publicizing the fact that the RNC was the source of ADI's funding--in 
other words, to avoid disclosure requirements. Furthermore, all the 
donors could take a tax deduction for their RNC-solicited ADI 
contributions, forcing taxpayers to subsidize donations to a political 
campaign.
  On the Democratic side, the Committee heard testimony that Vote Now 
96, the fund-raising arm of the 501(c)(3) get-out-the-vote organization 
Citizens Vote, Inc., sought and received help from the DNC in raising 
money for its work, presumably because these organizations were working 
to raise the turnout among groups who tend to vote Democratic. For 
example, the DNC apparently directed a $100,000 contribution to Vote 
Now 96 from Duvaz Pacific Corporation after it learned the head of the 
Philippine company, who had attended a DNC fund-raiser, could not 
legally contribute to the party because of her foreign citizenship.
  There is also significant evidence that a number of tax-exempt 
groups, none of which disclosed their activities to the FEC, intervened 
in elections by producing TV ads the groups claimed were issue 
oriented, but which, in fact, were designed to influence specific 
elections. According to a study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, 
the 501(c)(4) Citizens for Reform ran $2 million worth of ads during 
October and November of 1996 on behalf of several Republican 
congressional candidates around the country.
  All of these activities by tax-exempt, presumably non-partisan 
corporations cry out for remedial action by Congress. The McCain-
Feingold proposal, S. 25, partially addresses these problems by 
prohibiting party organizations from soliciting contributions for, or 
directing them to, tax-exempt entities. This is a very important 
restriction.
  In addition, I am proposing to prohibit such organizations from 
coordinating any expenditure with parties and candidates and to forbid 
them to run advertisements or send direct mail identifying a candidate 
within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election.
  I am confident this proposal will pass constitutional muster because 
the Supreme Court upheld similar restrictions on tax-exempt 
organizations in Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington. 
In finding against a First Amendment challenge to a prohibition against 
substantial lobbying by a 501(c)(3), the court said that ``tax 
exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is 
administered through the tax system'' and that by restricting a tax-
exempt's lobbying activities ``Congress has merely refused to pay for 
the lobbying out of public monies.''
  My bill also would also make clear that Section 527 organizations 
must comply with federal campaign laws. Internal Revenue Code Section 
527 offers tax benefits to ``political organizations,'' a term it 
defines to include organizations seeking to influence Federal, State or 
local elections. A number of 501(c)(4) groups active in federal 
election campaigns apparently have switched their tax status to Section 
527, which offers tax benefits with fewer restrictions on political 
activity. At the same time, these groups claim they are not subject to 
FECA because they don't engage in express advocacy

[[Page S841]]

of particular candidates, even though FECA defines the groups it covers 
in essentially the same terms as Section 527. My bill would make it 
clear that the taxpayers should not be subsidizing undisclosed and 
unregulated political activities by groups who claim they are trying to 
influence Federal elections for the purpose of the tax code--and thus 
are entitled to tax-exemption--but not for the purpose of FECA--and 
thus are immune from regulation. My bill makes clear that they cannot 
have it both ways and that Section 527's tax benefits are available 
only to groups regulated under FECA, unless a group seeking Section 527 
status is engaged exclusively in State or local political activity.
  It is important to emphasize that this bill would not prevent any one 
or anything from engaging in any type of activity. Instead, it would 
just say that if a candidate or an organization puts a hand out and 
asks for a public subsidy--whether it be public financing for a 
presidential candidate or tax-exemption for an organization--they have 
to be willing to comply with the rules for taking that public subsidy. 
After all, no person or entity has a right to public money or to be 
free of taxes; it is entirely up to Congress to determine what type of 
activities are so important to society that we should use public money 
or tax-exemption as ways of encouraging them. In offering tax-exemption 
to the 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) organizations covered by this bill, 
Congress already plainly chose to limit their involvement in partisan 
campaign activity. This bill would merely build on the experience of 
the 1996 elections to clarify the scope of those limitations.
  There are always some who find new and clever ways to manipulate the 
legal system. Their efforts peaked in our politics in the 1996 cycle 
with an unparalleled flouting of the laws' requirements and 
prohibitions. Based on the excuses the Committee heard last year to 
justify this behavior, I have no doubt the trend will continue--unless 
we find the will to radically restructure our campaign finance laws.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and 
ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-
section of it appear in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1666

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

     SECTION 1. REQUIREMENTS FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ACCEPTING 
                   PUBLIC FUNDING.

       (a) Restrictions on Fundraising by Candidates.--
       (1) Definition of fundraising.--Section 9002 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to definitions in the 
     Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(13) Fundraising activity.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `fundraising activity' means--
       ``(i) an activity or event the purpose or effect of which 
     is the direct or indirect solicitation, acceptance, or 
     direction of a contribution (as defined in section 271(b)(2)) 
     for--
       ``(I) any candidate for public office,
       ``(II) a political committee (including a national, State, 
     or local committee of a political party),
       ``(III) an organization that--

       ``(aa) is described in section 501(c) and exempt from 
     taxation under section 501(a) (or has submitted an 
     application to the Secretary of the Treasury for 
     determination of tax-exemption under such section), and
       ``(bb) engages in any election-related activity, including, 
     but not limited to, voter registration, get-out-the-vote 
     activity, publication or distribution of a voter guide, or 
     making communications that are widely disseminated through a 
     broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor 
     advertising facility, direct mailing, or any other type of 
     general public political advertising and that clearly 
     identify a candidate (as defined in section 301 of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431)) or a 
     political party,

