Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from Wyoming controls the time, is that correct?

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to be here with my colleagues from Arizona and Wyoming, because I share in their concern that this is a fundamental issue of our freedom and that is the right of the seniors to privately contract their own health care. Quite frankly, I am surprised we are having to debate this issue on the Senate floor. It is amazing to me how far we have strayed from this principle of some fundamental freedoms that the individual should enjoy. Again, I compliment particularly my colleague from Arizona for his leadership on this particular issue and also my colleague from Wyoming. The notion that in America we have a group of citizens who would be effectively prohibited by law from paying for their own health care is absurd. In order to fully understand the issue, I think it is important to review a bit of the history about this particular issue. The Health Care Financing Administration has interpreted current law to restrict voluntary, private contracts between physicians and Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. HCFA has issued threats of fines and exclusion against doctors who violate this arrangement and enter into private agreements. HCFA has created a situation where doctors must comply with regulations stipulated by Medicare if they accept even one Medicare beneficiary as their patient. Medicare, as we all know, is the only federally funded health care program that prohibits private contracting by the participants. During the balanced budget debate, Senator Kyl offered an amendment that would have allowed for seniors to use their own money for their health costs. Unfortunately, through deliberations in conference, this provision was stricken and a new law that takes effect in January requires physicians who enter into private contracts to forego Medicare reimbursement for a period of 2 years. It has been reported that currently only 9 percent of physicians do not have any Medicare patients. This provision effectively restricts the choice and the quality of health care services provided to senior citizens. This would tend to prohibit doctors from treating elderly patients and would deny seniors the choice of seeking treatment outside of the Medicare system. According to the amended law, any doctor who is found to be treating Medicare patients and privately contracting will be subject to fines and even imprisonment. In all practicality, the language makes private contracting impossible. It is imperative that Congress revisit this issue and resolve this shortsighted legislation. I am proud to support Senator Kyl's bill, the Medicare Beneficiaries Freedom to Contract Act, which would allow seniors the ability to use their own discretion and money for their health care needs. This legislation is crucial for the elderly individuals who rely on our Medicare system. By allowing senior citizens the ability to retain the doctors of their choice, they are able to receive the care that they want and require. This legislation is essential to senior citizens' rights to use their own discretion for their health care needs. Although it is true that the deficit in January has declined, the portion of these revenues claimed by entitlement spending continues to rise as entitlement spending rises. I agree with my colleague from Arizona when he says this is also something that will help us balance the budget. Why wouldn't Medicare accept the idea that a private individual can pay for his own health care services out there? It means they don't have to pay for it. It means less expenditures on entitlement spending. It means we can do more to reduce deficit spending. Particularly at a time when Medicare is in dire need of reform, how can Congress simply deny seniors the right and ability to use their own money for health services? This is not a ``Washington one-size-fits-all'' situation. We are talking about the health care of our Nation's elderly. Medicare beneficiaries should be given the right to pay out of pocket and to choose their own health care provider. It is their freedom we are infringing upon, and it is imperative we act now to rectify this wrong. Congress must create a more efficient and effective health coverage program for seniors. Senator Kyl's bill is one essential step to complete that goal. More choice and competition must be implemented in the Medicare Program, thereby facilitating proper health care coverage that fits different individuals' needs and desires. Congress must act now to rectify this problem. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing this legislation to lessen a financial burden on American companies. I am pleased that my colleague from Colorado, Senator Campbell is joining me as an original cosponsor. For approximately 20 years, various U.S. manufacturers have been paying substantial tariffs on a product that is not produced in this country. Mr. President, my legislation would significantly reduce the tariff on this particular product from 16 to 6.7 percent. This product is an industrial nylon fabric used in the manufacture of automotive timing belts. United States companies that use this product in their manufacturing processes have no choice but to import it since it has not been produced domestically since the mid-1970's. There is no domestic industry to harm by lowering this tariff, consumers will clearly benefit, and many domestic industries will benefit by becoming more competitive. My bill would temporarily reduce the tariff on the nylon fabric product for 3 years. After that period, if there are still no U.S. producers, further action would then be in order. Mr. President, reducing American competitiveness to protect non-existent domestic industries simply does not make sense. It is my hope that this situation will be rectified.