[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 16 (Thursday, February 26, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1070-S1080]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CONRAD:
  S. 1681. A bill to shorten the campaign period for congressional 
elections; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.


                      campaign finance legislation

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from 
Wisconsin, Senator Feingold. Nobody has shown a greater commitment to 
try to change the system that is broken than the Senator from 
Wisconsin. He has worked diligently with Members on the other side of 
the aisle to fashion a plan that would command a majority of support.
  I am certain there are people watching today who wonder how can it be 
that a majority is in favor but it does not get passed, because we all 
learn in our civics classes that majority rules in America. Well, 
majority rules at election time; unfortunately, it does not rule on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate because, if it did, McCain-Feingold would be 
passed with votes to spare and we would have our first serious reform 
of the campaign financing system in this country in years. Is there any 
question that it is needed? Is there any American who seriously 
believes that the system that we have is the right system? I can tell 
you, as one who has run three times for the U.S. Senate, this system is 
broken, this system is rotten, this system is corrupting and it ought 
to be changed.
  Mr. President, last October we began this debate--last October. We 
resumed it on Monday. And once again we appear to be in gridlock on 
this important issue. During my 11 years in the Senate, there have been 
numerous attempts to address the problems that confront the financing 
of American elections. Unfortunately, all of these initiatives have 
failed. It is clear, I think, now more than ever that we

[[Page S1071]]

need to change the system. Simply put, campaigns are too long and they 
are too expensive. I tell you, anywhere I go in my constituency, people 
say to me, ``Gee, do we really have to be subjected to ads for a 
year?''
  In my last campaign, the campaign ads started almost a year before 
the election. And we are not the exception. People are saying, ``Wait a 
minute. That is too much.'' I saw last night on television, 
Presidential candidates are already in New Hampshire, and the election 
is 3 years away. Campaigns are too long and they are too expensive.
  That is why today I am introducing legislation that will reduce the 
length and the cost of campaigns. I think increasingly the electorate 
is saying to us, ``look, shorten these campaigns. That's the one sure 
way to reduce the money that is flowing into them.''
  During the 1996 election cycle, we saw record amounts of money spent 
on campaigns. Total costs for congressional elections have increased 
sixfold since 1976. We can see back in 1976, all congressional 
campaigns, $99 million. Look at this, up, up, and away; every election, 
up, up, up--$765 million in the last election cycle.
  Where does this stop? We have Senators who are supposed to be raising 
$10,000 a day. It is the average for a Senator to run a campaign. There 
is talk now in California that a typical Senate race will cost $30 
million. We are turning Senators into full-time fundraisers. Is that 
what we want in this country? I do not think so. I do not think that is 
what the American people want us to be doing with our time.
  Let me go to the next chart that shows the average cost of winning a 
Senate seat went from $600,000 in 1976--$600,000--to nearly $4 million 
today. Those increased costs are primarily due to the skyrocketing cost 
of campaign advertising.
  Let me go to the next chart. The total amount of money spent on 
campaign advertising jumped nearly eightfold during this period, from 
$51 million in 1976 to over $400 million in 1996.
  It has been estimated that television advertising accounts for nearly 
half of the funds spent on Senate campaigns.
  Clearly, candidates are being forced to spend too much time raising 
campaign money and not enough time debating the issues adn listening to 
the concerns of the voters. Our current system threatens to push 
average Americans out of the electoral process.
  I hear it all the time when we go out to recruit candidates--how can 
I possibly raise that amount of money to be competitive? Now, that 
should not be the determinant. The determinant on whether somebody is a 
candidate should be their qualifications, their skills and abilities to 
serve their constituents.
  In 1960, the total amount of money spent on all political campaigns 
in the United States was $175 million. In 1996, that figure increased 
to $4 billion. Here it is, $175 million in 1960, $4 billion in 1996.
  What has happened to participation? Participation was 63 percent of 
the American people who voted in 1960. In 1996, less than half of those 
eligible voted. People are turning off to this process. One of the big 
reasons is the money. They know money is dominating political campaigns 
in America and they are sick of it and they fell disenfranchised by it. 
Most people understand the corrosive effect of the current campaign 
system.
  The people of my State, and I believe the people of the Nation, want 
the system changed. My legislation addresses in a fair and reasonable 
manner the problems associated with the length and costs of campaigns. 
Under my bill, if candidates agree to limit their campaign ads to 2 
months before a general election and 1 month before a primary election, 
they will receive reduced broadcast advertising rates. I have been 
advised by the Congressional Research Service that my proposal would be 
upheld as fully constitutional. Under current law, broadcasters must 
sell time to candidates at the lowest unit rate in the 45 days before a 
primary and the last 60 days before a general election. My bill 
modifies this provision by requiring broadcasters to sell time to 
eligible candidates at 50 percent of the lowest unit rate in the last 
30 days of a primary election and in the last 60 days of a general 
election. This time cannot be preempted.
  In addition, for a candidate to qualify, the ads must be at least 1 
minute in length. Broadcasters can't preempt this time. I want to 
emphasize that. Nonparticipating candidates will not be eligible for 
this lower rate. I would even support using broadcast spectrum revenues 
to offset the cost to broadcasters of these lower rates for candidates 
in order to provide an incentive for people to sign up for the shorter 
campaign period. I think that would be supported by not only both 
parties--I noted the majority leader indicated that he would strongly 
support reducing the length of campaigns, but I think it would also be 
welcomed by the American people who are tired of the deluge of 
political ads.
  My legislation will achieve this end in a constitutional manner and 
reduce the amount of money spent on campaigns. It is high time to 
change this system.
  I want to again commend the Senator from Wisconsin for his 
outstanding leadership on this subject and submit to my colleagues it 
is time for us to consider a radical restructuring of how we run our 
elections.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota 
very much and look forward to looking carefully at his proposal.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. D'AMATO (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Abraham, Mr. 
        Moynihan, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Inhofe):
  S. 1682. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
joint and several liability of spouses on joint returns of Federal 
income tax, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                   internal revenue code legislation

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
with my good friends and distinguished colleagues, the senior Senator 
from New York, Senator Moynihan, Senator Graham of Florida and Senator 
Abraham. Our bill is rightfully entitled the ``Innocent Spouse Tax 
Relief Act of 1998.''
  Mr. President, this bill will bring relief to innocent spouses, 
predominantly women, women who have been held responsible now for the 
tax liabilities incurred by their husbands. Merely because they happen 
to file a joint return, they then become held hostage and are liable in 
some cases. The Finance Committee, these past several weeks, has been 
holding hearings.
  On February 11, we held hearings on how the IRS administers the tax 
law after a divorce or separation. We had a number of women who came 
forward, women who related the most shocking tales of how they have 
been harassed, how they have been pursued for overdue tax debts, not 
that they incurred but that were incurred by their husbands.
  Under the current law, when a spouse signs a joint tax return, they 
become 100 percent responsible and liable for the other spouse's tax 
errors. This law exposes the innocent spouse to incredible financial 
obligations and emotional harm that follows thereafter.
  Let me give you the case in point that one person brought to our 
attention--Elizabeth Cockrell. Elizabeth came to this country from 
Canada at the age of 28, married a commodities broker. The marriage 
lasted 3 years. Now, 9 years after her divorce--9 years after her 
divorce--the Internal Revenue Service came to her and said her husband 
owed initially $100,000 because he had taken deductions with tax 
shelters that they disallowed.
  They came after her and they said, ``You owe $500,000.'' Now, here is 
this single person--no fault of her own--she was not involved in the 
business, had no knowledge that these tax shelters would be declared 
illegal, and 9 years after her marriage they come to her and say, ``You 
owe $500,000.'' Today, as a result of the interest and penalties that 
have accrued, she is now in debt to the tune, according to the IRS, of 
$650,000.
  Her only mistake was signing a joint return with her husband. Because 
she signed that return, she became individually responsible for 100 
percent of that tax. Thus far, the IRS has only pursued her and not her 
husband and refuses to let her lawyer know that, if anything, they are 
going to pursue her husband. They have not been able to collect from 
him, so they go after her. She has a child, a job; she has community