       ``(IV) a political organization (as defined in section 
     527), or
       ``(V) an organization that engages in any electioneering 
     advertising (as defined in section 324 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971), or
       ``(ii) the authorization of use of a candidate's name in 
     connection with an activity or event described in clause (i).
       ``(B) Exception.--The term `fundraising activity' does not 
     include an activity or event the sole purpose or effect of 
     which is to solicit or accept a contribution (as defined in 
     section 301(8) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 431(8)) for the candidate participating in the 
     activity or event that is specifically solicited for, and 
     deposited in, the candidate's legal and accounting compliance 
     fund or that is necessary to cover any deficiency in payments 
     received from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, to the 
     extent otherwise permissible by law.''.
       (2) General election.--Section 9003 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to condition for eligibility for 
     payments) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``, and''; and
       (iii) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) such candidate, a member of the candidate's immediate 
     family (as defined in section 9004(e)), and the candidate's 
     authorized committee or agents or officials of the committee 
     shall not participate in any fundraising activity during the 
     expenditure report period.''; and
       (B) in subsection (c)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``, and''; and
       (iii) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) subject to paragraph (2), such candidate, a member of 
     the candidate's immediate family (as defined in section 
     9004(e)), and the candidate's authorized committee or agents 
     or officials of such committee shall not participate in a 
     fundraising activity during the expenditure report period.''.
       (3) Primary election.--Subsection (b) of section 9033 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to eligibility 
     for payments) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``, and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) the candidate, a member of the candidate's immediate 
     family (as defined in section 9004(e)), and the candidate's 
     authorized committee or agents or officials of such committee 
     shall not participate in a fundraising activity during the 
     matching payment period unless such activity has as its sole 
     purpose and effect the solicitation or acceptance of 
     contributions (as defined in section 301(8) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8))).''.
       (b) Restriction on Coordinated Disbursement.--
       (1) Definition of coordinated disbursement.--Section 9002 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as amended by 
     subsection (a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(14) Coordinated Disbursement.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `coordinated disbursement' 
     means a purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, 
     deposit, or gift of money or anything of value, made in 
     connection with any broadcasting, newspaper, magazine, 
     billboard, direct mail, phone bank, widely distributed 
     electronic mail, or similar type of general public 
     communication or advertising by a person (who is not a 
     candidate or a candidate's authorized committee) in 
     cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request 
     or suggestion of, a candidate, a member of the candidate's 
     immediate family (as defined in section 9004(e)), the 
     candidate's authorized committees, or a committee of a 
     political party.
       ``(B) Special rule.--In the case of a candidate who 
     designates a committee of a political party as the 
     candidate's authorized committee, the term `coordinated 
     disbursement' shall include disbursements made by the 
     committee in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or 
     at the request or suggestion of, a candidate or a member of 
     the candidate's immediate family (as defined in section 
     9004(e)) in excess of an amount equal to the aggregate of the 
     limit under section 315(d) of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(d)) and the appropriate limit 
     under section 315(b)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441a(b)(1)).
       ``(C) Exceptions.--The term `coordinated disbursement' does 
     not include--
       ``(i) a disbursement that is an expenditure subject to the 
     limits under section 315(d) of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(d)); or
       ``(ii) a disbursement for a bona fide newscast, news 
     interview, news documentary (if the appearance of the 
     candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or 
     subjects covered by the news documentary), editorial, or on-
     the-spot coverage of bona fide news events.''.
       (2) General election.--Subsection (a) of section 9003 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to condition for 
     eligibility for payments) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``, and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) agree not to participate in a coordinated 
     disbursement during the election report period.''.
       (3) Primary election.--Section 9033(b) (as amended by 
     subsection (a)(3)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``, and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) the candidate and the candidate's authorized 
     committees shall not participate in a coordinated 
     disbursement (as defined in

[[Page S842]]

     section 9002(14)) during the matching payment period except 
     to the extent that the disbursement is a contribution subject 
     to the contribution limits of section 315 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a).''.

     SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR POLITICAL PARTIES ACCEPTING PUBLIC 
                   FINANCING FOR PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING 
                   CONVENTIONS.

