[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 25778-25784]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BENNETT (for himself, Mr. Burns, and Mr. McConnell):
  S. 1747. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 
exclude certain Internet communications from the definition of 
expenditure; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.


                    internet freedom protection act

  Mr. BENNETT. 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. 1747

       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 ``Internet Freedom Protection 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS FROM 
                   DEFINITION OF EXPENDITURE.

       Section 301(9)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(9)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (ix), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (x), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(xi) any communication or dissemination of material 
     through the Internet (including electronic mail, chat rooms, 
     and message boards) by any individual, if such material--
       ``(I) is not a paid advertisement;
       ``(II) does not solicit funds for, or on behalf of, a 
     candidate or political committee;
       ``(III) is disseminated for the purpose of communicating or 
     disseminating the opinion of such individual (including an 
     endorsement) regarding a political issue or candidate; and
       ``(IV) is not communicated or disseminated by any 
     individual that receives payment or any other form of 
     compensation for such communication or dissemination.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Kohl, Mr. 
        Torricelli, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 1748. A bill to amend chapter 87 of title 28, United States Code, 
to authorize a judge to whom a case is transferred to retain 
jurisdiction over certain multidistrict litigation cases for trial; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.


                 multidistrict jurisdiction act of 1999

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill entitled the 
``Multidistrict Jurisdiction Act of 1999.'' This bill would restore a 
30-year-old practice under which a single court, to which several 
actions with common issues of fact were transferred for pre-trial 
proceedings, could retain the multidistrict actions for trial.
  This bill is necessary to correct a statutory deficiency pointed out 
by the Supreme Court in Lexecon v. Milbert Weiss Bershad Hynes & 
Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1997). It is an important bill for judicial 
efficiency and for encouraging settlements of multidistrict cases. And 
I am pleased that the Judicial Conference and the Multidistrict 
Litigation Panel support this bill. Moreover, I am pleased that this is 
a bipartisan bill with Senators Leahy, Grassley, Torricelli, Kohl, and 
Schumer as cosponsors.
  Section 1407(a) of title 28, United States Code, authorizes the 
Multidistrict Litigation Panel to transfer civil actions with common 
questions of fact ``to any district for coordinated or consolidated 
pretrial proceedings.'' It also requires the Panel, on or before the 
conclusion of such pretrial proceedings, to remand any such actions to 
the district courts in which they were filed. However, for the 30 years 
prior to the Lexecon decision, federal courts followed the practice of 
allowing the single transferee court, upon the conclusion of pretrial 
proceedings, to transfer all of the actions to itself under the general 
venue provisions contained in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404. This had the 
practical advantage of allowing the single transferee court to retain 
for trial the multiple actions for which it had conducted pretrial 
proceedings. This greatly enhanced judicial efficiency and encouraged 
settlements.

[[Page 25779]]

  In Lexecon, however, the Supreme Court held that the literal terms of 
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 did not allow the single transferee court to retain 
the multidistrict actions after concluding pretrial proceedings. 
Instead, the Court held, the plain terms of Sec. 1407 required the 
Panel to remand the actions back to the multiple federal district 
courts in which the actions originated. The Court noted that to keep 
the practice of allowing the single transferee court to retain the 
actions after conducting the pretrial proceedings, Congress would have 
to change the statute.
  The bill would amend 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 to restore the traditional 
practice of allowing the single transferee court to retain the multiple 
actions for trial after conducting pretrial proceedings. The bill also 
includes a provision under which the single transferee court would 
transfer the multiple actions back to the federal district courts from 
which they came for a determination of compensatory damages if the 
interests of justice and the convenience of the parties so require.
  Mr. President, this bill is very similar to the first portion of a 
H.R. 2112 that passed the House of Representatives under the effective 
leadership of Congressman Sensenbrenner. H.R. 2112 includes both the 
``Lexecon fix'' and a provision to streamline catastrophe litigation. I 
believe that both provisions would make good law. However, the Lexecon 
matter constitutes an emergency for the Multidistrict Litigation Panel, 
which has a large number of these cases poised for remand if the 
retention practice is not restored. The catastrophe legislation would 
constitute an important improvement, but is not an emergency matter. 
Given this situation, I propose that we pass only the ``Lexecon fix'' 
during this session by unanimous consent and work to pass the 
catastrophe legislation during the second session.
  Senators Leahy, Grassley, Torricelli, Kohl, Schumer, and I look 
forward to passing the Multidistrict Jurisdiction Act of 1999 very 
quickly. The Judiciary awaits our prompt action.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1748

       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 ``Multidistrict Jurisdiction 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION.