[[Page S1072]]

roots, so she is an easy target and they go after her.
  She has done nothing wrong. She has attempted to settle with the IRS, 
but they refuse. This is just one case. But, Mr. President, let me say 
that the General Accounting Office has estimated that there are 50,000 
cases a year--every year 50,000 new cases come up.
  Every year we have innocent spouses who are being pursued, not 
because they have incurred a tax liability which they are responsible 
for but because of the arcane law they are held to, what we call joint 
and several liability. So they may have had no knowledge of the 
misdeeds or of the mistake, and they are held responsible.
  So Elizabeth Cockrell represents what is taking place repeatedly. Now 
we have literally hundreds of thousands of women who are being pursued 
by the Internal Revenue Service whose husbands or spouses may have left 
owing the IRS moneys. And now they have multiplied, in the case of 
Elizabeth Cockrell where her husband, former husband, initially owed 
$100,000, and he is now being pursued, and it is up to $650,000. Next 
year it will rise.
  So these are not nameless and faceless people; these are people, and 
90 percent of them are women. Tremendous hardship. Our bill will say 
clearly that a person can only be held liable for the income that he or 
she has earned, and the failure to report properly, yes, they will be 
held liable, but not an innocent spouse.
  Mr. President, the American Bar Association has recommended this 
legislation and, indeed, has worked with myself and Senator Graham--I 
see my colleague from Florida who has cosponsored this along with 
Senator Moynihan--and they have recommended this change. They do not 
recommend changes in the tax laws easily. They recognize that this is 
absolutely discriminatory.
  In addition, the National Taxpayers Union--300,000 members--they have 
recommended this legislation. It is long overdue.
  Last, but not least, we have hundreds of thousands of people today, 
mostly women--90 percent of them are women--who are being pursued 
improperly. The Internal Revenue Service has no choice, given the way 
the legislation now exists. Our bill would free these people from this 
unfair obligation which is now being thrust upon them. The hundreds of 
thousands of working women who are now being pursued unfairly, not 
because they have incurred any tax liability on their own, but simply 
because they were married and they were the innocent spouse of someone 
who filed incorrectly, improperly, or withheld information that they 
were not aware of.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Yes.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will you be kind enough to add me as a cosponsor?
  Mr. D'AMATO. I will be glad to add Senator Biden, the senior 
Senator--he has been here a long time, but he is not the senior 
Senator--as an original cosponsor.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Biden as a 
cosponsor of my legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this 
important, bipartisan proposal to improve fairness.
  We talk about fairness. I do not know when we are going to change the 
overall IRS Code, et cetera, but this certainly will restore confidence 
among taxpayers and give desperately needed relief to hundreds and 
hundreds of thousands of working moms out there who are now being 
pursued improperly.
  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. 1682

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

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY ON JOINT 
                   RETURNS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 6013(d) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rules) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) if a joint return is made, the tax shall be computed 
     on the aggregate income, and liability for tax shall be 
     determined under subsection (e).''
       (b) Determination of Proportional or Separate Liability for 
     Payment of Tax With Respect to Joint Returns.--Section 
     6013(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     spouse relieved of liability in certain cases) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(e) Liability for Payment of Tax With Respect to Joint 
     Returns.--When spouses elect to file a joint return for a 
     taxable year, the liability for tax with respect to that year 
     shall be determined as follows:
       ``(1) Tax reported on the return.--The liability for the 
     tax computed with respect to income and deductions as 
     reported on the return shall be in proportion to the tax 
     liability which each spouse would have incurred if each had 
     reported his or her apportionable items on a separate return 
     of a married individual, provided that a payment by one 
     spouse in excess of such spouse's proportionate share of 
     liability for the tax reported on the return shall not be 
     refunded unless there is an overpayment with respect to the 
     return.
       ``(2) Liability for deficiencies imposed on the responsible 
     spouse.--Liability for a deficiency shall be imposed as 
     follows:
       ``(A) With respect to an item of income, on the individual 
     spouse to whom the item is apportionable.
       ``(B) With respect to an item of deduction, on the 
     individual spouse to whom the item is apportionable to the 
     extent that income apportioned to such spouse was offset by 
     the deduction.

     Liability for deficiency in excess of the amount allocated 
     under subparagraph (B) shall be imposed on the other spouse.
       ``(3) Apportionable items.--A taxpayer's apportionable 
     items shall be the taxpayer's share of the income and 
     deductions reportable on the joint return of the taxpayer and 
     his spouse, apportioned in the same manner as income and 
     deductions are apportioned under section 861 (determination 
     of income from sources within the United States). The 
     Secretary may prescribe regulations under which simplified 
     apportionment methods are authorized in making these 
     determinations.''

     SEC. 2. COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAWS DISREGARDED IN DETERMINING 
                   TAX LIABILITY.

       (a) In General.--Section 66 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to treatment of community income) is amended 
     to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 66. COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAWS.

       ``(a) Tax Liability.--For the purpose of determining the 
     tax liability of an individual under this chapter, community 
     property laws shall be disregarded.
       ``(b) Attribution of Income and Deductions Under Community 
     Property Law.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of chapter 1, the income 
     and deductions of a taxpayer and his spouse under community 
     property law shall be allocated between the spouses under 
     rules similar to the allocation rules of section 879(a) 
     (relating to treatment of community income of nonresident 
     alien individuals).
       ``(2) Income derived from property allocated according to 
     title.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), community income which 
     is derived from property shall be allocated in the same 
     manner as the spouses hold title to such property and not as 
     provided in paragraph (4) of section 879(a).''
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for part I 
     of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by striking the item relating to section 66 
     and inserting:

``Sec. 66. Community property laws.''

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply to taxable 
     years beginning before, on, or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, Senator D'Amato, 
Senator Moynihan, Senator Biden and others in cosponsoring the innocent 
spouse legislation.
  Under existing law, married taxpayers are liable for their spouse's 
Federal income taxes when they file a joint return. This is true 
regardless of which spouse earns what income, which spouse is 
responsible for expenses that qualify as deductions or credits. Each 
spouse is potentially liable for all of the couple's tax debts. You 
might ask why do couples agree to take on each other's debts. There are 
probably multiple reasons. For one, many couples want to intermingle 
all their finances as part of their marriage. Most couples filing 
jointly reduce the couple's overall tax liability. Most married couples 
do not contemplate a subsequent separation or divorce and unpaid taxes 
when they file a joint return.
  Unfortunately, separations and divorces do occur. It is in dividing 
up the assets and liabilities of the marriage that many women discover 
that their ex-husband erred on the joint tax return and that the IRS is 
in pursuit of the unpaid taxes. The Finance Committee hearings and 
reports issued by the Treasury Department demonstrate that many times 
the IRS does not focus on collecting money from the ex-husband either 
because he cannot be found as easily or because he has few

[[Page S1073]]

assets or income-earning potential. Instead, it is the innocent spouse 
who becomes the target of the collection effort. This is true despite 
the fact that when the return was completed and filed the wife may have 
had little or no income and may have had little, if any, knowledge 
about the couple's financial affairs.
  If I could use as a specific example that illustrates literally 
thousands of cases, one of the witnesses who testified before the 
Finance Committee at the February 11, 1998, meeting was Ms. Karen 
Andreasen of Tampa, FL. Here is her story. Unfortunately it is all too 
topical of many American women.
  Ms. Andreasen testified that her husband, who ironically was a former 
IRS employee and financial consultant operating his own business, had 
handled most of the family's financial affairs including completing tax 
returns. When the couple decided to divorce, Ms. Andreasen learned that 
the couple had significant potential IRS debts. She testified that her 
ex-husband had forged her name on joint returns, yet the IRS was 
holding her responsible for the tax liability resulting from her ex-
husband's business. Even though Ms. Andreasen had no individual income 
for the years in question, she had been saddled for several years with 
the obligation for her husband's taxes, and her home today remains 
subject to a tax lien.
  Why doesn't our current tax law provide protection for innocent 
spouses such as Ms. Andreasen? Well, Congress did pass what is called 
the innocent spouse rule several years ago. Under this law, in certain 
narrow circumstances, a spouse can be relieved of liability for taxes 
assessed by an IRS audit after a joint return is filed. However, its 
provisions are so complicated and narrow that few can meet all of its 
tests. There is a growing acceptance of the principle that now Congress 
needs to change the rules.
  In 1995, the American Bar Association recommended the legislation 
which is being introduced today. The House has taken a different 
approach. It has adopted as part of its IRS reform bill liberalizations 
in the innocent spouse rule for purposes of providing relief to more 
innocent spouses. Even the Treasury and the IRS have acknowledged the 
need for reform and have already taken steps to provide taxpayers with 
more information regarding the current innocent spouse rules. They have 
also suggested several statutory and regulatory changes which would 
expand the innocent spouse provisions to accommodate more cases. 
However, neither the House bill nor the Treasury's proposals will solve 
the underlying problem. We must grant individuals fair treatment where 
the individual spouse makes an error on the return. To do that, we must 
allow individuals to take responsibility for their individual share of 
the joint tax liability.