       (a) Requirements.--Title III of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 324. REQUIREMENTS FOR POLITICAL PARTIES ACCEPTING 
                   PUBLIC FINANCING FOR PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING 
                   CONVENTIONS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) Committee.--The term `committee' shall include a 
     national, State, district, or local committee of a political 
     party, an entity that is directly or indirectly established, 
     financed, maintained, or controlled by any such party 
     committee or its agent, an agent acting on behalf of any such 
     party committee, and an officer or agent acting on behalf of 
     any such party committee or entity.
       ``(2) Electioneering advertising.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `electioneering advertising' 
     means a communication--
       ``(i) containing a phrase such as `vote for', `re-elect', 
     `support', `cast your ballot for', `(name of individual) for 
     President', `(name of individual) in (calendar year)', `vote 
     against', `defeat', `reject', or a campaign slogan or words 
     that in context can have no reasonable meaning other than to 
     recommend the election or defeat of 1 or more clearly 
     identified candidates such as `(name of candidate)'s the One' 
     or `(name of candidate'); or
       ``(ii) referring to 1 or more clearly identified candidates 
     in a communication that is widely disseminated to the 
     electorate for the election in which the identified 
     candidates are seeking office through a broadcasting station, 
     newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, direct 
     mailing, or any other type of general public communication.
       ``(B) Voting record and voting guide exception.--The term 
     `electioneering advertising' does not include a printed 
     communication that--
       ``(i) presents information in an educational manner solely 
     about the voting record or position on a campaign issue of 2 
     or more individuals;
       ``(ii) is not made in coordination with an individual, 
     political party, or agent of the individual or party;
       ``(iii) in the case of a voter guide based on a 
     questionnaire, provides each individual seeking a particular 
     seat or office an equal opportunity to respond to the 
     questionnaire and have the individual's responses 
     incorporated into the voter guide;
       ``(iv) does not present an individual with greater 
     prominence than any other individual; and
       ``(v) does not contain a phrase such as `vote for', `re-
     elect', `support', `cast your ballot for', `(name of 
     individual) for President', `(name of individual) in 1997', 
     `vote against', `defeat', or `reject', or a campaign slogan 
     or words that in context can have no reasonable meaning other 
     than to urge the election or defeat of 1 or more clearly 
     identified individuals.
       ``(3) Eligible political committee.--The term `eligible 
     political committee' means a national committee of a 
     political party entitled to receive payments under section 
     9008 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for a presidential 
     nominating convention.''.
       ``(b) Limits on Electioneering Advertising.--During the 
     matching payment period (as defined in section 9032(6) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986) and the expenditure report 
     period (as defined in section 9002(12) of such Code), an 
     eligible political committee shall not--
       ``(1) make disbursements for electioneering advertising in 
     connection with an individual seeking nomination for 
     election, or election, to the office of President or Vice 
     President except from funds that are subject to the 
     limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this 
     Act; or
       ``(2) transfer of funds that are not subject to the 
     limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this 
     Act to a State, district, or local committee of a political 
     party that will be used to make disbursements for 
     electioneering advertising in connection with an individual 
     seeking nomination for election, or election, to the office 
     of President or Vice President.
       ``(c) Limitation of Coordinated and Independent 
     Expenditures.--In the case of an eligible political 
     committee, the limitation under section 315(d)(2) (relating 
     to coordinated expenditures by committees of a political 
     party) shall apply to the aggregate of expenditures, 
     disbursements for electioneering advertising, and independent 
     expenditures made by the national committee in connection 
     with a candidate for President of the United States.
       ``(d) Prohibition of Coordinated Disbursements.--During the 
     matching payment period (as defined in section 9032(6) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986) and the expenditure report 
     period (as defined in section 9002(12) of such Code), an 
     eligible political committee shall not participate in a 
     coordinated disbursement (as defined in section 9002(14) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) with respect to an 
     individual seeking nomination for election, or election, to 
     the office of President or Vice President.
       ``(e) Prohibition of Certain Donations.--An eligible 
     political committee and any officer or agent acting on behalf 
     of such committee shall not solicit any funds for, or make or 
     direct any donation to, an organization that--
       ``(1) is described in section 501(c) and exempt from 
     taxation under section 501(a) (or has submitted an 
     application to the Secretary of the Treasury for 
     determination of tax-exemption under such section), and
       ``(2) engages in any election-related activity, including, 
     but not limited to, voter registration, get-out-the-vote 
     activity, publication or distribution of a voter guide, or 
     making communications that are widely disseminated through a 
     broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor 
     advertising facility, direct mailing, or any other type of 
     general public political advertising that clearly identify a 
     candidate (as defined in section 301 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431)) or a political party.
       ``(f) Prohibition of Soft Money.--
       ``(1) National committees.--
       ``(A) In general.--An eligible political committee 
     (including a national congressional campaign committee of a 
     political party) and any officers or agents of such 
     committees, shall not solicit, receive, or direct to another 
     person a contribution, donation, or transfer of funds, or 
     spend any funds, that are not subject to the limitations, 
     prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.
       ``(B) Applicability.--This subsection shall apply to an 
     entity that is directly or indirectly established, financed, 
     maintained, or controlled by an eligible committee (including 
     a national congressional campaign committee of a political 
     party), or an entity acting on behalf of a national 
     committee, and an officer or agent acting on behalf of any 
     such committee or entity.
       ``(2) State, district, and local committees.--
       ``(A) In general.--An amount that is expended or disbursed 
     by a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     that has an eligible political committee (including an entity 
     that is directly or indirectly established, financed, 
     maintained, or controlled by a State, district, or local 
     committee of a political party and an officer or agent acting 
     on behalf of such committee or entity) for Federal election 
     activity shall be made from funds subject to the limitations, 
     prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.
       ``(B) Federal election activity.--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `Federal election activity' 
     means--

       ``(I) voter registration activity during the period that 
     begins on the date that is 120 days before the date a 
     regularly scheduled Federal election is held and ends on the 
     date of the election;
       ``(II) voter identification, get-out-the-vote activity, or 
     generic campaign activity conducted in connection with an 
     election in which a candidate for Federal office appears on 
     the ballot (regardless of whether a candidate for State or 
     local office also appears on the ballot); and
       ``(III) a communication that refers to a clearly identified 
     candidate for Federal office (regardless of whether a 
     candidate for State or local office is also mentioned or 
     identified) and is made for the purpose of influencing a 
     Federal election (regardless of whether the communication is 
     express advocacy).

       ``(ii) Excluded activity.--The term `Federal election 
     activity' does not include an amount expended or disbursed by 
     a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     for--

       ``(I) campaign activity conducted solely on behalf of a 
     clearly identified candidate for State or local office if the 
     campaign activity is not a Federal election activity 
     described in clause (i);
       ``(II) a contribution to a candidate for State or local 
     office if the contribution is not designated or used to pay 
     for a Federal election activity described in clause (i);
       ``(III) the costs of a State, district, or local political 
     convention;
       ``(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;
       ``(V) 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 an individual 
     who spends more than 20 percent of the individual's time on 
     Federal election activity) as determined by a regulation 
     promulgated by the Commission to determine the non-Federal 
     share of a State, district, or local party committee's 
     administrative and overhead expenses; and
       ``(VI) the cost of constructing or purchasing an office 
     facility or equipment for a State, district, or local 
     committee.