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing this legislation to lessen a financial burden on American companies. I am pleased that my colleague from Colorado, Senator Campbell is joining me as an original cosponsor. For approximately 20 years, various U.S. manufacturers have been paying substantial tariffs on a product that is not produced in this country. Mr. President, my legislation would significantly reduce the tariff on this particular product from 16 to 6.7 percent. This product is an industrial nylon fabric used in the manufacture of automotive timing belts. United States companies that use this product in their manufacturing processes have no choice but to import it since it has not been produced domestically since the mid-1970's. There is no domestic industry to harm by lowering this tariff, consumers will clearly benefit, and many domestic industries will benefit by becoming more competitive. My bill would temporarily reduce the tariff on the nylon fabric product for 3 years. After that period, if there are still no U.S. producers, further action would then be in order. Mr. President, reducing American competitiveness to protect non-existent domestic industries simply does not make sense. It is my hope that this situation will be rectified.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today, I want to take a few minutes and let my views be known concerning campaign finance reform. First, I want to commend my colleagues from Arizona and Wisconsin. It is not easy to introduce legislation that you know will be adamantly opposed from the outset. I recognize this and I want to congratulate them. Second, I want to commend the Senator from Kentucky, who on more than one occasion has stood on this floor and took an unpopular stand against popular legislation for all the right reasons. Mr. President, I have always been a strong advocate of congressional reform, even to the point of introducing legislation that has upset many of my colleagues. I have always believed that congressional reform should make Congress more like the people we represent not above them. That is why I have long been a supporter of term limits, which I believe would be one of the best campaign finance reform measures we could ever enact. Campaign finance reform should give every American the opportunity to participate, as fully or as little as they want. This country's principles are based on freedom. People should have the ability to choose whether they want to participate in the system. We cannot and should not coerce or force citizens participation in this process. Nor should we stifle citizens participation in the electoral process. I do not believe that this quick fix of McCain-Feingold passes either one of these tests. First, I do not believe this legislation protects the working men and women in this country. Our electoral system is a voluntary activity. The U.S. Congress should never force participation in a voluntary activity, whether through individual activity or through financial contributions. This is why I believe the Lott amendment is so important for any campaign finance reform legislation. I would never do anything to stop outside groups from participating in the system, I just ask that all activity be voluntary. I would never force anyone to support me by either their vote or through a contribution if they disagreed with my views and I believe this should apply across the board to any group involved in our political system. I have heard complaints that the Lott amendment would weaken the union's power and hurt the union membership. If the political positions of the union bosses are supported like they believe they are by the membership, then there should be no problem whatsoever for the unions to stay strong. But, if the unions' Washington office takes positions that are contrary to its membership, then maybe they need to rethink their ways. Also, a provision that is forgotten by many who oppose the Lott amendment is that it also applies to corporations and national banks. The amendment makes it unlawful for any corporation or national bank to collect from or assess its stockholders any dues, initiation fee, or other payment as a condition of employment if such dues, fee or payment will be used for political activity in which the national bank or corporation is engaged. Likewise, a labor organization cannot collect or assess its members or nonmembers any dues, initiation fee, or other payment if any part of such dues, fee, or payments will be used for political activities. I think this amendment is very clear, no matter where you work, you should not have to choose between putting food on the table for your family or participating in an election or supporting an election. Let's make it very clear, the people who do not support this amendment believe that working men and women, union or not, should have to choose between working or supporting issues and elections with which they disagree. I have also heard that being a union member is voluntary and one of the most democratic institutions since employees must vote to start a union, elect its leaders and if they do not like the direction the union is taking then they can work to change it or as a last resort, quit the union. If you do not like the direction of the union, you must quit your job as a last resort. I do not think any union member should have to make that choice--a job or a political contribution. This same provision applies to corporations and national banks. No employee should have to choose between keeping their job or participating financially to causes or elections they disagree with. Some want to apply this amendment to groups such as the NRA or the Sierra Club or other issue groups. The difference between these groups and the employment condition in the Lott amendment is that joining these groups is completely voluntary and is not tied to a job. If a member of one of these issue groups wants to quit their respective group, then they just stop paying the dues and rip up the card. There is no employment backlash that causes that person to lose their job. Thomas Jefferson summed it up best when he said, ``To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.'' Second, in our quest of campaign finance reform, American citizens should not have to lose their voice. The first amendment is very clear in its wording, ``Congress shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom of speech or the press * * *.'' While campaign finance reform efforts are based on the best of intentions, whether by legislation or just simple suggestions, most of the time they will affect individuals' first-amendment rights. The Supreme Court has been very clear where it stands on the first amendment and campaign finance laws. Since the post-Watergate changes to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 24 congressional actions have been declared unconstitutional, with 