  The legislation which has been introduced today provides that all 
married taxpayers be taxed only on their individual incomes. The bill 
would not eliminate joint filing. It would not change the tax tables to 
eliminate the reduced taxes that many times accompany joint filings. 
The bill does simply say that if the IRS asserts a tax deficiency on a 
joint return, each spouse will be individually liable for his or her 
portion of the liability.
  In other words, income and deductions attributable to activities will 
be used to calculate the husband's portion of the tax liability and a 
similar calculation of the wife or ex-wife's portion of the tax 
liability.
  The bill specifically provides that it will be applicable to all open 
tax cases, including ones originating in years prior to the date of 
enactment. Mr. President, this legislation provides that its 
application will be retroactive to current open tax cases. This 
approach will guarantee relief for Karen Andreasen and the many other 
spouses who have, through no fault of their own, been placed in extreme 
financial and emotional distress.
  Repealing the joint liability of spouses will simply the tax system 
and it will give the IRS clear guidance as to where to go to collect 
tax debts.
  I want to thank Senator Roth for organizing a thorough examination of 
the IRS in preparation for markup of the Internal Revenue Service 
reform bill. The legislation Senator D'Amato, others, and I introduce 
today was generated as a result of that thorough investigation.
  Mr. President, there have been unknown thousands of innocent spouses 
who have been subjected to extreme emotional and financial distress 
solely because they filed joint returns with their spouses. This 
legislation establishes fundamental equity in providing that each 
individual is responsible for his or her own actions, but will not be 
held accountable for actions or conduct of another.
  By applying this legislation retroactively to currently open cases, 
we will provide significant and immediate relief to those who have been 
unfairly charged with taxes they did not rightly owe. We will establish 
the principle that liability for an erroneous item tracks 
responsibility and will force the IRS to collect taxes from the person 
who rightfully owes those taxes.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GORTON:
  S. 1683. A bill to transfer administrative jurisdiction over part of 
the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area from the Secretary of the 
Interior to the Secretary of Agriculture for inclusion in the Wenatchee 
National Forest; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


          The Wenatchee National Forest INCLUSION ACT OF 1998

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I am introducing S. 1683, 
legislation to transfer approximately 23 acres of land from the Lake 
Chelan National Recreation Area to the Wenatchee National Forest. This 
legislation is supported by both the National Park Service and the 
United States Forest Service, and would end a 10-year ordeal for my 
constituent, Mr. George C. Wall. Mr. Wall has been trying since 1987 to 
shift his 23 acres from the Recreation Area to the National Forest in 
order to more effectively manage his entire 168 plot of land. S. 1683 
is non-controversial and I hope this body will approve it as 
expeditiously as possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HUTCHINSON:
  S. 1684. A bill to allow the recovery of attorneys' fees and costs by 
certain employers and labor organizations who are prevailing parties in 
proceedings brought against them by the National Labor Relations Board; 
to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


           the fair access to indemnity and reimbursement act

      By Mr. HUTCHINSON:
  S. 1685. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to require 
the National Labor Relations Board to resolve unfair labor practice 
complaints in a timely manner; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


                    the justice on time act of 1998

      By Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Mack):
  S. 1686. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to 
determine the appropriateness of certain bargaining units in the 
absence of a stipulation or consent; to the Committee on Labor and 
Human Resources.


                          the fair hearing act

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, our economy is doing well. Over 13 
million new jobs have been created in the last 5 years and unemployment 
is at a 24-year low. The engine behind this growth is America's 
entrepreneurs. Last year, over 840,000 new small businesses were 
started in this country adding to the 22 million small businesses 
already in existence in the United States.

  Not only are new jobs being created at an astounding rate, but job 
satisfaction levels are on the rise as well. While these statistics are 
good news for America, they are a bitter pill for America's labor 
unions. Because of the strong employment conditions, unions are finding 
it increasingly difficult to identify workplaces that feel they need 
labor representation. In short, union membership is in a free-fall.
  Last month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that unions lost 
159,000 members in 1997 alone. Union membership has declined from 14.5 
percent of the work force to 14.1 percent this year. This drop in 
membership is hitting the unions where it hurts most, their 
pocketbooks. Unfortunately, rather than fighting back with legitimate, 
honest organizing tactics, unions are lashing out against America's 
merit shop employers with tactics aimed at undermining their very 
existence.
  Mr. President, I am always reluctant to propose legislation that 
interferes in

[[Page S1074]]

private matters, particularly matters that deal with contractual 
relationships between employers and employees. However, in this case, 
the Federal Government, through the National Labor Relations Board, is 
a coconspirator in this union attack on small businesses.
  For example, Little Rock Electrical Contractors, which is a merit 
shop contractor in my home State that hires both union and nonunion 
labor, has found itself on the barrel end of several unfair labor cases 
filed by workers the company has no record of ever even having hired or 
even interviewed.
  Last year, George Smith of Little Rock Electrical Contractors 
testified before the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, on 
which I serve, that they often settle these meritless cases simply 
because of the cost of litigating them through the NLRB and the courts, 
which is a very, very expensive process indeed.
  Mr. Smith said that his business cannot compete against the flood of 
cases that are filed against them and which are being litigated by 
Government lawyers working for the NLRB. Rather than fight, they simply 
pay. In the end, this not only hurts the employer but it hurts 
employees and consumers who bear the brunt of this cost in lower wages 
and in higher prices.
  Mr. President, unfortunately, this case is not unique. Both the House 
and Senate Labor Committees have been flooded with testimony showing 
similar efforts by unions across the country to harass and intimidate 
employers whose employees have chosen not to organize. Interestingly, 
this practice, which is known as ``salting,'' rarely, if ever, results 
in a formal petition to organize. In fact, the true nature and intent 
of salting was best explained by Mr. Gene Ellis, an IBEW organizer, who 
wrote in the Maine Labor Record the following words. And I quote:

       We've had members get monetary awards in the thousands of 
     dollars just for applying for a job, just a couple hours of 
     effort. At this writing, I'm pleased to announce that five of 
     our members will be sharing in $32,000 of BE&K's profits. All 
     for just filling out an application.

  On February 13, 1997, I introduced legislation that addresses the 
issue of salting. This legislation--called the Truth In Employment Act 
of 1997--would allow employers to reject an applicant that has no 
intention of actually working for the company but is instead solely 
interested in disrupting the workplace and harassing their employer and 
fellow employees.
  Today, I am introducing three new bills which seek to further protect 
small businesses from stern and intimidating union practices by forcing 
Government bureaucrats to seriously evaluate the actions they take 
against America's small businesses and requiring that the NLRB 
expeditiously resolve cases that are brought before it.