       Section 1407 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the third sentence of subsection (a), by inserting 
     ``or ordered transferred to the transferee or other district 
     under subsection (i)'' after ``terminated''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), any action transferred 
     under this section by the panel may be transferred, for trial 
     purposes, by the judge or judges of the transferee district 
     to whom the action was assigned to the transferee or other 
     district in the interest of justice and for the convenience 
     of the parties and witnesses.
       ``(2) Any action transferred for trial purposes under 
     paragraph (1) shall be remanded by the panel for the 
     determination of compensatory damages to the district court 
     from which it was transferred, unless the court to which the 
     action has been transferred for trial purposes also finds, 
     for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the 
     interests of justice, that the action should be retained for 
     the determination of compensatory damages.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply to any civil 
     action pending on or brought on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished 
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, Senator 
Torricelli, Senator Kohl, and Senator Schumer in introducing the Multi-
District Jurisdiction Act of 1999. Our bipartisan legislation is needed 
by Federal judges across the country to restore their power to promote 
the fair and efficient administration of justice in multi-district 
litigation.
  Current law authorizes the Judicial Panel on Multi-District 
Litigation to transfer related cases, pending in multiple Federal 
judicial districts, to a single district for coordinated or 
consolidated pretrial proceedings. This makes good sense because 
transfers by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation are based 
on centralizing those cases to serve the convenience of the parties and 
witnesses and to promote efficient judicial management.
  For nearly 30 years, many transferee judges, following circuit and 
district court case law, retained these multi-district cases for trial 
because the transferee judge and the parties were already familiar with 
each other and the facts of the case through the pretrial proceedings. 
The Supreme Court in Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & 
Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998), however, found that this well-established 
practice was not authorized by the general venue provisions in the 
United States Code. Following the Lexecon ruling, the Judicial Panel on 
Multi-District Litigation must now remand each transferred case to its 
original district at the conclusion of the pretrial proceedings, unless 
the case is already settled or otherwise terminated. This new process 
is costly, inefficient and time consuming.
  The Multi-District Jurisdiction Act of 1999 seeks to restore the 
power of transferee judges to resolve multi-district cases as 
expeditiously and fairly as possible. Our bipartisan bill amends 
section 1407 of title 28 of the United States Code to allow a 
transferee judge to retain cases for trial or transfer those cases to 
another judicial district for trial in the interests of justice and for 
the convenience of parties and witnesses. The legislation provides 
transferee judges the flexibility they need to administer justice 
quickly and efficiently. Indeed, our legislation is supported by the 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Judicial Conference of 
the United States and the Department of Justice.
  In addition, we have included a section in our bill to ensure 
fairness during the determination of compensatory damages by adding the 
presumption that the case will be remanded to the transferor court for 
this phase of the trial. Specifically, this provision provides that to 
the extent a case is tried outside of the transferor forum, it would be 
solely for the purpose of a consolidated trial on liability, and if 
appropriate, punitive damages, and that the case must be remanded to 
the transferor court for the purposes of trial on compensatory damages, 
unless the court to which the action has been transferred for trial 
purposes also finds, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses 
and in the interests of justice, that the action should be retained for 
the determination of compensatory damages. This section is identical to 
a bipartisan amendment proposed by Representative Berman and accepted 
by the House Judiciary Committee during its consideration of similar 
legislation earlier this year.
  Multi-district litigation generally involves some of the most complex 
fact-specific cases, which affect the lives of citizens across the 
nation. For example, multi-district litigation entails such national 
legal matters as asbestos, silicone gel breast implants, diet drugs 
like fen-phen, hemophiliac blood products, Norplant contraceptives and 
all major airplane crashes. In fact, as of February 1999, approximately 
140 transferee judges were supervising about 160 groups of multi-
district cases, with each group composed of hundreds, or even 
thousands, of cases in various stages of trial development.
  But the efficient case management of these multi-district cases is a 
risk after the Lexecon ruling. Judge John F. Nangle, Chairman of the 
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, recently testified before 
Congress that: ``Since Lexecon, significant problems have arisen that 
have hindered the sensible conduct of multi-district litigation. 
Transferee judges throughout the United States have voiced their 
concern to me about the urgent need to enact this legislation.''
  Mr. President, Congress should listen to the concerned voices of our 
Federal Judiciary and swiftly approve the Multi-District Jurisdiction 
Act of 1999 to improve judicial efficiency in our Federal courts.