9 rejections based on the first amendment. Out of those nine, four dealt directly with campaign finance reform laws. In each case, the Supreme Court has ruled that political spending equals political speech. This Senate attempted to change this through a constitutional amendment limiting the amount one can spend in a campaign, which only tells me that this fact is undeniably recognized by this body. In the now famous, or infamous to some, Buckley versus Valeo case, the Court states that: The First Amendment denies government the power to determine that spending to promote one's political views is wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In the free society ordained by our Constitution it is not the government, but the people--individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political committees--who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign. This simply states that the Government may not ration or regulate political speech of a citizen through spending limits or limit its quantity any more than it can tell the local newspaper how many papers it can print, what it can print, or when it can print. Also, the court states that `` * * * the mere growth in the cost of Federal election campaigns in and of itself provides no basis for governmental restrictions on the quantity of campaign spending * * * .'' This goes for not just the candidate but also outside groups who want to participate in the process. That brings me to a specific provision in the legislation before us. I have yet to hear what makes 60 days such a magic number. How can an outside issue group's ad carry a valid message 61 days before an election but if run the next day, it would lose all validity and become illegal. This just makes little sense. When I ran for this seat in the Senate, I was blasted from all angles by many different groups, but that's fine. It made my life and campaign a little more difficult, but it let me explain why I voted the way I did. These groups brought all the issues into play and no candidate can hide their record from the public. However, no matter how I have to defend my record against these ads, I will never attempt to legislatively silence their voice. To do so would place myself over the rest of America. I cannot support the idea that my viewpoint is so much more important, that no one outside of the candidate can speak less than 60 days before the election. I cannot and will not quiet the electorate. I did forget one exception during the 60-day blackout, the media. This 60-day blackout only strengthens the media and whatever they say, cannot be challenged, except by the candidate. Today, newspaper endorsements are held off until the end of the campaign to maximize their effect, but this 60-day blackout period will let the endorsement go without criticism from outside groups. And I question whether once a candidate gets an endorsement, if their campaign will be covered with the same amount of scrutiny as the other candidate, for again, any rebuttal to their coverage can only come from the candidates opponent. I believe this provision places too much power in the hands of a few. I have the utmost respect for the media and the professionals who work for in the field, but too much of one gets too powerful for all. Also, I believe this 60 day blackout will be used to remove Congress from the close scrutiny of the public. Let me explain. I am afraid that Congress will hold off some of the more controversial issues until the last 60 days before an election in order to escape the scrutiny of these outside groups. This regulation is nothing more than politicians wanting to quiet citizens from bringing up issues that politicians want to ignore. Another problem arises regarding soft money. The definition of soft money is campaign money raised outside the regulatory structure for Federal elections--or non-Federal money. These funds are raised and spent by political parties outside of the Federal fundraising limitations to benefit the party's State and local elections efforts. While soft money is not federally regulated, it is regulated by the 50 States. Current law already bans the use of soft money in Federal elections. Basically, a complete ban on the ability of the parties to raise and spend any soft money would federalize all elections because any money given to the national parties in support of state and local candidates would fall under the stricture of Federal laws. The Buckley case clearly states that ``[S]o long as persons and groups eschew expenditures that in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, they are free to spend as much as they want to promote the candidate and his views.'' The ACLU says that ``the purpose of this profound distinction is to keep campaign finance regulations from overwhelming all political and public speech. And it is this distinction which defenders of the constitutionality of a ban on soft money continue to disregard.'' The Court has permitted the unrestricted use of soft money by political parties and nonparty organizations in the Buckley decision and has enhanced and given it legitimacy in its subsequent decisions, including a decision involving the Republican Party from my own State of Colorado in 1996. Let me also make a point about money being the determining factor in elections. In my Senate race, I was outspent by almost $750,000--a quarter of $1 million. You don't have to have the most money to win, you just have to have the right message and I will not legislatively try and stop someone from speaking their message during a campaign, not even my opponent's. Many believe that now is the right time to pass a restrictive campaign finance measure with all the scandal surrounding the last Presidential campaign and that we should take a chance on the Supreme Court to rule it constitutional. The problem with this logic is that since 1976, the Supreme Court has referred to the Buckley decision over 100 times in setting limits on the Government's authority to regulate political speech. I just cannot see this Supreme Court overturning a ruling that has become the landmark decision and reference point for all campaign finance decisions. In the end, our campaign finance system needs to be fixed, but any reform must not run counter to the first amendment. The first amendment ensures that even if we don't like what someone says, they have the right to say it. While