       ``(3) Fundraising costs.--An amount spent by a national, 
     State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     (that has an eligible political committee) to raise funds 
     that are used, in whole or in part, to pay the costs of a 
     Federal election activity shall be made from funds subject to 
     the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of 
     this Act.''.
       (b) Increased Contribution Limit.--Section 315(a)(1) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (C)--

[[Page S843]]

       (A) by inserting ``(other than a committee described in 
     subparagraph (D))'' after ``committee''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) to a political committee established and maintained 
     by a State committee of a political party that is entitled to 
     receive payments under section 9008 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 for a Presidential nominating convention in any 
     calendar year that, in the aggregate, exceed $10,000.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Federal election campaign act of 1971.--Section 
     315(d)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441a(d)(2)) is amended by striking ``The national 
     committee'' and inserting ``Subject to section 324(b), the 
     national committee''.
       (2) Internal revenue code of 1986.--Subsection (b) of 
     section 9008 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 
     to payments for presidential nominating conventions) is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and section 324 of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971'' after ``section''; 
     and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and section 324 of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971'' after ``section''.

     SEC. 3. REQUIRED DISCLAIMER FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES.

       Section 318 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441d) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Required Disclaimer for Presidential Candidates.--In 
     the case of an expenditure by a candidate for President or 
     Vice President eligible under section 9003 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 or under section 9033 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 to receive payments from the Secretary 
     of the Treasury for an advertisement that is broadcast by a 
     radio broadcast station or a television broadcast station or 
     communicated by direct mail, such advertisement shall contain 
     the following statement: `Federal law establishes voluntary 
     spending limits for candidates for President. This candidate 
     ____ agreed to abide by the limits.' (with the blank filled 
     in with `has' or `has not' as appropriate).''.

     SEC. 4. LIMITATIONS ON POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY TAX-EXEMPT 
                   ORGANIZATIONS.

       Subsection (c) of section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to exemption from tax on corporations, 
     certain trusts, etc.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (o) as subsection (p); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (n) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(o) Special Rules for Organizations Exempt Under 
     Paragraph (3) or (4) of Subsection (c).--An organization 
     described in paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (c) shall be 
     denied exemption from taxation under subsection (a) if such 
     organization--
       ``(1) solicits or accepts a contribution (as defined in 
     section 271(b)(2)) from a committee of a political party or 
     an authorized committee of a candidate (as defined in section 
     301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     431)),
       ``(2) makes or directs a contribution to a committee of a 
     political party or an authorized committee of a candidate,
       ``(3) makes a disbursement for electioneering advertising 
     (as defined in section 324 of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971), except to the extent that--
       ``(A) the disbursement constitutes an independent 
     expenditure (as defined in section 301(17) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(17)), or
       ``(B) the advertising is--
       ``(i) described in section 324(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971,
       ``(ii) otherwise permitted by law, and
       ``(iii) made more than--

       ``(I) 60 days before the date of a general, special, or 
     runoff election in which the identified candidates are 
     seeking office, or
       ``(II) 30 days before the date of a primary or preference 
     election or a convention or caucus of a political party that 
     has authority to nominate a candidate for the office for 
     which the identified candidates are seeking election, or

       ``(4) participates in a coordinated disbursement (as 
     defined in section 9002(14)).''.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS OF POLITICAL COMMITTEE AND POLITICAL 
                   ORGANIZATION.

       (a) Definition of Political Committee.--Section 301(4) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(4)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) a political organization (as defined in section 
     527(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and subject to 
     section 527 of such Code) unless the activities of the 
     organization are for the exclusive purpose of influencing or 
     attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election, 
     or appointment of any individual or individuals to any State 
     or local public office or office in a State or local 
     political organization.''.
       (b) Definition of Political Organization.--Paragraph (e)(1) 
     of section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 
     to political organizations) is amended by striking 
     ``incorporated) organized and operated'' and all that follows 
     through the period and inserting ``incorporated)--
       ``(A) organized and operated primarily for the purpose of 
     directly or indirectly accepting contributions or making 
     expenditures, or both, for an exempt function, and
       ``(B) that is a political committee described in section 
     301(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     431(4)) except to the extent that the activities of the 
     organization are for the exclusive purpose of influencing or 
     attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election, 
     or appointment of any individual or individuals to any State 
     or local public office or office in a State or local 
     political organization.''.

     SEC. 6. SEVERABILITY.

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

     SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as otherwise provided in this Act, this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act take effect on the date that is 
     30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 8. REGULATIONS.

       The Federal Election Commission and the Commissioner of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall--
       (1) promulgate regulations as necessary to enforce this 
     Act; and
       (2) in the promulgation of regulations under paragraph (1), 
     provide an exception to any provision that the Commission or 
     Commissioner determines necessary to serve the public 
     interest.
                                                                    ____


      Section-by-Section of Lieberman Campaign Finance Reform Bill

       The Lieberman campaign finance reform proposal responds to 
     two significant problems highlighted during the Governmental 
     Affairs Committee's recently concluded campaign finance 
     investigation. First, it would amend the presidential public 
     financing laws to ensure that taxpayers--who spent $236 
     million on the 1996 elections in an effort to limit spending 
     on the presidential campaign and keep candidates for the 
     presidency above the fundraising fray--get what they pay for. 
     Second, it offers amendments to the tax code, with the goal 
     of limiting the ability of tax-exempt organizations to 
     circumvent existing restrictions on their involvement in 
     partisan politics. The following provides a section-by-
     section explanation of the bill's provisions.