[[Page 25780]]


  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in 
introducing the Multidistrict Jurisdiction Act of 1999. This 
legislation would make a technical fix to section 1407 of Title 28, the 
multidistrict litigation statute, in response to the recent Supreme 
Court decision in Lexecon v. Milberg Weiss.
  Section 1407(a) of Title 28 authorizes the Judicial Panel on Multi-
District Litigation to transfer civil actions with common issues of 
fact to any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial 
proceedings, but requires the Panel to remand any such action to the 
original district at or before the conclusion of such pretrial 
proceedings. Until the Lexecon decision, the federal courts followed 
the practice of allowing a transferee court to invoke the venue 
transfer provision and transfer a case to itself for trial purposes. 
However, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed this practice, holding that 
the literal terms of section 1407 do not give a district court 
conducting pretrial proceedings the authority to assign a transferred 
case to itself for trial.
  This legislation would amend section 1407 of Title 28 to permit a 
judge with a transferred case to retain jurisdiction over multidistrict 
litigation cases for trial. This change was approved by the Judicial 
Conference and is supported by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District 
Litigation. The legislation also includes a provision under which a 
transferee court would transfer actions back to the federal district 
courts from which they came for a determination of compensatory damages 
if the interests of justice and the convenience of the parties so 
require.
  The Multidistrict Jurisdiction Act of 1999 will promote the efficient 
administration of justice by allowing the federal courts to continue an 
effective practice they have been using for almost thirty years. It 
makes sense to allow the transferee judge who has conducted the 
pretrial proceedings and is familiar with the facts and parties of the 
transferred case to retain that case for trial. This significantly 
benefits the parties to a case, and reduces wasteful use of judicial 
and litigants' resources. I am glad to support this legislation, and I 
urge my colleagues to support it as well.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Hatch, Leahy, 
Grassley, Torricelli, and Schumer in introducing the Multidistrict 
Jurisdiction Act of 1999. Our bipartisan measure will help give back to 
Federal judges the authority they need to handle multiple, overlapping 
cases as efficiently and effectively as possible.
  This legislation essentially overturns the Supreme Court's decision 
in Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 
(1998). In that case, the Supreme Court rejected 30 years of practice 
during which trial courts overseeing related cases for consolidated 
pretrial proceedings had been permitted to retain jurisdiction of those 
cases for trial. That long-standing routine made plain common sense, 
because oversight by one court (instead of dozens of courts) is often 
the best use of resources, regardless of whether the parties are still 
in discovery or already at trial. Indeed, a consolidated trial may not 
only be more convenient for the parties and the witnesses, but it also 
promotes justice by keeping the case before a judge who is already 
familiar with the underlying facts.
  Let me just point out that I do not mean to criticize the Supreme 
Court's decision as a matter of law. It may well be that the original 
Multidistrict Litigation statute was too narrowly drafted, and 
ultimately it is the responsibility of Congress to write--or, in this 
case, rewrite--the law to make sure it says what Congress intends.
  While this measure is an important step forward, we must recognize 
that it is just that--a step. There is much more we can do to promote 
efficiency and fairness in litigation for both victims and defendants. 
In fact, the proposal to overturn Lexecon was first raised publicly at 
a hearing on class action reform in the House early last year, as just 
one of several proposals that would help ensure the fair administration 
of justice. Ironically, while this measure appears to be on the fast 
track, we continue to delay consideration of the other more pressing 
class action measures that were the focus of that hearing. And, while 
consolidation could be particularly valuable in the class action 
context, without class action reforms this bill actually won't affect 
most class actions. The reason is simple: while this bill only applies 
to cases filed in Federal court, most class actions--even ones that are 
nationwide in scope and shape nationwide policies--end up in State 
court.
  Indeed, increased consolidation would help eliminate one of the most 
significant class action abuses--that is, the dangerous ``race to 
settlement'' among competing cases. Currently, overlapping class 
actions involving the same parties and the same claims put rival class 
lawyers in competition to get the first--and only--settlement 
available. The result is all too common: one lawyer lines his pockets 
with huge fees by taking a quickie settlement, while the class gets the 
short end of the stick. For example, in one instance involving 
overlapping Federal and State actions, the class lawyers who brought 
the State case negotiated a small settlement precluding all other 
suits, and even agreed to settle federal claims that were not at issue 
in State court. Meanwhile, the Federal court was outraged, finding that 
the Federal claims could have been worth more than $1 billion, while 
accusing the State class lawyers of ``hostile representation'' that 
``surpassed inadequacy and sank to the level of subversion'' and of 
having ``more in line with the interests of [defendants] than those of 
their clients.''
  This danger was recently underscored by the Judicial Conference's 
Advisory Committee on Civil Rules Report on Mass Tort Litigation, which 
found that ``[T]he risk is considerable that speedy justice may be 
converted into speedy injustice . . . if two or more courts enter a 
race to be first to achieve a disposition binding on all courts.'' The 
report added that, ``This risk is aggravated by the `reverse auction' 
scenario . . . , in which a defendant may play would-be class 
representatives off against each other, bidding down the terms of 
settlement to the lowest level that can win approval by the most 
complaisant available court.'' This race to settlement, or ``reverse 
auction,'' shortchanges legitimate victims, while allowing blameworthy 
defendants to get off easy.
  Mr. President, we can prevent abuses like this--and encourage 
efficiency--simply by permitting more overlapping nationwide class 
actions to be brought into Federal court, the only place where the 
consolidation procedure is available. Once the cases are consolidated, 
lead counsel will be appointed, making it impossible to shop around 
low-priced settlements and to pit competing class lawyers against each 
other. However, as long as these class actions can be kept in various 
State courts, this bill won't succeed in bringing consolidation to the 
complex cases that need it most.
  That's one of the principal reasons why Senator Grassley and I 
introduced the Class Action Fairness Act of 1999 (S. 353) earlier this 
year. Our proposal, which among other provisions allows more nationwide 
class actions to be removed to Federal court, would--in conjunction 
with the bill we are introducing today--help eliminate the race to 
settlement in most class actions, save court resources and promote 
efficiency by placing related class actions before one court. A similar 
measure has already passed the House, and we look forward to moving 
this measure ahead in the Senate.
  Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues today in offering our 
proposal to return to Federal courts the authority they need to 
consider multiple, overlapping cases in a fair, expeditious and just 
manner. This is a necessary step in the direction of real reform, and I 
hope it will build momentum for more comprehensive reform, like the 
Grassley/Kohl Class Action Fairness Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAPO:
  S. 1749. A bill to require the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to 
issue revised regulations relating to dietary supplement labeling, to 
amend the

