Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 16 (Thursday, February 26, 1998)

[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.

____________________