 Section 1: Requirements for Presidential Candidates Accepting Public 
                               Financing

       Section 1 imposes two new requirements on candidates 
     seeking public financing for their presidential primary or 
     general election campaigns: (a) they must limit their 
     fundraising; and (b) they must agree not to try to evade 
     spending limits on their own campaigns by using the parties 
     or outside groups to make expenditures for them.
       (a) Fundraising Restrictions: Subsection 1(a) imposes 
     fundraising restrictions on candidates accepting public 
     financing:
       (1) Definition of ``Fundraising Activity'': Subsection 
     1(a)(1) defines the term ``fundraising activity'' to include 
     efforts to raise money for: (a) candidates, (b) political 
     committees (like the DNC or RNC), (c) tax-exempt 
     organizations that engage in any election-related activity, 
     which is defined to include voter registration, get-out-the-
     vote activities, the publication or distribution of voter 
     guides, or the making of widely disseminated communications 
     that mention candidates or political parties, (d) political 
     organizations as defined by Section 527 of the tax code, or 
     (e) any organization that engages in ``electioneering 
     advertising,'' a term the bill defines in Section 2 below. 
     ``Fundraising activity'' in this section also includes the 
     candidate's authorization to use his name in connection with 
     any of the activities just described. Because the election 
     laws explicitly allow presidential candidates to seek private 
     contributions to defray their legal and accounting costs or 
     if the public financing fund does not have enough money in it 
     to give candidates their full allotment of public funds, the 
     subsection excludes raising contributions for those purposes 
     from its definition of ``fundraising activity.''
       (2) Restrictions on Fundraising During the General 
     Election: Subsection 1(a)(2) provides that a publicly-funded 
     general election candidate for the presidency, members of his 
     immediate family, the candidate's authorized committee, and 
     agents and officials of that committee may not engage in any 
     fundraising activity from the date of the candidate's 
     nomination until the general election.
       (3) Restrictions on Fundraising During the Primary 
     Campaign: Subsection 1(a)(3) provides that from January 1 of 
     an election year until the date of the convention of the 
     party whose nomination the candidate seeks, a primary 
     election candidate receiving federal matching funds must 
     limit his fundraising activities to the solicitation or 
     acceptance of hard money (money regulated and limited by the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act). This restriction also applies 
     to members of the candidate's immediate family, the 
     candidate's authorized committee, and agents and officials of 
     that committee.
       (b) Restrictions on Spending Through the Parties and 
     Outside Groups: Subsection 1(b) seeks to prevent candidates 
     for the presidency from circumventing limits on their own 
     campaigns by working with parties or outside groups to spend 
     party money to advance their candidacies.

[[Page S844]]

       (1) Definition of Coordinated Disbursement: Subsection 
     1(b)(1) defines the term ``coordinated disbursement'' as 
     spending by a person or entity other than a candidate or his 
     authorized committee for broadcast, print, direct mail or 
     other similar type of public communication if the spending 
     person or entity consults or coordinates with a candidate or 
     party about the disbursement. ``Coordinated disbursements'' 
     encompass any type of communication or advertising, and are 
     not limited to those including words of express advocacy. The 
     term does not encompass, however, any spending a political 
     party makes under Section 441a(d), which explicitly allows 
     parties to coordinate a set amount of spending with their 
     candidates, or disbursements for bona fide newscasts, 
     editorials, and the like. In addition, in the case of a 
     presidential candidate who designates a political party as 
     his authorized campaign committee, the term encompasses only 
     coordinated spending by the political party that exceeds the 
     combined limit allowed under the public financing laws and 
     Section 441a(d).
       (2) Prohibition on Participating in Coordinated 
     Disbursements During General Election: Subsection 1(b)(2) 
     prohibits publicly-funded general election candidates from 
     participating in any coordinated disbursements.
       (3) Prohibition on Participating in Coordinated 
     Disbursements During Primary Election: Subsection 1(b)(3) 
     prohibits primary candidates receiving federal matching funds 
     from participating in coordinated disbursements unless the 
     coordinated disbursement is a contribution subject to the 
     election law's contribution limits.


    Section 2: Requirements for Political Parties Accepting Public 
           Financing for Presidential Nominating Conventions