[[Page 25781]]

Federal Trade Commission Act to provide that certain types of 
advertisements for dietary supplements are proper, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


      dietary supplement fairness in labeling and advertising act

 Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce the 
Dietary Supplement Fairness in Labeling and Advertising Act. The 
purpose of the legislation is to reaffirm Congress' intent in enacting 
the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act (DSHEA). In enacting DSHEA, 
Congress intended to insure that all Americans had access to factual 
information about vitamins and other dietary supplements so that they 
can make informed decisions about their health and well-being.
  In recent years, the prevalence of scientific data demonstrating the 
benefits of proper nutrition, education, and appropriate use of dietary 
supplements to promote long-term health has increased tremendously. 
Additionally, preventative practices, including the safe consumption of 
dietary supplements, has been shown to significantly reduce the health-
care expenditures in this country. That is why I continue to support 
research efforts that focus on preventative care. The role government 
funding can have in achieving scientific and medical gains in crucial. 
Past successes have frequently led to rapid technological advancements 
in medicine, biotechnology, and other important areas that shape our 
lives.
  Over 100 million people use dietary supplements daily throughout the 
United States. This bill that I am introducing would allow access by 
the public to solid scientific research about the safe and proper use 
of dietary supplements. It prevents the Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA) from promulgating rules that change the intent of congressional 
regulations regarding structure and function claims and would amend the 
Federal Trade Commission Act to provide that certain types of 
advertisements for dietary supplements are proper.
  DSHEA required the FDA to promulgate reasonable guidelines to 
regulate the content of dietary supplements labels. The goal of this 
requirement is to insure that the labels give consumers information 
necessary for them to decide whether they want to take a particular 
supplement, without making claims regarding medical or disease benefits 
(which are reserved for FDA-approved drugs).
  The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) currently enforces a standard for 
advertising that conflicts with the intent of DSHEA. The FTC does not 
always allow the same information in advertising of dietary supplements 
that is allowed in labeling of the same products. For instance, the FTC 
has made it difficult to advertise the benefits of calcium, vitamin C, 
and other common and heavily studied supplements.
  The information that the FDA allows as part of the labeling of a 
dietary supplement should also be allowed in advertising that same 
supplement, yet the FTC is seeking to regulate the advertising of 
dietary supplements by denying to consumers some of the very 
information that DSHEA required the FDA to let them use. This forces 
manufacturers to work under two sets of contradictory regulations and 
undermines the intent of Congress.
  Additionally, this bill would instruct the FDA to withdraw the notice 
of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register of April 29, 
1998, which attempts to regulate the types of statements made 
concerning the effects of dietary supplements on the structure or 
function of the body. The FDA is asserting responsibilities beyond 
congressional intent. Specifically, it is seeking to change the 
definition of ``disease'' by deeming improper any claim that refers to 
the ``prevention or treatment of abnormal functions.'' In these cases, 
the product would be subject to regulation as a drug, rather than a 
dietary supplement. Furthermore, it was never Congress' intent to 
disallow the use of citations from credible scientific publications in 
providing accurate information in labeling of dietary supplements. 
Numerous, common sense examples can be made to demonstrate the 
irresponsible nature of this rule. Aging and pregnancy would now be 
considered diseases under the policy.
  In passing this legislation, my hope is to continue to open up 
communication and provide access to fair and adequate reviews of all 
claims. This bill prescribes a method by which the Commission must act 
prior to filing a complaint that initiates any administrative or 
judicial proceeding alleging noncompliance by an advertiser. Simply, 
the FTC would be required to provide a full and fair opportunity for 
advertisers to consult with the Commission's scientific experts. 
Decisions about the use of dietary supplements should not be made by 
bureaucrats. Instead, meetings with scientific experts would provide 
for an open exchange of ideas and information, and ensure that 
decisions are based on concrete, substantial scientific evidence. This 
is good government practice, and during a time where our society has 
become far too litigious, I support strengthening the review process, 
prior to filing any claims or complaints.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Dietary Supplement Fairness in 
Labeling and Advertising Act. It would insure that all Americans have 
access to factual information about vitamins and other dietary 
supplements so they can make informed decisions about their health and 
well-being, while continuing to provide adequate safeguards to protect 
the public good.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 1750. A bill to reduce the incidence of child abuse and neglect, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


               CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT

 Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child 
Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act (CAPE). This legislation would 
provide a much-needed increase in funding for the investigation of 
child abuse crimes, as well as prevention programs designed to prevent 
child abuse. This bill is similar to the legislation introduced by my 
Ohio colleague in the House of Representatives, Deborah Pryce, which 
recently passed overwhelmingly in the House.
  As a former Greene County, Ohio, prosecutor, and--more importantly--- 
as a parent, nothing disturbs me more than reports of child abuse and 
neglect. As a prosecutor, I saw--- first-hand--too many examples of 
child victimization and abuse. These days, it seems like you can't turn 
on the local news without hearing about another unforgivable act of 
violence against a child. Some of these stories have become infamous. 
Yet, sadly, most stories of child abuse are quickly forgotten. Such 
stories have become so common, it seems that our collective conscience 
is seldom even affected any more.
  The sheer numbers of abusive acts committed against our children are 
astounding. In my State of Ohio, one incident of child abuse or neglect 
is reported to authorities every three minutes! What's worse is that 
these reports of abuse are on the rise. In a study of child abuse, the 
Federal government found that the number of abused and neglected 
children in this country nearly doubled between 1986 and 1993. As a 
result, child protective service agencies across the country are facing 
more than a million cases of abused and neglected children each year.
  The Federal government can take meaningful steps--starting now--to 
help fight child abuse. The Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act 
would be one meaningful step. Through the use of advanced technology, 
this legislation would enhance the ability of law enforcement systems 
to exchange timely and accurate criminal history information with 
agencies involved in child welfare, child abuse, and adoption services.
  Every day, State and local child welfare services attempt to ensure 
that children are cared for properly and living with loving families. 
It is their job to prevent at-risk children from being left under the 
same roof with domestic or child abusers. Often, when child welfare 
agencies conduct child safety assessments, criminal histories and civil 
protection order information are not always readily available. These 
agencies may not be getting the full story.