many believe that the amount of money being spent in campaigns is objectionable, the Court has clearly stated that campaign spending is equal to speech and no matter how objectionable, it is protected under the first amendment. I will have to say that the McCain-Feingold bill has gotten organized efforts behind it, like this ad run in the Denver Post on Thursday, October 2, by the group Campaign for America. However I would like to point out a few things. I find some great irony in this ad. First, if McCain-Feingold passes and this ad was to be aired on TV or radio, it may just be illegal, especially if it is within the 60-day blackout period before an election. If an incumbent believes this ad to be an attempt to influence an election, they can challenge it, thus stifling debate. The very message they wish to send could be stopped by the legislation they support. That is the point I would like to make. They want to stop big money and big guys with their big bucks from buying the system, which I want to do also by the way. Well, this group is backed by the some of the richest people in America. Actually, two of the men are on the Forbes 400 list. Plus, many of them have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to each party. It seems to me that this group is a bunch of rich guys using their big bucks to buy legislation. And, despite my request, I have yet to receive a full disclosure from this group on how much is spent, who gives and how much. All I know is who sits on their board of directors. But in all honesty, I cannot in good conscience stop them from exercising their first amendment rights. I want any campaign finance reform legislation to encourage this--not stop it. This is why I introduced my own bill, the Campaign Finance Integrity Act. My bill does not restrict one from exercising their political speech rights, but asks for complete and honest disclosure for all campaign spending. While this statement is not one of endorsement concerning my legislation, but in a review of the McCain-Feingold bill, the ACLU says, ``Disclosure, rather than limitation, of large soft money contributions to political parties, is the more appropriate and less restrictive alternative.'' My bill does just that. As a matter of fact, I believe my bill has the strongest open disclosure requirements of any bill introduced. My bill also will require candidates to raise at least 50 percent of their contributions from individuals in the State or District in which they are running; Equalize contributions from individuals and political action committees [PAC's] by raising the individual limit from $1,000 to $2,500 and reducing the PAC limit from $5,000 to $2,500; Index individual and PAC contribution limits for inflation; Reduce the influence of a candidate's personal wealth by allowing political party committees to match dollar for dollar the personal contribution of a candidate above $5,000, by using only hard money; Require organization, groups, and political party committees to disclose within 24 hours the amount and type of independent expenditures over $1,000 in support of or in opposition to a candidate. Incorporate the Lott amendment, along with the requirement of an annual full disclosure of those activities to members and shareholders; Prohibit depositing of an individual contribution by a campaign unless the individual's profession and employer are reported; Encourage the Federal Election Commission to allow filing of reports by computers and other emerging technologies and to make that information accessible to the public on the Internet less than 24 hours of receipt; Completely ban the use of taxpayer financed mass mailings; and Lastly, will create a tax deduction for political contributions up to $100 for individuals and $200 for a joint return to encourage small donations. One of the best way to reduce special interest money is to reduce the size and scope of Federal Government and I am not alone believing this. A recent survey by Rasmussen Research shows that 62 percent of Americans think that reducing Government spending would reduce corruption in Government. The same survey showed that 44 percent think that cutting Government spending would do more to reduce corruption than campaign finance reform, while 42 percent think campaign finance reform would reduce corruption more than cutting Government spending. I have said many times, if the Government rids itself of special interest funding and corporate welfare, then there would be little influence left for these large donors. That is why I am fighting corporate welfare, especially thee Overseas Private Investment Corp. Some may not see OPIC in the same light, but any benefit for corporations will just keep them coming back for more. Another way to achieve campaign finance is too eliminate the Department of Commerce, where a majority of the corporate welfare programs are funded. Also, by scrapping the existing Tax Code with its many tax breaks in favor of a flatter and simpler system would clean up our campaigns greatly. Big Government solutions will not stop big business and big labor money. To break special interest money, we must break the so-called iron triangle of big business, big labor, and big Government. I must say that by objecting to the Washington media is very difficult for any politician, but turning your back on the first amendment is more difficult for me. I want campaign finance reform and I have shown in my legislation how I would like to do it, but I will not do so at the expense of the first amendment. Not even at the expense of those people's speech who will disagree with me on this issue. The first amendment is the reason we can disagree. Let me end with this. While big money has been made the villain, I believe it is not the money but the people. Bad people will do bad things if given the chance. I believe that the tighter we made it, the more people will try to find loopholes resulting in more scandals. We need to enforce the laws on the books first before we add more Government regulation is not always the answer. To me it sounds like those who are under investigation and are calling for more Government regulation of campaigns are saying, ``Stop me before it sin again.'' Well let's first uphold the law and then we can better fix it. And when we do, let's not do so at the expense of those who legally want to exercise their first amendment rights. Don't let the bad shut out the good participants in our system. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business. Therefore, no rollcall votes will occur during today's session. As previously announced, there will be no rollcall votes on Monday. It is expected that the Senate will resume consideration of Senate bill 25, the campaign finance reform bill on Monday. In addition, the Senate will resume consideration of the D.C. appropriations bill early next week. It is hoped we can complete work on that legislation and any appropriations conference reports as they become available. Subsequently, Members' cooperation in the scheduling of floor action next week will be greatly appreciated. Senators are reminded that the next possibility of a rollcall vote will be on Tuesday morning. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. First of all, Mr. President, I want to thank the guest Chaplain this morning for being with us here in the U.S. Senate and leading off the session in prayer. It is a particular honor for me to be here since I am from the State of Colorado and he is also from the State of Colorado. It is a good thing he is here. It is a good thing that he is chairman of the board of Promise Keepers. It is a good thing he is becoming a leader in this country in talking about those things that are so very important, I think, to this country. It is a good thing he is talking about civility. It is a good thing he is talking about kindness. It is a good thing that he is talking about the integrity and how important integrity is to this country. It is a good thing that he is talking about the freedoms and what this country is all about. I particularly feel it is a good thing he is putting out so much effort to reconcile men through discipleship in the Lord. I just wanted to take a few moments this morning to recognize him for his effort on behalf of all of us. I just want to wish the very best this week with Promise Keepers.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Georgia for yielding. Madam President, I rise this morning to talk with my colleagues about the Internal Revenue Service. This week my colleagues on the Finance Committee have been holding hearings to examine the inner workings of the Internal Revenue Service. I appreciate their effort to more closely examine this institution. Not only do I appreciate it, but there are many Americans who appreciate this effort. For too long the Internal Revenue Service has not been accountable as an institution. Our Nation was built on a system of checks and balances. However, the Internal Revenue Service seems to have escaped this protection for Americans. For too long the Internal Revenue Service has used secrecy, intimidation and fear to do battle against those whom it has been called upon to serve, and that is the American taxpayers. I found it especially interesting that during those hearings those who know the Internal Revenue Service best--that is its own employees-- were the most afraid. Those who know what the Internal Revenue Service does were the ones who wanted to protect their identities. Although there are many dedicated employees at the Internal Revenue Service who perform their jobs honestly and responsibly, there are some who do not. Those few have forgotten the mission statement of the Internal Revenue Service, which calls on them to perform in a manner warranting the highest degree of public confidence in their integrity, efficiency, and fairness. I remind them of this pledge and call on them to uphold it. Unfortunately, the abuse of taxpayers is not limited to the testimony we have heard this week. I have held more than 63 town meetings throughout the State of Colorado, and obviously taxes were a big issue. But it was not unusual for me to hear from many people about the difficulties they have had with the Internal Revenue Service. Time and again I have heard stories about how the Internal Revenue Service plays a waiting game, knowing that they have the time, the money, and manpower to outlast a small taxpayer. One of my constituents was awarded $325,000 in damages by a Federal court because Internal Revenue Service agents had wrongfully publicized information about her, after agreeing earlier that they would not make that information public. After auditing this taxpayer's business, the Internal Revenue Service seized the business and demanded $325,000 in back taxes. After requesting a reaudit, it was found that she did not owe anywhere close to $325,000. In fact, all she owed was $3,400. And certainly there was no real intent to avoid the law. The real problem here, however, was that the agents involved in the case wrongfully disclosed information about the taxpayer after agreeing to not disclose that information. When awarding damages in the case, the judge harshly criticized the Internal Revenue Service saying: The conduct of our Nation's affairs always demands that public servants discharge their duties under the Constitution and laws of this Republic with fairness and a proper spirit of subservience to the people whom they are sworn to serve. Respect for the law can only be fostered if citizens believe that those responsible for implementing and enforcing the law are themselves acting in conformity with the law. Once again, though, the Internal Revenue Service is dragging its feet, refusing to pay the money. Other constituents have described situations where they received notices from the Internal Revenue Service for very minor mistakes and then are assessed penalties and interest that far exceed the amount of tax owed. It is a frightening experience to get a notice from the Internal Revenue Service, particularly when it is so difficult to communicate back to them and actually get some real answers concerning a case. I am reminded of a case that came up in interacting with the constituents that I represent in the State of Colorado. Someone came up to me and said, ``We sent a certified letter to the Internal Revenue Service with the check.'' They signed for the envelope and yet the check apparently had been lost by the Internal Revenue Service. This constituent was fined $200 by the Internal Revenue Service. She felt paying the fine was cheaper than getting professional help to fight the case. Constituents tell me of years of meetings, negotiations, and delay by the Internal Revenue Service. Madam President, I request 30 seconds just to summarize my remarks, if I may.