  First, I am introducing the Fair Access to Indemnity and 
Reimbursement Act. The FAIR Act will provide small businesses the 
incentive they need to fight back against meritless claims brought 
against them with the assistance of the NLRB and its team of lawyers.
  Simply put, the FAIR Act will allow small businesses to recoup the 
attorney's fees and expenses it spends defending itself should they 
prevail. So if a charge is brought against them, and they defend 
themselves and prevail, they will receive their attorney's fees. This 
will put some disincentive into the current practice of filing 
absolutely meritless cases in the hopes that they will tie up and 
disrupt the workplace and eventually destroy the employer. It ensures 
that those with modest means, the small company, the small business man 
or woman, will be able to fight frivolous actions brought before the 
NLRB--making the agency's bureaucrats closely consider each and every 
case before they initiate litigation.
  Mr. President, passage of the FAIR Act would be welcome news to small 
businesses across America. In particular, John Gaylor of Gaylor 
Electric from Indiana, who budgets $200,000 each year to combat 
frivolous labor charges brought against him, would finally be able to 
recoup a large portion of these annual costs and would be able to 
reinvest this money into his business and into the welfare of his 
employees.
  Mr. President, the second bill that I am introducing is the Justice 
on Time Act. This legislation eliminates another obstacle small 
business must cross before they can consider fighting meritless cases 
brought before the NLRB. It currently takes the National Labor 
Relations Board an average of 546 days--546 days--to process unfair 
labor claims. This delay compounds the back pay rewards that businesses 
must pay if they are found to be in violation of the National Labor 
Relations Act.
  Furthermore, it delays the reinstatement of employees who are in 
limbo waiting to learn if they will get their jobs back. The Justice on 
Time Act is reasonable legislation that will force the NLRB to resolve 
unfair labor cases involving the dismissal of an employee within 1 
year. And 1 year ought to be long enough.
  Finally, Mr. President, I am introducing the Fair Hearing Act which 
will require the NLRB to conduct a hearing to determine the appropriate 
bargaining unit in cases where labor organizations attempt to organize 
employees at one or more facilities of a multifacility employer.
  The NLRB, at the behest I believe of organized labor, has recently 
considered regulations that would end the NLRB's decade-long practice 
of resolving disputes over what constitutes an appropriate bargaining 
unit in an open hearing. While the NLRB recently pulled its proposed 
rule ending the use of hearings, and replacing it with a fairly broad 
set of ``union favoring'' criteria, the Fair Hearing Act would ensure 
that this practice is never again jeopardized by bureaucrats at the 
National Labor Relations Board.
  Mr. President, these three bills simply seek to level the playing 
field on which organized labor and small employers compete. The 
strength of this country rests on the freedom of individuals to pursue 
their dreams, to pursue their ideas and risk their capital to open and 
operate a small business. With a level playing field, these dreams can 
continue to be met and can continue to be realized.
  The three bills that I am introducing today will help ensure that the 
efforts of small business men and women across this country are not 
hindered by intrusive and misused Government regulations. I ask my 
colleagues for their consideration and support of this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the texts of the bills be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1684

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Access to Indemnity and 
     Reimbursement Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) Certain small businesses and labor organizations are at 
     a great disadvantage in terms of expertise and resources when 
     facing actions brought by the National Labor Relations Board.
       (2) The attempt to ``level the playing field'' for small 
     businesses and labor organizations by means of the Equal 
     Access to Justice Act has proven ineffective and has been 
     underutilized by these small entities in their actions before 
     the National Labor Relations Board.
       (3) The greater expertise and resources of the National 
     Labor Relations Board as compared with those of small 
     businesses and labor organizations necessitate a standard 
     that awards fees and costs to certain small entities when 
     they prevail against the National Labor Relations Board.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act--
       (1) to ensure that certain small businesses and labor 
     organizations will not be deterred from seeking review of, or 
     defending against, actions brought against them by the 
     National Labor Relations Board because of the expense 
     involved in securing vindication of their rights;
       (2) to reduce the disparity in resources and expertise 
     between certain small businesses and labor organizations and 
     the National Labor Relations Board; and
       (3) to make the National Labor Relations Board more 
     accountable for its enforcement actions against certain small 
     businesses and labor organizations by awarding fees and costs 
     to these entities when they prevail against the National 
     Labor Relations Board.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.

       The National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:


                 ``awards of attorneys' fees and costs

       ``Sec. 20. (a) Administrative Proceedings.--An employer 
     who, or a labor organization that--

[[Page S1075]]

       ``(1) is the prevailing party in an adversary adjudication 
     conducted by the Board under this or any other Act, and
       ``(2) had not more than 100 employees and a net worth of 
     not more than $1,400,000 at the time the adversary 
     adjudication was initiated,

     shall be awarded fees and other expenses as a prevailing 
     party under section 504 of title 5, United States Code, in 
     accordance with the provisions of that section, but without 
     regard to whether the position of the Board was substantially 
     justified or special circumstances make an award unjust. For 
     purposes of this subsection, the term `adversary 
     adjudication' has the meaning given that term in section 
     504(b)(1)(C) of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(b) Court Proceedings.--An employer who, or a labor 
     organization that--
       ``(1) is the prevailing party in a civil action, including 
     proceedings for judicial review of agency action by the 
     Board, brought by or against the Board, and
       ``(2) had not more than 100 employees and a net worth of 
     not more than $1,400,000 at the time the civil action was 
     filed,

      shall be awarded fees and other expenses as a prevailing 
     party under section 2412(d) of title 28, United States Code, 
     in accordance with the provisions of that section, but 
     without regard to whether the position of the United States 
     was substantially justified or special circumstances make an 
     award unjust. Any appeal of a determination of fees pursuant 
     to subsection (a) or this subsection shall be determined 
     without regard to whether the position of the United States 
     was substantially justified or special circumstances make an 
     award unjust.''.

     SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY.

       (a) Agency Proceedings.--Subsection (a) of section 20 of 
     the National Labor Relations Act, as added by section 3 of 
     this Act, applies to agency proceedings commenced on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Court Proceedings.--Subsection (b) of section 20 of the 
     National Labor Relations Act, as added by section 3 of this 
     Act, applies to civil actions commenced on or after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
                                                                    ____


                                S. 1685

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Justice on Time Act of 
     1998''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) An employee has a right under the National Labor 
     Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) to be free from 
     discrimination with regard to hire or tenure of employment or 
     any term or condition of employment to encourage or 
     discourage membership in any labor organization. The 
     Congress, the National Labor Relations Board, and the courts 
     have recognized that the discharge of an employee to 
     encourage or discourage union membership has a particularly 
     chilling effect on the exercise of rights provided under 
     section 7 of such Act.
       (2) Although an employee who has been discharged because of 
     support or lack of support for a labor organization has a 
     right to be reinstated to the previously held position with 
     backpay, reinstatement is often ordered months and even years 
     after the initial discharge due to the lengthy delays in the 
     processing of unfair labor practice charges by the National 
     Labor Relations Board and to the several layers of appeal 
     under the National Labor Relations Act.
       (3) In order to minimize the chilling effect on the 
     exercise of rights provided under section 7 of the National 
     Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157) caused by an unlawful 
     discharge and to maximize the effectiveness of the remedies 
     for unlawful discrimination under the National Labor 
     Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board should 
     endeavor to resolve in a timely manner all unfair labor 
     practice complaints alleging that an employee has been 
     unlawfully discharged to encourage or discourage membership 
     in a labor organization.
       (4) Expeditious resolution of such complaints would benefit 
     all parties not only by ensuring swift justice, but also by 
     reducing the costs of litigation and backpay awards.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to ensure that the National 
     Labor Relations Board resolves in a timely manner all unfair 
     labor practice complaints alleging that an employee has been 
     unlawfully discharged to encourage or discourage membership 
     in a labor organization.

     SEC. 4. TIMELY RESOLUTION.

       Section 10(m) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 
     U.S.C. 160) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Whenever a complaint is issued as provided in subsection 
     (b) upon a charge that any person has engaged in or is 
     engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of 
     subsection (a)(3) or (b)(2) of section 8 involving an 
     unlawful discharge, the Board shall state its findings of 
     fact and issue and cause to be served on such person an order 
     requiring such person to cease and desist from such unfair 
     labor practice and to take such affirmative action, including 
     reinstatement of an employee with or without backpay, as will 
     effectuate the policies of this Act, or shall state its 
     findings of fact and issue an order dismissing the said 
     complaint, not later than 365 days after the filing of the 
     unfair labor practice charge with the Board.''.

     SEC. 5. REGULATIONS.

       The National Labor Relation Board may issue such 
     regulations as are necessary to carry out the purposes of 
     this Act.
                                                                    ____


                                S. 1686

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Hearing Act''.

     SEC. 2. REPRESENTATIVES AND ELECTIONS.

       Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 
     159(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) If a petition for an election requests the Board to 
     certify a unit which includes the employees employed at one 
     or more facilities of a multi-facility employer, and in the 
     absence of an agreement by the parties (stipulation for 
     certification upon consent election or agreement for consent 
     election) regarding the appropriateness of the bargaining 
     unit at issue for purposes of subsection (b), the Board shall 
     provide for a hearing upon due notice to determine the 
     appropriateness of the bargaining unit. The Board shall 
     consider factors, including functional integration, 
     centralized control, common skills, functions and working 
     conditions, permanent and temporary employee interchange, 
     geographical separation, local autonomy, the number of 
     employees, bargaining history, and such other factors as the 
     Board considers appropriate.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMPSON:
  S. 1687. A bill to provide for notice to owners of property that may 
be subject to the exercise of eminent domain by private nongovernmental 
entities under certain Federal authorization statutes, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


               the notice to property owners act of 1998

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill aimed 
at preventing private property owners from being caught by surprise 
when a private company asks the Federal Government for the power to 
take their land.
  We had a situation in Marion County, TN, recently where the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission decided to grant the power of eminent 
domain to a private company for the purpose of building a natural gas 
pipeline through the county and then into Alabama.
  This pipeline will exclusively serve a new wallboard plant that the 
company plans to build in the area. And that is fine. But in the 
process, about 50 private property owners--homeowners, businessmen, 
farmers--are being forced to allow their property to be used for the 
exclusive benefit--and profit--of this private company.
  Now, that in and of itself raises a serious question in my mind. I 
wonder whether some greater public benefit needs to be demonstrated 
than simply the economic value of having this plant in the community. 
Again, we are talking about a situation where a private company is 
essentially being allowed to stand in the shoes of the Federal 
Government and seize an interest in the property of ordinary citizens 
but without committing that property to the direct use and benefit of 
the larger public. Now, that is the law as it stands today, as 
permitted, but it is a very serious matter and one which should not be 
taken lightly.
  But what I find especially troubling is the fact that these private 
land owners--my constituents--were never given personal notice that 
their lands could be taken for this private pipeline. Current 
regulations require only that notice be published in the Federal 
Register.
  If you do not happen to read the Federal Register on a daily basis 
you will never know that your property is about to be taken. Quite 
frankly, the Federal Register is not likely read in Marion County, TN, 
not by them and not by me, either, I might add. If you do not read it, 
the fact that your land is in jeopardy might be news to you until it is 
too late for you to participate meaningfully in the process in order to 
protect yourself and your interests. I think that is wrong.
  This legislation is very simple and straightforward. It would simply 
guarantee that property owners get personal notice by certified mail 
whenever a private company is seeking to acquire an interest in their 
property through the power of eminent domain. This would at the very 
least allow the landowners to meaningfully participate in the 
Government's decisionmaking process.
  That is something they did not get in this case. I do not think it is 
right. I

[[Page S1076]]

think it is pretty hard to argue that people should not have a right to 
know when the Federal Government is considering giving a private 
company the right to take their land. I do not think that anyone would 
argue that these folks should not be made aware of the rights they 
already have under the law. If you don't know about it, you can't 
protect it. That is what this bill would do.
  Just let me quickly mention a couple of things that this bill would 
not do. It would not affect State law. It only addresses a situation 
involving the Federal power of eminent domain. It would not restrict 
the Federal Government's ability to exercise the power of eminent 
domain itself. It only deals with situations where the Federal 
Government is considering whether or not to delegate the power of 
eminent domain to a private company. No Federal agency will find its 
right to acquire Federal lands through eminent domain restricted by 
this legislation. It would not cost the Federal Government any money. 
Under my bill the private companies seeking the right to exercise 
eminent domain--not the Government--would be responsible for notifying 
the property owners whose lands might be affected.
  What this bill does is state that property owners have the right to 
be notified when the Federal Government is considering giving a private 
company the right to take their land. It is basic fairness. They have a 
right to be notified at the outset of the proceedings in time for them 
to participate in the process. It gives them a chance to make sure that 
their voices are heard.
  That did not happen in Marion County. The folks there were not 
personally notified that their land was in jeopardy and they did not 
find out until it was too late. I just don't think that that is right.
  I hope the Senate will agree and will support this basic commonsense 
bill that I am introducing today.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN:
  S. 1688. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to limit 
types of communications made by candidates that receive the lowest unit 
charge; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


          the communications act of 1934 amendment act of 1998

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss legislation I am 
introducing to address a significant air pollution problem we have in 
this country.
  No, I'm not talking about smog, or acid rain, or the ozone layer, I'm 
talking about broadcast air pollution. And by that I mean the 30-
second, slash-and-burn, hit-and-run political ad that does nothing but 
cut down an opponent.
  Can you think of any other business in this country that sells its 
wares only by tearing down the opposition? Do airlines ask you to 
consider their services because their competitors' mechanics are 
unreliable, and try to conjure up images of plane crashes to get you to 
switch carriers? Do car manufacturers sell their products by raising 
dark, misleading doubts about the safety of their competitors' autos? 
Does McDonald's run ads raising the threat of E-coli bacteria in Burger 
King's hamburgers?
  Of course not, but that's precisely the way we compete in politics 
against each other.
  It is a pretty sad state of affairs when the American people get a 
more informative and dignified discussion about the soda they drink or 
the fast food restaurant they prefer than they do in the debate about 
what choices to make for our country's future. It is time to do 
something about it.
  We cannot and should not attempt to limit speech. But there is 
something we can do to provide the right incentives. Under current law, 
television stations are required to offer the lowest unit rate to 
political candidates for television advertising within 45 days of a 
primary election, and within 60 days of a general election.
  The legislation I am proposing today would change that law to provide 
that the low rate must be made available only to candidates who run ads 
that are at least one minute in length, in which the candidate appears 
at least 75 percent of the time.
  Now I want to be clear on one point. Candidates can still run any ad 
they desire. They can continue to scorch the earth with their ``hit-
and-run'' ads to their heart's content. But they will not get the 
lowest rate unless the two conditions are met. If federal law can 
require broadcasters to offer the lowest unit rate for all political 
advertising, there's no reason we cannot place some content-neutral 
restrictions on the discount, in order to improve the quality of 
political discourse in this country.
  How would my proposal improve the debate? It is my hope that by 
offering incentives for longer ads, candidates will discuss their 
positions on issues in greater detail. Certainly the 30-second 
political attack ad does little, if anything, to inform the public 
about the issues and advance the debate. And by appearing in the 
commercials, candidates will be more accountable to the voters for what 
their ads say, and will likely be more responsible about their content.
  When selecting their leaders, the American people deserve better than 
a ``hit and run'' debate. Let us do something about it.
  I would like to conclude by saying that it is still very much my hope 
that Congress will succeed in passing meaningful, comprehensive 
campaign finance reform this year. I am a co-sponsor of McCain-
Feingold, and it is very much my hope that this legislation is passed 
by Congress and signed by the President. Although it is not perfect, it 
will address many of the abuses of the current system, most notably the 
problem of unregulated ``soft money'' pouring into our political 
process through ever-widening cracks in the law. Passing McCain-
Feingold would help to restore the American people's eroding confidence 
in the way we run campaigns in this country.
  But whether Congress succeeds in passing comprehensive reform or not, 
I believe this legislation would be a modest but worthwhile step 
towards making the political debate in this country more civil, more 
informative and more meaningful to the American people. I urge my 
colleagues to support me in this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI:
  S. 1689. A bill to reform Federal election law; to the Committee on 
Rules and Administration.


the grassroots campaign and common sense federal election reform act of 
                                  1998

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my own version 
of campaign finance reform, the ``Grassroots Campaign and Common Sense 
Federal Election Reform Act of 1998.''
  During the past several Congresses, I continuously have introduced 
straightforward reform legislation to deal with four specific campaign 
finance issues: (1) out-of-state contributions; (2) PACs; (3) soft 
money; and (4) super-wealthy candidates.
  This legislation again addresses these age-old concerns, and also 
attempts to deal with some of the new problems we discovered during the 
investigation of campaign abuses in the 1996 election cycle by the 
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Before I get to those new issues, I'd like to talk a little about how 
this bill will address the major problem I have raised over and over 
again on the floor of the Senate whenever we have debated campaign 
finance reform. For many years, I have felt that the biggest problem 
with our elections is that they no longer belong to the voters, to 
those at the grassroots level, to the constituents we originally were 
sent here to serve.
  Instead, our campaigns now belong to special-interest PACs, super-
wealthy candidates who can essentially buy their congressional seats, 
and rich contributors who donate large sums of soft money to political 
parties and groups for use in so-called ``issue advocacy'' ads and 
contribute the maximum allowable under the law to candidates, even if 
those candidates do not come from their own home state.
  My bill begins by making four straightforward changes to return 
campaigns to the voters. First, it requires that candidates raise at 
least sixty percent of their money from sources within their own state. 
In my mind, the best campaigns are those funded by a large number of 
contributions from among the candidate's own constituents. This bill 
would make that a reality in virtually every federal campaign.