[[Page 25782]]

The result, in some cases, is that an abused or neglected child is 
removed from one harmful environment only to be placed in another. To 
improve access to critical law enforcement information, the bill I am 
introducing today would amend the Crime Identification and Technology 
Act (CITA), which I sponsored last year, to allow State and local 
governments to use CITA grant dollars to enable the criminal justice 
system to provide criminal history information to child protection and 
welfare agencies.
  Our bill also would allow the use of funds from the $550 million 
Byrne grant program for activities aimed at cracking down on and 
preventing child abuse and neglect. Since 1986, Byrne grant dollars 
have been used successfully to provide financial assistance to State 
and local governments to coordinate government efforts to fight crime 
and drug abuse. With our bill, State and local agencies could use Byrne 
grant dollars to train child welfare investigators and child protection 
workers. The funding also could help build and develop child advocacy 
centers and hospitals for the abused. These are just a few of many 
possible uses.
  Mr. President, our bill would go even one step further to direct 
resources to fight against child abuse. It would double the amount of 
funds available to States and localities to assist the victims of 
crimes against children. Currently, $10 million of the Federal Crime 
Victims $383 million fund are earmarked for child abuse and domestic 
assistance programs. This fund is financed not by taxpayer dollars, but 
through criminal fines, penalties and forfeitures. While the fund has 
grown since its beginning in 1984, the amount reserved for assistance 
to victims of abuse has remained stagnant. Our bill would earmark $20 
million to help public and nonprofit agencies provide necessary 
services like rescue shelters, 24-hour abuse hotlines, and counseling 
to victims of child abuse.
  Mr. President, this is one piece of legislation that can and should 
pass the Senate quickly. As I noted earlier, a similar bill was 
overwhelmingly approved by the House by a vote of 425-2. More than 50 
child protection organizations have endorsed this legislation, 
including the National Child Abuse Coalition; the National Center for 
Missing and Exploited Children; Fight Crime: Invest in Kids; the Family 
Research Council and the Christian Coalition; the American Professional 
Society of the Abuse of Children; and Prevent Child Abuse America.
  I urge my colleagues here in the Senate to demonstrate their 
commitment to America's abused and neglected children by supporting 
this legislation. Let's show some compassion and support our States and 
local communities in the fight against child abuse.
 Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the senior 
Senator from Ohio in introducing the Child Abuse Prevention and 
Enforcement Act. Our bipartisan legislation builds on the successful 
passage into law of the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998, 
which Senator DeWine and I sponsored in the last Congress. Our bill 
also complements S. 249, the Missing, Exploited and Runaway Children 
Protection Act, which Senator Hatch and I worked together to steer to 
final passage just last month.
  Unfortunately, the number of abused or neglected children in this 
country nearly doubled between 1986 and 1993. Each day there are 9,000 
reports of child abuse in America and more than three million cases 
annually of abused or neglected children. In my home state of Vermont, 
2,309 children were reported to child protective services for child 
abuse or neglect investigations in 1997, the last year data is 
available. After investigation, 1,041 of these reports found 
substantiated cases of child maltreatment in Vermont.
  Each child behind these statistics is an American tragedy.
  But we can help. The Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act 
provides these abused or neglected children with the Federal assistance 
that they deserve. And our legislation can make a real difference in 
the lives of our nation's children without any additional cost to 
taxpayers.
  Our bipartisan legislation will make a difference by giving State and 
local officials the flexibility to use existing Department of Justice 
grant programs to prevent child abuse and neglect, investigate child 
abuse and neglect crimes and protect children who have suffered from 
abuse and neglect. The bill does this by making three changes to 
current law.
  First, the Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act amends the 
Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998 to make grant dollars 
available specifically to enhance the capability of criminal history 
information to agencies and workers for child welfare, child abuse and 
adoption purposes. Congress has authorized $250 million annually for 
grants under the Crime Identification Technology Act.
  Second, the Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act amends the 
Byrne Grant Program to permit funds to be used for enforcing child 
abuse and neglect laws, including laws protecting against child sexual 
abuse, and promoting programs designed to prevent child abuse and 
neglect. Congress has traditionally funded the Byrne Grant Program at 
about $500 million a year.
  Third, the Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act doubles the 
available funds, from $10 million to $20 million, for grants to each 
State for child abuse treatment and prevention from the Crime Victims 
Fund. This fund is financed through the collection of criminal fines, 
penalties and other assessments against persons convicted of crimes 
against the United States. In the 1998 fiscal year, the Crime Victims 
Fund held $363 million. To ensure that other crime victim programs 
support by the Fund are not reduced, the expansion of the child abuse 
treatment and prevention earmark applies only when the Fund exceeds 
$363 million in a fiscal year. This year, the Crime Victims Fund is 
expected to collect more than $1 billion due in part to large anti-
trust penalties.
  Despite the tireless efforts of concerned Vermonters, including the 
many dedicated workers and volunteers at Prevent Child Abuse in Vermont 
and the Vermont Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services, 
Vermont is below the national average for its ability to provide 
services to abused or neglected children. In 1997, 411 children found 
to be abused or neglected received no services, about 40 percent of 
investigated cases. Nationally, about 25 percent of all abused or 
neglected children received no services. Our legislation provides more 
resources to help Vermonters and other Americans provide services to 
all abused or neglected children.
  I thank the many advocates who support our bill and the companion 
legislation introduced by Representatives Pryce and Stephanie Tubbs 
Jones, H.R. 764, which passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 
425-2 on October 5, 1999. These advocates include the diverse National 
Child Abuse Coalition: ACTION for Child Protection; Alliance for 
Children and Families; American Academy of Pediatrics; American Bar 
Association; American Dental Association; American Professional Society 
on the Abuse of Children; American Prosecutors Research Institute; 
American Psychological Association; Association of Junior Leagues 
International; Boy Scouts of America; Child Welfare League of America; 
Childhelp USA; Children's Defense Fund; General Federation of Women's 
Club; National Alliance of Children's Trust and Prevention Funds; 
National Association of Child Advocates; National Association of 
Counsel for Children; National Association of Social Workers; National 
Children's Alliance; National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse; 
National Council of Jewish Women; National Court Appointed Special 
Advocates Association; National Education Association; National 
Exchange Club Foundation for Prevention of Child Abuse; National 
Network for Youth; National PTA; Parents Anonymous; and Parents United. 
In addition, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and 
Prevent Child Abuse America have endorsed our bill and its House 
counterpart.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Child Abuse 
Prevention and Enforcement Act for the sake of our nation's 
children.