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chair. Constituents tell me of years of meetings, negotiations and delays by the Internal Revenue Service in order to wear them down, even in cases where the law is unclear and subject to different interpretations. This abuse of taxpayers must stop. The Internal Revenue Service must recommit itself to serving the taxpayers. It must stop making criminals out of those whom it is charged with helping. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I believe the public housing bill is sound legislation and would like to extend my appreciation to the chairman and the subcommittee staff for all of their hard work. I would especially like to thank the chairman for working with me to include two provisions in the public housing bill. One measure would make vouchers available for Public Housing residents who are victims of crime. This provision would give them the change to live in better surroundings. Also included in the bill is a Housing Cost Commission to determine the full cost to the Federal Government of each of the housing programs administered by HUD. The data from this Commission will be available for Congress as it works to improve the efficiency and quality of federally assisted housing programs. I appreciate being able to work together for the goal of improving our public housing system and ensuring that these programs provide necessary assistance to low income individuals while giving them an opportunity to help themselves.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, today, I am introducing, with the Senator from Oregon, Ron Wyden, legislation to ensure that Federal agencies comply with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. This same legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives for several years by my home State colleague, Dan Schaefer. His leadership in this area has been very important. This legislation is very important to the country, but particularly to Colorado, where we have had several problems with the Federal Government applying one standard for themselves, and a different higher standard on private parties. I think this is unfair and should be changed. I've always believed that Superfund reform would be easier if all parties were in the same bathtub with the same scrub brush. I've tried to address Colorado's problems with EPA, but unfortunately I've had little success in getting their attention. One example I have brought to their attention was a former research institute at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden, CO. The research institute at Golden was shut down in the late 1980's after years of research had been done by the School of Mines, private entities, and several agencies of the Federal Government, including the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. After the site ceased doing research various environmental contaminants were found at the site and in 1992 there was an accident that resulted in the contents of a holding pond spilling into Clear Creek. While there was no contamination found in Clear Creek, the EPA had an emergency response cleanup contractor remove approximately 22,000 cubic yards of material from the pond and had it placed in a temporary stockpile. The EPA then issued a unilateral administrative order [UAO] for its disposal. Despite the fact that EPA, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and the Bureau of Mines did research at the site none of them were the subject of the UAO, even though the Bureau of Mines was identified as a potentially responsible party [PRP]. Only the State of Colorado, the Colorado School of Mines, and the private parties were subject to the UAO. To put it plainly, the EPA stuck everyone but their sister agencies with a bill for millions on cleanup. In the case of the State of Colorado, they have appropriated a total of $7.465 million for cleanup to cover their costs and the costs the Federal Government should be paying. It's my view that this money could be spent much better, or not spent at all. However, to have the State spend it because EPA won't enforce and Federal agencies won't be responsible is unacceptable. There is also another case in Colorado involving a Superfund site in Leadville. Leadville is a small town that was the home of Baby Doe Tabor and formerly was the site of a large amount of mining. While there is still some mining that occurs in Leadville, they are also beginning to rely more on tourism dollars. Unfortunately, the city has a stigma attached to it; it is a Superfund site. All the homes are a Superfund site, all the schools are a Superfund site, all the restaurants are a Superfund site, all the businesses on the main street are a Superfund site. They've been told that because of various mounds of old tailings laying around, the entire city has to be on the national priority list. It's interesting to note though, that the safety concerns of EPA seem to stop short when it comes to Federal responsibility. This story is one of two water treatment plants, one Federal, one private. The private plant, because it's on the Superfund site was built at much greater cost than the Federal plant, which is conveniently just outside the Superfund site. This is despite the fact that the level of contamination is basically equal at both locations. While the EPA disputes this claim, the people who live in Leadville and work at the cleanup site know the difference. In case I'm accused of relying on anecdotes for this legislation let me describe two documents that found their way into my office. Let me describe them in reverse chronological order, the first is an August 2, 1996, memorandum which subject is, ``Documentation of Reason(s) for Not Issuing CERCLA 106 UAO's to All Identified PRP's.'' I want to quote a footnote in this document; it states that, ``Pursuant to the applicable procedures, DOJ must concur with any EPA decision to issue a UAO under CERCLA section 106 to a Federal agency.'' So if DOJ doesn't concur EPA won't act. So it is revealing to note that a December 15, 1994, letter from a region VIII attorney stated that, ``It is my understanding, however, that DOJ has never approved of the issuance of a unilateral order to a Federal agency.'' By the Federal Government's own admission they will not enforce against a sister agency. Since there is no environmental ``cop on the beat'' for Federal agencies, the Federal Government should be relieved of their immunity against lawsuits and be treated the same as any private party. That includes having to comply with laws that elected State legislatures enact. This is what this legislation does. It is my intention to see it enacted into law as quickly as possible. I want to thank the Senator from Oregon for joining me in this effort.