[[Page S1077]]

  Second, the bill bans all corporate, bank and labor union PACs and 
limits so-called ideological PAC contributions to $500 per candidate. I 
understand that there are concerns about a PAC ban, but I believe the 
best way to return elections to the electorate is to eliminate special 
interest PAC contributions to candidates.
  Third, the bill deals with the wealthy candidate problem in a way 
that I believe is consistent with the First Amendment. Rather than 
place arbitrary and unconstitutional limits on the amount of personal 
wealth a candidate could spend on behalf of his or her own campaign, 
the bill simply requires the candidate to disclose the fact that they 
plan to spend their own money and raises the contribution limits for 
the opponents of Senate candidates who intend to spend more than 
$250,000 of their own money or House candidates who intend to spend 
more than $100,000. The bill in no way prohibits wealthy candidates 
from spending their own money- that is their constitutional right. But 
the bill does level the playing field by raising contribution limits 
for candidates who face opponents with massive personal wealth at their 
disposal.
  Finally, the bill gets at the biggest problem we face today--soft 
money and its use for so-called issue advocacy. My bill limits soft 
money contributions to $100,000 per individual per party during each 
election cycle, while simultaneously increasing and indexing the limits 
on regulated federal contributions to candidates and national parties. 
I have long felt that Congress should limit soft money because soft 
money confuses the electorate and permits campaign contributions to 
come from clandestine, obscure sources.
  After the hearings in the Governmental Affairs Committee this year, I 
am convinced now more than ever that we must do something to eliminate 
the pernicious effect of soft money on our political system. Who can 
forget Roger Tamraz? He's the oil pipeline financier, who told the 
Committee that he had given $300,000 in soft money to the DNC and 
gladly would have given $600,000 for a meeting with the decision-makers 
at the White House and in the Executive Branch. My bill would prohibit 
the unlimited giving of soft money by wealthy individuals like Mr. 
Tamraz who use soft money to buy access to government.

  My bill also would deal with one of the most pernicious uses of soft 
money- so-called ``issue advocacy'' political advertisements- and it 
does so in a way that clearly is constitutional. My bill takes the 
middle ground on issue advocacy and requires anyone who spends more 
than $25,000 or more on radio or television advertising which mentions 
a federal candidate by name or likeness to make certain disclosures to 
the FEC. I have long felt that disclosure is the best way to pursue 
campaign reform. It has been said that ``sunlight is the best 
disinfectant.'' In the context of campaign reform, the sunlight of 
disclosure also is the best policy because it does no damage to the 
constitutional rights of individuals and groups to engage in political 
speech.
  Mr. President, last year's Governmental Affairs Committee hearings 
exposed repeated and rampant violations of the existing campaign laws. 
We saw on numerous occasions blatant violations of the prohibitions 
against soliciting and receiving foreign money contributions, against 
money laundering- making contributions in the name of another, and the 
law against raising money on federal property. I thought that these 
laws were pretty clear.
  Now, the Attorney General tells us that because soft money is not a 
``contribution'' under the federal election laws, it was legal for the 
President and Vice President to solicit soft money contributions on 
federal property. While I do not necessarily agree with the Attorney 
General's interpretation of current law, I certainly believe we need to 
make it absolutely clear that government officials cannot use federal 
property to raise any campaign funds, including soft money. My bill 
does just that.
  Finally, Mr. President, my bill deals with one other major issue- the 
use of union dues for political purposes. Mr. President, I can think of 
no other campaign activity which is more un-American than the 
mandatory, compulsory taking of union dues for political purposes. The 
essence of democracy is that political speech must be voluntary. For 
many union workers today, that is not the case. My bill would require 
unions to get the permission of all members before using their dues for 
political purposes. I know many colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle are opposed to this idea, but I think they know it is the right 
thing to do.
  Mr. President, I introduce this bill today so my constituents in New 
Mexico will know where I stand on the issue of campaign finance reform. 
My record is clear- I have introduced at least three bills which have 
included the reforms I have discussed here today. But, I am unable to 
support McCain/Feingold for three key reasons.
  First, McCain/Feingold goes too far in its attempts to address the 
express advocacy-issue advocacy problem. While I am sympathetic to any 
efforts to deal with the problems of the 1996 election, I believe that 
we must do so in a way which passes constitutional muster. McCain/
Feingold's overly broad definition of ``express advocacy'' fails that 
test. McCain/Feingold defines express advocacy to include any radio or 
television ads referring to a federal candidate which are broadcast 
within 60 days of any election, regardless of whether those ads truly 
are ``issue advocacy'' ads. I believe that such a ban on the exercise 
of political speech would eventually be found unconstitutional.
  Second, McCain/Feingold fails to ban soft money in a way which will 
pass Supreme Court scrutiny. Under McCain/Feingold, state parties are 
prohibited from disbursing soft money for use in ``federal election 
activity.'' The bill goes on to define ``federal election activity'' to 
include any ``generic campaign activity'' conducted in connection with 
an election in which a candidate for Federal office appears on the 
ballot. To me, this means that a state party could not use non-federal 
soft money for activity which strictly supports a state candidate just 
because that candidate appears on the ballot with a federal candidate. 
While some may believe otherwise, I do not believe that Congress 
possesses the authority to so regulate state campaigns.
  Finally, Mr. President, I cannot support McCain/Feingold because it 
does very little to address the problem of the compulsory use of union 
dues for political purposes. McCain/Feingold codifies the Beck 
decision, which only applies to non-union workers and only requires 
unions to provide notice of the workers' right to request a refund of 
the portion of their dues used for political purposes. I believe unions 
should be prohibited from using any employee dues for political 
purposes, whether they are taken from members or non-members, unless 
the union receives permission up front and in advance from the 
employee.
  Mr. President, campaign finance reform is an issue which must be 
resolved thoughtfully and with respect for the First Amendment. I 
believe that my bill offers just such an approach. I also believe that, 
despite the earnest efforts of its proponents, many provisions of 
McCain/Feingold simply would not pass the constitutional scrutiny of 
the Supreme Court.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1689

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Grassroots 
     Campaign and Common Sense Federal Election Reform Act of 
     1998''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Restriction on out-of-state contributions.
Sec. 3. Limitation on political action committees.
Sec. 4. Use of personal wealth for campaign purposes.
Sec. 5. Increase in contribution limits.
Sec. 6. Limit on soft money donations to political parties.
Sec. 7. Increased disclosure for certain communications.
Sec. 8. Use of union dues for political purposes.
Sec. 9. Prohibition of fundraising on Federal property and other 
              criminal prohibitions.
Sec. 10. Contributions to defray legal expenses of certain officials.
Sec. 11. Increased criminal penalties for violations of foreign 
              national provisions and contributions in the name of 
              another.

[[Page S1078]]

Sec. 12. Filing of reports using computers and facsimile machines.
Sec. 13. Term limits for Federal Election Commission.

     SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON OUT-OF-STATE CONTRIBUTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

     ``SEC. 324. LIMIT ON OUT-OF-STATE CONTRIBUTIONS.

       ``A candidate for nomination to, or election to, the Senate 
     or House of Representatives or the candidate's authorized 
     committees shall not accept an aggregate amount of funds 
     during an election cycle from individuals, separate 
     segregated funds, and multicandidate political committees 
     that do not reside or have their headquarters within the 
     candidate's State in excess of an amount equal to 40 percent 
     of the total amount of contributions accepted by the 
     candidate and the candidate's authorized committees.''.
       (b) Definition of Election Cycle.--Section 301 of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(20) Election cycle.--The term `election cycle' means the 
     period beginning on the day after the date of the most recent 
     general election for the specific office or seat that a 
     candidate is seeking and ending on the date of the next 
     general election for that office or seat.''.

     SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES.