[[Page 25783]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 1751. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 
modify reporting requirements and increase contribution limits, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                  citizens' right to know act of 1999

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, last week, the minority put the Senate in a 
take-it-or-leave, it position with respect to campaign finance reform. 
Using a parliamentary tactic that foreclosed other amendments from 
being offered, and then objecting to requests to take up other 
proposals, the proponents of S. 1593, the McCain-Feingold campaign 
finance reform bill, got what they wanted--a vote on an unamended, and 
therefore unimproved, version of their bill.
  Mr. President, there are many of us who agree that we should make 
changes in our campaign finance laws; but, we disagree that we should 
compromise the First Amendment to do it.
  Today, I am introducing the ``Citizens' Right to Know Act,'' a bill 
that represents my thinking on campaign finance reform.
  Many pundits and many colleagues here in Congress perceive that the 
American people think that our government has become too fraught with 
special interest influence, bought with special interest campaign 
contributions. We have all heard voters voice their frustrations about 
government. Given some of the games we play up here that affect 
necessary legislation--such as the bankruptcy bill to name just one 
example--this attitude is not surprising or unwarranted.
  Yet, it may be a mistake to interpret these frustrations as 
widespread cynicism about the influence of special interests rather 
than about the government's inability to enact tax relief, inertia on 
long-term Social Security and Medicare reforms, and the tug-of-war on 
budget and appropriations.
  Nevertheless, it goes without saying that maintaining the integrity 
of our election system and citizens' confidence in it has to be among 
our highest priorities. The question is: what is the right reform?
  There are a number of flaws in the McCain-Feingold bill. The 
principal one is that the McCain-Feingold attempts, unconstitutionally, 
I believe, to gag political parties. What Senators McCain and Feingold 
forgot is that political parties are organizational instruments for 
promoting a political philosophy and ideas. To ban the ability of 
parties to get their messages out to the people is an infringement on 
free speech.
  The proposal I am introducing today has two main goals: (1) to open 
up our campaign finances to the light of day, thus allowing citizens to 
make their own judgments about how much influence is too much; and (2) 
to expand opportunities for individuals to participate financially in 
elections, thus decreasing the reliance on special interest money in 
campaigns.
  The legislation I am introducing today, the ``Citizens' Right to Know 
Act,'' would require all candidates and political committees to 
disclose every contribution they receive and every expenditure they 
make over $200 within 14 days on a publicly accessible website. This 
means people will not have to wade through FEC bureaucracy to get this 
information, and the information will be continuously updated.
  People should be able to compare the source of contributions with 
votes cast by the candidate. They can decide for themselves which 
donations are rewards for faithfulness to a principle of representation 
of constituents and which contributions might be a quid pro quo for 
special favors.
  Further, my proposal would encourage--not require--non-party 
organizations to disclose expenditures in a constitutionally acceptable 
manner the funds that they devote to political activity. Organizations 
that chose to file voluntary reports with the FEC would make individual 
donors to their PACs eligible for a tax deduction of up to $100.
  This provision is designed to encourage voluntary disclosure of 
expenditures of organizational soft money. Those organizations that did 
so would be shedding light on campaign finance not because they have 
to, but because it furthers the cause of an informed democracy.
  An article in the Investor's Business Daily quoted John Ferejohn of 
Stanford University as writing that ``nothing strikes the student of 
public opinion and democracy more forcefully than the paucity of 
information most people possess about politics.''
  The article goes on to suggest that ``But many reforms, far from 
helping, would cut the flow of political information to an already ill-
informed public.'' Citing a study by Stephen Ansolabehere of MIT and 
Shanto Iyengar of UCLA, which demonstrates that political advertising 