       Section 2 imposes five new requirements on political 
     parties accepting public financing for their presidential 
     nominating conventions: (a) they must agree to use only hard 
     money to fund advertisements using a presidential candidate's 
     name or likeness in a presidential election year; (b) they 
     must agree to limit their express advocacy expenditures--
     whether they are made in coordination with their 
     presidential candidate or independently of them--to the 
     amount set in Section 441a(d); (c) they must agree not to 
     participate in coordinated disbursements with respect to 
     their presidential candidates; (d) they must agree not to 
     solicit any funds for or make any donations to tax-exempt 
     groups; and (e) they must agree to a ban on soft money:
       (a) Definition of Electioneering Advertising: Section 2 
     defines ``electioneering advertising'' to include a 
     communication that either uses words like ``vote for'' or 
     ``vote against'' the candidate, or that refers to one or more 
     clearly identified candidates in a communication that is 
     widely disseminated through a broadcast station, newspaper, 
     magazine, direct mail or any other type of general public 
     communication. The provision explicitly excludes printed 
     voter guides from the term ``electioneering advertising,'' as 
     long as the voter guide presents information in an 
     educational manner about two or more candidates' positions on 
     issues, is not coordinated with candidates or political 
     parties, provides equal prominence to all candidates covered 
     by the guide, and does not contain phrases like ``vote for'' 
     or ``vote against'' any candidate.
       (b) Restrictions on Electioneering Advertising by Parties: 
     Section 2 provides that throughout the presidential election 
     year, parties accepting public convention financing must use 
     only hard money to pay for electioneering advertising 
     featuring presidential candidates. In addition, it prohibits 
     them from avoiding this restriction by transferring funds to 
     State parties for the purpose of running such ads.
       (c) Limits on Coordinated and Independent Expenditures: 
     Section 441a(d) provides that political parties can spend a 
     set amount of money in coordination with their presidential 
     candidates to further those candidates' chances for election. 
     Under Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. 
     Federal Election Commission, parties also have the right to 
     make unlimited ``independent expenditures''--that is, 
     expenditures that expressly advocate a candidate but are not 
     made in consultation with the candidate. Section 2 of the 
     Lieberman bill would require parties accepting convention 
     financing to agree to limit all categories of their 
     expenditures for their presidential candidates--whether they 
     be coordinated expenditures, independent expenditures or 
     expenditures for electioneering advertising--to the amount 
     set in Section 441a(d).
       (d) Prohibition on Coordinated Disbursements: Section 2 
     provides that parties accepting public convention financing 
     may not participate in coordinated disbursements involving 
     presidential candidates during a presidential election year. 
     Note that because the definition of ``coordinated 
     disbursement'' excludes Section 441a(d) expenditures, parties 
     still may spend a specified amount in coordination with their 
     presidential candidates.
       (e) Prohibition on Donations to Tax-Exempt Organizations: 
     Section 2 provides that parties accepting convention 
     financing may not solicit any funds for, or direct any 
     donations to, IRS Code Section 501(c) organizations that 
     engage in any election-related activity, which is defined to 
     include voter registration, get-out-the-vote activities, the 
     publication or distribution of voter guides, or the making of 
     widely disseminated communications that mention candidates or 
     political parties.
       (f) Prohibition on Soft Money: Section 2 requires parties 
     accepting convention financing to agree to a ban on soft 
     money. The language for the ban is taken from S. 25, the 
     McCain-Feingold bill.


       Section 3: Required Disclaimer for Presidential Candidates

       Section 3 requires candidates for the presidency to add the 
     following statement to any broadcast or direct mail 
     advertisement: ``Federal law establishes voluntary spending 
     limits for candidates for President. This candidate ____ 
     agreed to abide by the limits.'' The blank line is to be 
     filled in with either ``has'' or ``has not,'' as appropriate.


      Section 4: Limitations on Political Activity by Tax-Exempt 
                             Organizations

       Section 4 makes more explicit the precise limits on the 
     political activities of organizations with tax-exempt status 
     under Section 501(c)(3) or (c)(4) of the tax code. It 
     provides that such organizations shall lose their exemption 
     if they:
       (a) solicit or accept a contribution from a political party 
     or a candidate;
       (b) make or direct a contribution to a political party or a 
     candidate;
       (c) make a disbursement for electioneering advertising 
     (defined in Section 2, above) if the advertising is made 60 
     days or less before a general election or 30 days or less 
     before a primary election, unless the disbursement 
     constitutes an independent expenditure that is otherwise 
     permitted by law; or
       (d) participate in a coordinated disbursement (defined in 
     Section 1(b)(1), above).


  Section 5: Ensuring that Section 527 Organizations Comply with the 
                         Federal Election Laws

       A number of 501(c)(4) organizations active in federal 
     election-related activity apparently have started switching 
     their status to Section 527, a different provision of the tax 
     code that offers tax benefits with fewer restrictions on 
     political activity. At the same time, these organizations 
     claim that they are not subject to FECA because they are not 
     engaging in express advocacy. Section 5 amends the 
     definitions of the term ``political organization'' in Section 
     527 and ``political committee'' in FECA to make clear that 
     the tax benefits of Section 527 are available only to 
     organizations whose activities are regulated under FECA, 
     unless the organization focuses exclusively on State or local 
     political activity.


                        Section 6: Severability

       Section 6 provides that a declaration that any provision of 
     the legislation is unconstitutional shall not affect the rest 
     of the legislation.


                       Section 7: Effective Date

       Section 7 provides that the legislation takes effect 30 
     days after enactment.


             Section 8: Authority to Promulgate Regulations

       Section 8 provides the FEC and the IRS with authority to 
     (a) promulgate regulations as necessary to enforce the 
     legislation and (b) provide exceptions to any of the 
     legislation's provisions if necessary to serve the public 
     interest.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY:
  S. 1667. A bill to amend section 2164 of title 10, United States 
Code, to clarify the eligibility of dependents of United States Service 
employees to enroll in Department of Defense dependents schools in 
Puerto Rico; to the Committee on Armed Services.