       (a) Prohibition of Separate Segregated Funds.--Section 
     316(b)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441b(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a period; and
       (3) by striking subparagraph (C).
       (b) Prohibition of Certain Disbursements by Banks, 
     Corporations, and Labor Organizations.--Section 316 of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Prohibited Disbursements.--A bank, labor 
     organization, or corporation referred to in subsection (a) 
     shall not make a disbursement for the establishment or 
     administration of a political committee or the solicitation 
     of contributions to such committee.''
       (c) Limitation on Contributions by Multicandidate Political 
     Committees.--Section 315(a)(2) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$5,000'' and 
     inserting ``$500''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``in any'' and all 
     that follows through ``$5,000''.

     SEC. 4. USE OF PERSONAL WEALTH FOR CAMPAIGN PURPOSES.

       Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i)(1)(A) Not later than 15 days after the date a 
     candidate qualifies for a ballot, under State law, the 
     candidate shall file with the Commission a declaration 
     stating whether or not the candidate intends to expend 
     personal funds in connection with the candidate's election 
     for office, in an aggregate amount equal to or greater than--
       ``(i) in the case of a candidate for the Senate, $250,000, 
     ; and
       ``(ii) in the case of a candidate for the House of 
     Representatives, $100,000.
       ``(B) In this subsection, the term `personal funds' means--
       (i) funds of the candidate or funds from obligations 
     incurred by the candidate in connection with the candidate's 
     campaign; and
       (ii) funds of the candidate's spouse, a child, stepchild, 
     parent, grandparent, brother, sister, half-brother, or half-
     sister of the candidate and the spouse of any such person, 
     and a child, stepchild, parent, grandparent, brother, half-
     brother, sister, or half-sister of the candidate's spouse and 
     the spouse of such person.
       ``(C) The statement required by this subsection shall be in 
     such form, and shall contain such information, as the 
     Commission may, by regulation, require.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in any 
     election in which a candidate declares an intention to expend 
     more personal funds than the limits described in paragraph 
     (1)(A), expends personal funds in excess of such limits, or 
     fails to file the declaration required by this subsection--
       ``(A) subsection (h) shall apply to other eligible 
     candidates in the same election without regard to the $17,500 
     limit; and
       ``(B) the limitations on contributions in subsection (a) 
     for other eligible candidates in the same election shall be 
     increased for such election as follows:
       ``(i) The limitations under subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be 
     increased to an amount equal to 1,000 percent of such 
     limitation; and
       ``(ii) The limitations under subsection (a)(3) shall be 
     increased to an amount equal to 150 percent of such 
     limitation, but only to the extent that contributions above 
     such limitation are made to candidates affected by the 
     increased levels provided in clause (i).
       ``(3) For purposes of this paragraph, an eligible candidate 
     is a candidate who is not required to file a declaration 
     under paragraph (1) or notice under paragraph (5).
       ``(4) If the limitations described in paragraph (2) are 
     increased under paragraph (2) for a convention or a primary 
     election, as they relate to an individual candidate, and such 
     individual candidate is not a candidate in any subsequent 
     election in such campaign, including the general election, 
     the provisions of paragraph (2) shall no longer apply.
       ``(5) Any candidate who--
       ``(A) declares under paragraph (1) that the candidate does 
     not intend to expend personal funds in an aggregate amount in 
     excess of the limit described in paragraph (1)(A); and
       ``(B) subsequently does expend personal funds in excess of 
     such limit or intends to expend personal funds in excess of 
     such limits,

     such candidate shall notify and file an amended declaration 
     with the Commission and shall notify all other candidates for 
     such office within 24 hours after changing such declaration 
     or exceeding such limits, whichever first occurs, by sending 
     such notice by certified mail, return receipt requested. A 
     candidate that violates this paragraph shall be subject to a 
     civil penalty in an amount equal to 2 times the amount of 
     funds expended in excess of the limits.
       ``(6) Any candidate who incurs personal loans in connection 
     with his campaign under this Act shall not repay, either 
     directly or indirectly, such loans from any contributions 
     made to such candidate or any authorized committee of such 
     candidate after the date of such election.
       ``(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     candidate shall make expenditures from personal funds in 
     connection with a general, special, or runoff election for 
     office after the later of--
       ``(A) the date that is 90 days before the date of the 
     election; or
       ``(B) the day after the primary election for such office, 
     whichever date occurs later.

     The provisions of this paragraph shall apply to all 
     candidates regardless of whether such candidate has reached 
     the limits provided in paragraph (1) of this subsection. A 
     candidate that violates this paragraph shall be subject to a 
     civil penalty in an amount equal to 3 times the amount of 
     funds expended.
       ``(8) The Commission shall take such action as it deems 
     necessary under the enforcement provisions of this Act to 
     assure compliance with the provisions of this subsection.''.

     SEC. 5. INCREASE IN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS.

       (a) Increase in Limits.--Section 315(a) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$1,000'' and 
     inserting ``$5,000''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$20,000'' and 
     inserting ``$50,000''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``$25,000'' and inserting 
     ``$50,000''.
       (b) Indexing.--Section 315(c) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking the second and third sentences;
       (B) by inserting before ``At the beginning'' the following: 
     ``(A)''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Each limitation established by subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B) of paragraph (1) and paragraph (3) of subsection (a) or 
     subsection (b) or (d) shall be increased by the percent 
     difference determined under subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Each amount increased under subparagraph (B) shall 
     remain in effect for the calendar year in which the amount is 
     increased.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``means the calendar 
     year 1974.'' and inserting ``means--
       ``(i) for purposes of subsections (b) and (d), calendar 
     year 1974; and
       ``(ii) for purposes of subsection (a), calendar year 
     1998.''.

     SEC. 6. LIMIT ON SOFT MONEY DONATIONS TO POLITICAL PARTIES.

       (a) Soft Money of National Political Party Committees.--
     Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.) (as amended by section 2) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 325. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEES.

       ``A national committee of a political party, any 
     subordinate committee of a national committee, a Senatorial 
     or Congressional Campaign Committee of a national political 
     party, or an entity that is directly or indirectly 
     established, financed, maintained, or controlled by a 
     national committee or a Senatorial or Congressional Campaign 
     Committee of a national political party or that is an entity 
     acting on behalf of a national committee or a Senatorial or 
     Congressional Campaign Committee of a national political 
     party shall not accept donations from any person during a 
     calendar year in an aggregate amount that exceeds 
     $100,000.''.

     SEC. 7. INCREASED DISCLOSURE FOR CERTAIN COMMUNICATIONS.

       Section 304 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 434) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Disclosure of Certain Communications.--
       ``(1) In general.--A person shall file a report under 
     paragraph (2) if the person expends an aggregate amount of 
     funds during a calendar year for communications described in 
     paragraph (3) in excess of--
       ``(A) $25,000 with respect to a candidate; or
       ``(B) $100,000 with respect to all candidates.
       ``(2) Report.--
       ``(A) Time to file.--A report under this paragraph shall be 
     filed in accordance with subsection (a)(2).
       ``(B) Contents of report.--A report filed under this 
     paragraph shall contain the same

[[Page S1079]]

     information required for an independent expenditure under 
     subsection (c).
       ``(3) Communication described.--A communication described 
     in this paragraph is any communication that--
       ``(A) is broadcast to the general public through radio or 
     television;
       ``(B) mentions or refers to by name, representation, or 
     likeness any candidate for election to Federal office;
       ``(C) the payment for which is not a disbursement described 
     in clause (i) or (iii) of section 301(9)(B); and
       ``(D) the payment for which is not an independent 
     expenditure.''.

     SEC. 8. USE OF UNION DUES FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES.

       Section 316 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441b) (as amended by section 3) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(d)(1) Except with the separate, prior, written, 
     voluntary authorization of each individual, it shall be 
     unlawful for any labor organization described in this section 
     to collect from or assess its members or nonmembers any dues, 
     initiation fee, or other payment, if any part of such dues, 
     fee, or payment will be used for political activities.
       ``(2) An authorization described in paragraph (1) shall 
     remain in effect until revoked and may be revoked at any 
     time.
       ``(3) In this subsection, the term `political activities' 
     includes communications or other activities which involve 
     carrying on propaganda, attempting to influence legislation, 
     or participating or intervening in any political campaign or 
     political party.''.

     SEC. 9. PROHIBITION OF FUNDRAISING ON FEDERAL PROPERTY AND 
                   OTHER CRIMINAL PROHIBITIONS.