``enlightens voters,'' the IBD concludes that ``well-informed voters 
are the key to a well-functioning democracy.'' [Investor's Business 
Daily; 9/20/99]
  Morton Kondracke editorializes in the July 30, 1999, Washington 
Times, ``Full disclosure would be valuable on its merits--letting 
voters know exactly who is paying for what in election campaigns. Right 
now, campaign money is going increasingly underground.''
  This is precisely the issue my amendment addresses. My amendment, 
rather than prohibit the American people from having certain 
information produced by political parties, it would open up information 
about campaign finance. Knowledge is power. My proposal is predicted on 
giving the people more power.
  Additionally, my legislation will raise the limits on individual 
participation in elections. Special interest PACs sprung up as a 
response to the limitations on individual participation in elections. 
The contribution limit for individuals is $1000 and it has not been 
adjusted since it was enacted in 1974.
  Why are these limits problematic? The answer is that if a candidate 
can raise $5000 in one phone call to a PAC, why make 5 phone calls 
hoping to raise the same amount from individuals? My legislation 
proposes to make individuals at least as important as PACs.
  My bill also raises the 25-year-old limits on donations to parties 
and PACs. It raises the current limits on what both individuals and 
PACs can give to political parties. As the League of Women Voters has 
correctly pointed out, the activities of political parties are already 
regulated, whereas the political activities of other organizations are 
not. If we are concerned about the influence of ``soft'' money--that 
is, money in campaigns that is not regulated and not disclosed--and 
cannot be regulated or subject to disclosure under our Constitution--
then we ought to encourage--not punish--greater political participation 
through our party structures.
  We need to put individuals back as equal players in the campaign 
finance arena. Special interests--both PACs and soft money--have become 
important in large part because current law limits are not only a 
quarter century old, but are also higher for special interests than 
individuals.
  Some people have argued that raising the limits on donations to 
political candidates and parties exacerbates the problem. Their concern 
is that there is too much money in politics, not that there is too 
little.
  I will respond by saying that, first, all individual donations would 
have to be disclosed. The philosophy of the ``Citizens' Right to Know 
Act'' is that people have a right to make their own determinations 
about whether a contribution is tainted or not.
  Second, the higher contribution limits for hard money donations make 
individual citizens more important relative to special interests in 
campaign finance. If one goal of campaign finance reform is to reduce 
the influence of special interests, then raising the limits on 
individual contributions is a way to do it.
  Third, most of the increases in the bill are merely an adjustment for 
25 years of inflation. While the contribution limits have remained 
unchanged, the costs of running a campaign have increased. The higher 
levels reflect reality.
  Most importantly, while money is an essential ingredient in a 
campaign, and is necessary to get one's message to the voters, the real 
influence in campaigns is the public. Even if wealthy

[[Page 25784]]

John Smith gives thousands of dollars to a party or candidate, the fact 
is that he only gets one vote on election day. Candidates and parties 
have to persuade people to their way of thinking. All the money in the 
world cannot compensate for a dearth of principles or unpopular ideas.
  The McCain-Feingold approach represents a constitutionally specious 
barrier on free speech. It would, by law, prohibit political parties 
from using soft money to communicate with voters. Prohibitions are 
restrictions on freedom.
  My bill, in contrast, does not prohibit anything. It does not 
restrict the flow of information to citizens. On the contrary, my 
proposal recognizes that citizens are the ultimate arbiters in 
elections. They should have access to as much information as possible 
about the candidates and the positions they represent.
  Thus far, the information that is available to voters about campaign 
finance has been difficult to obtain and untimely. My bill, by 
empowering voters with this information, will put the role of special 
interests where it rightfully belongs--in the eye of the beholder, not 
the federal government.

                          ____________________