               department of defense schools legislation

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President. I would like to draw attention to a 
problem in our drug control program. It concerns something that the 
Department of Defense (DoD) is not doing. And frankly it's embrassing. 
Today, the men and women of federal law enforcement constantly put 
their lives at risk in an effort to fight the increasing flow of 
illicit drugs into our country. Not only do we face the threat of an 
increase of drugs in our children's schools and on our streets, but our 
law enforcement officers continue to face a rising tide of violence at 
our borders and in our cities as a result of the drug trade. We 
continue to see the flow of narcotics across the Southern tier of the 
U.S. to include Puerto Rico. Law enforcement personnel, with their 
commitment to the mission to fight the war on drugs, work many long 
hours, sometimes late into the evening and are subject to changes in 
their schedules at a moment's notice. The families of these officers 
also feel the pressures of the job they perform. This brings me to the 
point I would like to make.
  The front lines of the U.S. Customs Service do not involve just a 
problem of gun-toting drug thugs. Agents face more than long hours and 
risky situations. While they deal with all these things, they must 
shoulder the additional burden of coping with bureautic bumbledom. This 
added load is a result of DoD officiousness and unwillingness to 
cooperate. The language of instruction in Puerto Rico public schools is

[[Page S845]]

Spanish and not English. Therefore, the only affordable English-
language school option for U.S. Customs personnel is the DoD school. 
However, current legislation and DoD policy is creating a hardship for 
Customs employees and their families. This unnecessarily affects our 
counter-drug efforts by undermining morale.
  It is understanding that the children of these law enforcement 
personnel have been attending DoD schools in Puerto Rico for more than 
20 years. Throughout the years, changes in legislation and DoD policy 
have placed numerous restrictions on Customs and other Federal civilian 
agencies. Customs has recently augmented its workforce in Puerto Rico 
under its Operation Gateway initiative in light of the continuing and 
heightened threat of narcotics smuggling and money laundering in the 
Caribbean Basin. I supported this initiative.
  This session I will also stress the need for better coordination of 
our interdiction strategy, particularly the need to develop a 
``Southern Tier'' concept. This initiative will strive to focus 
resources in a more comprehensive way to protect our southern frontier. 
Puerto Rico is crucial to this strategy. Current legislation and DoD's 
policy requirements are, however, obstacles to the effective 
implementation of this aggressive enforcement initiative in terms of 
recruitment and retention of Customs employees because, as I stated 
earlier, there are no English speaking public schools in Puerto Rico.
  In my view, it is unfair that Customs agents and Inspectors in Puerto 
Rico--the men and women who deal daily with difficult and dangerous 
situations--should find their attention distracted by something like 
this.
  The U.S. Customs Service interdicts more drugs than any other 
Government Agency. Based on the size of the workforce of Customs in 
Puerto Rico, their critical law enforcement mission, the difficulty in 
recruiting, and the negative effect this policy is having on their 
employees and families (over 150 children of Customs employees are 
currently enrolled in the program), I would like to see a swift 
solution to these problems.
  Recently, a Customs' Special Agent was killed in an accident while 
assisting the U.S. Secret Service on a Presidential detail. This 
highlights another problem. My legislation would also address a concern 
raised by this case. It happens that the children of this agent 
currently attend classes in the DoD school in Puerto Rico. It is my 
understanding that a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury was sent 
to the Secretary of Defense requesting that these children be able to 
continue to attend classes in the DoD school program for the remainder 
of their education. So far, DoD has dragged its feet and has not 
resolved the matter. What is unfortunate is that at the end of the 
year, these children will no longer be eligible to attend the DoD 
school.
  My staff has communicated with DoD to resolve these problems. But DoD 
has not been very responsive. I personally wrote the Secretary of 
Defense to work out a solution. I got a response from a low-level 
bureaucrat who responded just like, well, a bureaucrat. The answer was, 
``nothing can be done'', that the solution is to ``change the 
legislation''.
  Mr. President, I plan to do just that. Today, I am introducing 
legislation that would clarify the eligibility of Customs Service 
employee dependents to enroll in the Department of Defense Schools in 
Puerto Rico. This bill is essential in order to address the current 
problems that I have described for these employees and their families. 
I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that our efforts 
to protect our country from illicit drugs is effective and adequately 
supported. I hope that my colleagues will look at this legislation and 
join me in sponsoring this bill. It is enough of a burden on the 
families of the dedicated men and women who labor to protect our 
borders without further weighing them down with senseless red tape.
  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. 1667

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

     SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY OF CUSTOMS SERVICE 
                   EMPLOYEE DEPENDENTS TO ENROLL IN DEPARTMENT OF 
                   DEFENSE DEPENDENTS SCHOOLS IN PUERTO RICO.

       (a) Clarification.--Section 2164(c) of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4)(A) A dependent of a United States Customs Service 
     employee who resides in Puerto Rico but not on a military 
     installation may enroll in an educational program provided by 
     the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a) in Puerto Rico.
       ``(B) Notwithstanding the limitation on duration of 
     enrollment set forth in paragraph (2), a dependent described 
     in subparagraph (A) who is enrolled in an education program 
     described in that subparagraph may be removed from the 
     program only for good cause (as determined by the Secretary).
       ``(C) In the event of the death in the line of duty of an 
     employee described in subparagraph (A), a dependent of the 
     employee may remain enrolled in an educational program 
     described in that subparagraph until--
       ``(i) the dependent completes the secondary education 
     associated with such educational program; or
       ``(ii) the dependent is removed for good cause (as so 
     determined).''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act and 
     apply to academic years beginning on or after that date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself and Mr. Warner):
  S.J. Res. 41. A joint resolution approving the location of a Martin 
Luther King, Jr., Memorial in the Nation's Capital; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