       (a) Definition of Donation.--Section 301 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431) (as amended by 
     section 2) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(21) Donation.--The term `donation' means a gift, 
     subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything 
     else of value made by any person to a national committee of a 
     political party or a Senatorial or Congressional Campaign 
     Committee of a national political party for any purpose, but 
     does not include a contribution (as defined in paragraph 
     (8)).''.
       (b) Prohibition of Fundraising on Federal Property.--
     Section 607 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``or donation within 
     the meaning of section 301(20)'' after ``section 301(8)''; 
     and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by inserting ``or donations'' after ``contributions'' 
     each place it appears;
       (B) by inserting ``or donation'' after ``contribution''; 
     and
       (C) by inserting ``donator'' after ``contributor''.
       (c) Amendment of Title 18 To Include Prohibition of 
     Donations.--Chapter 29 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 602(a)(4), by inserting ``or donation within 
     the meaning of section 301(20)'' after ``section 301(8)''; 
     and
       (2) in section 603(a)--
       (A) by inserting ``or donation within the meaning of 
     section 301(20)'' after ``section 301(8)''; and
       (B) by inserting ``or donation'' after ``contribution'' the 
     second and third time it appears.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to violations occurring on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 10. CONTRIBUTIONS TO DEFRAY LEGAL EXPENSES OF CERTAIN 
                   OFFICIALS.

       (a) Contributions To Defray Legal Expenses.--
       (1) Prohibition on making of contributions.--It shall be 
     unlawful for any person to make a contribution to a candidate 
     for nomination to, or election to, a Federal office (as 
     defined in section 301(3) of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(3))), an individual who is a holder 
     of a Federal office, or any head of an Executive department, 
     or any entity established on behalf of any such individual, 
     to defray legal expenses of such individual--
       (A) to the extent it would result in the aggregate amount 
     of such contributions from such person to or on behalf of 
     such individual to exceed $10,000 for any calendar year; or
       (B) if the person is--
       (i) a foreign national (as defined in section 319(b) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441e(b))); or
       (ii) a person prohibited from contributing to the campaign 
     of a candidate under section 316 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b).
       (2) Prohibition on acceptance of contributions.--No person 
     shall accept a contribution if the contribution would violate 
     paragraph (1).
       (3) Penalty.--A person that knowingly and willfully commits 
     a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) shall be fined an amount 
     not to exceed the greater of $25,000 or 300 percent of the 
     contribution involved in such violation, imprisoned for not 
     more than 1 year, or both.
       (4) Construction of prohibition.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to permit the making of a contribution 
     that is otherwise prohibited by law.
       (b) Reporting Requirements.--A candidate for nomination to, 
     or election to, a Federal office, an individual who is a 
     holder of a Federal office, or any head of an Executive 
     department, or any entity established on behalf of any such 
     individual, that accepts contributions to defray legal 
     expenses of such individual shall file a quarterly report 
     with the Federal Election Commission including the following 
     information:
       (1) The name and address of each contributor who makes a 
     contribution in excess of $25.
       (2) The amount of each contribution.
       (3) The name and address of each individual or entity 
     receiving disbursements from the fund.
       (4) A brief description of the nature and amount of each 
     disbursement.
       (5) The name and address of any provider of pro bono 
     services to the fund.
       (6) The fair market value of any pro bono services provided 
     to the fund.

     SEC. 11. INCREASED CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF 
                   FOREIGN NATIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS 
                   IN THE NAME OF ANOTHER.

       Section 309(d)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(d)(1)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(D) In the case of a person who knowingly and willfully 
     violates section 319 or 320, the person shall be fined an 
     amount not to exceed $10,000, imprisoned for not more than 10 
     years, or both.''.

     SEC. 12. FILING OF REPORTS USING COMPUTERS AND FACSIMILE 
                   MACHINES.

       Section 304(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 434(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (11) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(11) Filing reports using computers and facsimile 
     machines.--
       ``(A) Software.--The Commission shall--
       ``(i) develop software for use to file a designation, 
     statement, or report under this Act; and
       ``(ii) provide a copy of the software at no cost to a 
     person required to file a designation, statement, or report 
     under this Act.
       ``(B) Computers.--The Commission shall promulgate a 
     regulation under which a person required to file a 
     designation, statement, or report under this Act--
       ``(i) is required to maintain and file the designation, 
     statement, or report for any calendar year in electronic form 
     accessible by computers if the person has, or has reason to 
     expect to have, aggregate contributions or expenditures in 
     excess of a threshold amount determined by the Commission; 
     and
       ``(ii) may maintain and file a designation, statement, or 
     report in that manner if not required to do so under a 
     regulation promulgated under clause (i).
       ``(C) Facsimile machine.--The Commission shall promulgate a 
     regulation which allows a person to file a designation, 
     statement, or report required by this Act through the use of 
     a facsimile machine.
       ``(D) Verification of signature.--In promulgating a 
     regulation under this paragraph, the Commission shall provide 
     methods (other than requiring a signature on the document 
     being filed) for verifying a designation, statement, or 
     report covered by the regulation. A document verified under 
     any of the methods shall be treated for all purposes 
     (including penalties for perjury) in the same manner as a 
     document verified by signature.''.

     SEC. 13. TERM LIMITS FOR FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--Section 306(a)(2)(A) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437c(a)(2)(A)) is 
     amended in the matter preceding clause (i) by striking 
     ``terms of 6 years'' and inserting ``no more than 1 term of 8 
     years''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to appointments made after the date of enactment 
     of this Act and to Commissioners serving a term on the date 
     of enactment of this section except that such Commissioner 
     shall continue to serve until the expiration of such term.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FAIRCLOTH:
  S. 1690. A bill to provide for the transfer of certain employees of 
the Internal Revenue Service to the Department of Justice, Drug 
Enforcement Administration, to establish the Department of National 
Drug Control Policy, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.


                      the american priorities act

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I am pleased to today introduce the 
``American Priorities Act.''
  First, and most importantly, this bill corrects a serious imbalance 
in our national priorities by transferring one-third of the enforcement 
agents at the Internal Revenue Service to the Drug Enforcement Agency, 
by January 1, 1999.
  Second, and by the same time, the bill establishes a cabinet level 
department to marshall the resources necessary to adequately fight a 
real war on drugs. By so doing we would affirm our resolve to the 
American people and those abroad that this is a war we intend to win.
  Over the last 5 years, drug use, which slowed in the later 1980's and 
early 1990's, has increased with a vengeance. Particularly hard-hit 
have been our children. Schools are not safe; children are born 
addicted to crack and other hard drugs which are now cheap and

[[Page S1080]]

plentiful in most of our nation; and drug-related violent crime is 
soaring.
  Most troubling of all has been the creation of a class of violent, 
drug-addicted youth predators who terrorize our citizens with almost 
irrational and depraved violent crimes, from carjackings in shopping 
malls, to drive-by shooting on city streets, to gang-related violence 
in schools.
  Yet what is the Administration's reaction? It claims that the so-
called ``war on drugs'' cannot be easily won, that it will take 10 or 
more years to even begin to control the drug trade.
  Such a piecemeal application of resources is not a recipe for 
victory. We need a bold and dramatic shift in federal resources to end 
the drug scourge once and for all. If this is to be a true war on 
drugs, then we need a Desert Storm, not a Vietnam.
  The IRS has over 100,000 employees, 46,000 of whom are enforcement 
officials. Recent Congressional oversight has revealed that the agency 
has excess enforcement resources, which are not serving the public 
interest.
  Instead, these excess resources are often engaged in the bullying of 
law-abiding Americans. And it's no wonder. With over 100,000 employees, 
46,000 of which are enforcement agents, the IRS is running out of 
legitimate things to do.
  By contrast, the DEA, which is at the forefront of stemming the drug 
trade, has only 8,500 personnel, half of whom are special agents. If 
the war on drugs is to be won, we need to radically reallocate our 
national resources, and I would suggest that moving 1/3 of the IRS 
enforcement agents to the DEA is a good first step.
  Further, as a member of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I plan to offer a version of this bill as 
a rider to this year's budget.
  Mr. President, it is high time that the federal government started 
investing drug dealers as intensely as the IRS investigates American 
taxpayers.

                          ____________________