    LEGISLATION ON PLACEMENT OF THE MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. MEMORIAL

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the 104th Congress passed legislation, 
introduced by myself and my distinguished colleague Senator Warner, to 
authorize the establishment of a monument to Dr. Martin Luther King, 
Jr. on federal land in the District of Columbia.
  Today I rise, once again for myself and Senator Warner, to introduce 
legislation that would give effect to the recommendation of the 
Department of Interior that this Memorial be situated in Area I of the 
Capital. Area I comprises, in the words of the Interior Department, 
``the central Monumental Core of the District of Columbia and its 
environs,'' that is, the Mall and its surrounding areas. The Department 
has determined that a commemorative work belongs in Area I only if it 
is determined to be of preeminent historical and lasting significance 
to the Nation. It comes as no surprise that the King memorial has been 
found to meet these criteria, and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
approving the Department's recommendation. I ask unanimous consent that 
the text of a January 29, 1998 letter from Don Barry, Acting Assistant 
Interior Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, to Vice President 
Gore transmitting this recommendation be included in the Record.
  Mr. President, it is particularly apt that Senator Warner and I 
introduce this legislation in February, which has been designated Black 
History Month. To place the King Memorial alongside monuments to 
America's greatest leaders would acknowledge the nation's historic debt 
to Dr. King, to his philosophy of nonviolence, and to his dream of 
Americans living together in racial harmony. The National Capital 
Memorial Commission agrees. After holding a hearing on July 29, 1997, 
on the question of the location of the King Memorial, the Commission 
informed Assistant Secretary Barry that, in his words:

       Dr. King, the central figure of the Civil Rights movement, 
     a man who strove to advance the cause of equality for all 
     Americans, and a man who dedicated himself through nonviolent 
     means to promote the principles of justice and equality, who 
     paid the ultimate price for his beliefs, has had a profound 
     effect on all Americans which will continue through history.

Situation of the King Memorial in Area I would also place Dr. King's 
legacy in historical context. Americans are already aware of the 
achievements of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, 
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the veterans of our foreign wars, and other 
Area I honorees in preserving the liberties, freedoms, and rights that 
Americans hold dear. Dr. King and his legacy hold a vital place along 
this continuum, and fully deserve the honor that the Secretary of the 
Interior seeks to accord them.
  Mr. President, while we have come a long way since Dr. King's death 
toward

[[Page S846]]

the goals of equality and racial harmony for which he lived, and gave, 
his life, we still have a long way to go. A King Memorial in Area I 
would serve as a signpost along the road toward these goals for those 
who were not alive when Dr. King lived, and as a reminder that the 
goals toward which he strove must be attained in order for America to 
remain strong and true to its governing principles.
  In closing, let me pay tribute to Alpha Phi Alpha, the oldest 
African-American fraternity in the United States, to which Dr. King and 
many other prominent African-Americans, such as former Supreme Court 
Justice Thurgood Marshall, belonged. Under the King Memorial plan 
enacted into law last Congress, Alpha Phi Alpha will coordinate the 
funding and design of the King Memorial, which will be funded entirely 
through private donations, at no cost to the public. Alpha Phi Alpha's 
efforts in this area--and its support of this legislation--reflect its 
desire that Dr. King's legacy remain alive. I urge the Senate to carry 
its burden in this effort, and to pass the Interior Department's 
recommendations into law as soon as possible.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       Department of the Interior,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                 Washington, DC, January 29, 1993.
     Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
     President of the Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Public Law 104-333, Section 508, 110 
     STAT. 4157, (1996), authorized the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity 
     to establish a memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr., in the 
     District of Columbia pursuant to the Commemorative Works Act, 
     40 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1001-1010 (1994 & Supp. I 1995).
       The Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity has requested that the 
     memorial be located in Area I, the area comprising the 
     central Monumental Core of the District of Columbia and its 
     environs, which is defined in section 1002(e) of the 
     Commemorative Works Act by a referenced map. Section 1006(a) 
     of that Act provides that the Secretary of the Interior, 
     after consultation with the National Capital Memorial 
     Commission, may recommend locating a commemorative work in 
     Area I only if the Secretary determines that the subject of 
     the memorial is of preeminent historical and lasting 
     significance to the Nation. If a determination of preeminence 
     and lasting significance is made, this section further 
     provides that the Secretary shall notify the Congress and 
     recommend that the memorial be located in Area I.
       Following its public meeting on July 29, 1997, the National 
     Capital Memorial Commission advised me that Dr. King, the 
     central figure of the Civil Rights movement, a man who strove 
     to advance the cause of equality for all Americans, and a man 
     who dedicated himself through nonviolent means to promote the 
     principles of justice and equality, who paid the ultimate 
     price for his beliefs, has had a profound effect on all 
     Americans which will continue through history.
       I have considered the advice and find the subject to be of 
     preeminent historical and lasting significance to the Nation. 
     The Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity should be granted the 
     authority to consider locations within Area I as potential 
     sites for the memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr.
       In accordance with section 1006(a) of the Act, notice is 
     hereby given that I have, through my designee, consulted with 
     the National Capital Memorial Commission, and recommend that 
     the memorial be authorized a location within Area I. Under 
     section 1006(a) of that Act, my recommendation to locate the 
     memorial in Area I shall be deemed disapproved unless, not 
     later than 150 days after this notification, the 
     recommendation is approved by law.
       No sites have been considered in advance of this 
     recommendation. Enclosed is a draft of a joint resolution to 
     authorize location of this memorial in Area I. We recommend 
     that it be referred to the appropriate Committee for 
     consideration.
       The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there 
     is no objection to the enactment of the enclosed draft joint 
     resolution from the standpoint of the Administration's 
     program.
           Sincerely,

                                                    Don Barry,

                                    Acting Assistant Secretary for
     Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

                          ____________________