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, today, I am introducing, with the Senator from Oregon, Ron Wyden, legislation to ensure that Federal agencies comply with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. This same legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives for several years by my home State colleague, Dan Schaefer. His leadership in this area has been very important. This legislation is very important to the country, but particularly to Colorado, where we have had several problems with the Federal Government applying one standard for themselves, and a different higher standard on private parties. I think this is unfair and should be changed. I've always believed that Superfund reform would be easier if all parties were in the same bathtub with the same scrub brush. I've tried to address Colorado's problems with EPA, but unfortunately I've had little success in getting their attention. One example I have brought to their attention was a former research institute at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden, CO. The research institute at Golden was shut down in the late 1980's after years of research had been done by the School of Mines, private entities, and several agencies of the Federal Government, including the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. After the site ceased doing research various environmental contaminants were found at the site and in 1992 there was an accident that resulted in the contents of a holding pond spilling into Clear Creek. While there was no contamination found in Clear Creek, the EPA had an emergency response cleanup contractor remove approximately 22,000 cubic yards of material from the pond and had it placed in a temporary stockpile. The EPA then issued a unilateral administrative order [UAO] for its disposal. Despite the fact that EPA, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and the Bureau of Mines did research at the site none of them were the subject of the UAO, even though the Bureau of Mines was identified as a potentially responsible party [PRP]. Only the State of Colorado, the Colorado School of Mines, and the private parties were subject to the UAO. To put it plainly, the EPA stuck everyone but their sister agencies with a bill for millions on cleanup. In the case of the State of Colorado, they have appropriated a total of $7.465 million for cleanup to cover their costs and the costs the Federal Government should be paying. It's my view that this money could be spent much better, or not spent at all. However, to have the State spend it because EPA won't enforce and Federal agencies won't be responsible is unacceptable. There is also another case in Colorado involving a Superfund site in Leadville. Leadville is a small town that was the home of Baby Doe Tabor and formerly was the site of a large amount of mining. While there is still some mining that occurs in Leadville, they are also beginning to rely more on tourism dollars. Unfortunately, the city has a stigma attached to it; it is a Superfund site. All the homes are a Superfund site, all the schools are a Superfund site, all the restaurants are a Superfund site, all the businesses on the main street are a Superfund site. They've been told that because of various mounds of old tailings laying around, the entire city has to be on the national priority list. It's interesting to note though, that the safety concerns of EPA seem to stop short when it comes to Federal responsibility. This story is one of two water treatment plants, one Federal, one private. The private plant, because it's on the Superfund site was built at much greater cost than the Federal plant, which is conveniently just outside the Superfund site. This is despite the fact that the level of contamination is basically equal at both locations. While the EPA disputes this claim, the people who live in Leadville and work at the cleanup site know the difference. In case I'm accused of relying on anecdotes for this legislation let me describe two documents that found their way into my office. Let me describe them in reverse chronological order, the first is an August 2, 1996, memorandum which subject is, ``Documentation of Reason(s) for Not Issuing CERCLA 106 UAO's to All Identified PRP's.'' I want to quote a footnote in this document; it states that, ``Pursuant to the applicable procedures, DOJ must concur with any EPA decision to issue a UAO under CERCLA section 106 to a Federal agency.'' So if DOJ doesn't concur EPA won't act. So it is revealing to note that a December 15, 1994, letter from a region VIII attorney stated that, ``It is my understanding, however, that DOJ has never approved of the issuance of a unilateral order to a Federal agency.'' By the Federal Government's own admission they will not enforce against a sister agency. Since there is no environmental ``cop on the beat'' for Federal agencies, the Federal Government should be relieved of their immunity against lawsuits and be treated the same as any private party. That includes having to comply with laws that elected State legislatures enact. This is what this legislation does. It is my intention to see it enacted into law as quickly as possible. I want to thank the Senator from Oregon for joining me in this effort.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 10 a.m. with Senator Daschle or his designee in control of the time until 9:30 a.m. and Senator Coverdell or his designee in control of the time from 9:30 a.m. to 10 a.m. As earlier ordered, following morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of Senate bill 25 regarding campaign finance reform. The majority leader announced last evening that there will be no rollcall votes during Friday's session of the Senate. In addition, it was announced there will be no rollcall votes during Monday's session of the Senate. Therefore, the next rollcall vote will be the cloture vote on the Coats amendment No. 1249 to the D.C. appropriations bill, occurring Tuesday, September 30, at 11 a.m. Members can anticipate debate on campaign finance reform through today's and Monday's sessions of the Senate. I thank Members for their attention. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation that will strengthen the recently enacted line-item veto. Currently, the line-item veto can only be exercised by the President when there is a deficit. This legislation would eliminate that restriction and provide for line-item veto authority whether there is a deficit or a surplus. Mr. President, the purpose of the line-item veto should be to reduce wasteful Government programs, as well as reduce deficits. Last year the Congress approved legislation that granted the President line-item veto authority beginning in 1997. The Congress did this out of principle. Members did not wait to see which candidate won the election before deciding whether to grant the new authority, and in August history was made when President Clinton became the first President to exercise the line-item veto. While some Members of Congress may not agree with the specific provisions that the President selected to line-item veto, the important point is that any President should have this power as a check on narrow special interest spending and tax provisions. If Congress wishes to restore a vetoed provision it can do so with the requisite two-thirds vote. I have long been a supporter of line-item veto authority for the President. In my view it will serve as a powerful check on Congress' ability to load up bills with wasteful provisions. I think it is safe to say that the President's use of the line-item veto has created an environment in which narrow spending and tax provisions are going to be scrutinized much more carefully before they are loaded onto legislation. I recognize that there have been court challenges concerning the constitutionality of the statutory line-item veto. I believe that this authority is constitutional and I certainly hope that the Supreme Court comes down on that side. However, this issue is important enough that we should amend the Constitution if necessary. That is why earlier this year I introduced a line-item veto constitutional amendment. Today, however we should focus on the line-item veto that is before us and look for ways to improve that law. That is the purpose of this legislation. In the last several years our economy has been very healthy and tax revenues have come in at much higher levels than previously forecast. This has created a situation where we may actually see a budget surplus at some point in the next several years. Does this mean we should rescind the line-item veto authority we have given the President? Of course not, but that would be the result as the law was drafted in 1996. My view is that the line-item veto should be used in both deficit and surplus times. While we may have some surplus years on the horizon, it is clear that without entitlement reform massive deficits will return just after the turn of the century. This means that we must be constantly working to eliminate wasteful Government programs. A line- item veto is one way to help do that. Mr. President, I cast my vote for a permanent line-item veto. The President and Congress cannot afford to take a vacation from the battle against wasteful Government programs.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation that will strengthen the recently enacted line-item veto. Currently, the line-item veto can only be exercised by the President when there is a deficit. This legislation would eliminate that restriction and provide for line-item veto authority whether there is a deficit or a surplus. Mr. President, the purpose of the line-item veto should be to reduce wasteful Government programs, as well as reduce deficits. Last year the Congress approved legislation that granted the President line-item veto authority beginning in 1997. The Congress did this out of principle. Members did not wait to see which candidate won the election before deciding whether to grant the new authority, and in August history was made when President Clinton became the first President to exercise the line-item veto. While some Members of Congress may not agree with the specific provisions that the President selected to line-item veto, the important point is that any President should have this power as a check on narrow special interest spending and tax provisions. If Congress wishes to restore a vetoed provision it can do so with the requisite two-thirds vote. I have long been a supporter of line-item veto authority for the President. In my view it will serve as a powerful check on Congress' ability to load up bills with wasteful provisions. I think it is safe to say that the President's use of the line-item veto has created an environment in which narrow spending and tax provisions are going to be scrutinized much more carefully before they are loaded onto legislation. I recognize that there have been court challenges concerning the constitutionality of the statutory line-item veto. I believe that this authority is constitutional and I certainly hope that the Supreme Court comes down on that side. However, this issue is important enough that we should amend the Constitution if necessary. That is why earlier this year I introduced a line-item veto constitutional amendment. Today, however we should focus on the line-item veto that is before us and look for ways to improve that law. That is the purpose of this legislation. In the last several years our economy has been very healthy and tax revenues have come in at much higher levels than previously forecast. This has created a situation where we may actually see a budget surplus at some point in the next several years. Does this mean we should rescind the line-item veto authority we have given the President? Of course not, but that would be the result as the law was drafted in 1996. My view is that the line-item veto should be used in both deficit and surplus times. While we may have some surplus years on the horizon, it is clear that without entitlement reform massive deficits will return just after the turn of the century. This means that we must be constantly working to eliminate wasteful Government programs. A line- item veto is one way to help do that. Mr. President, I cast my vote for a permanent line-item veto. The President and Congress cannot afford to take a vacation from the battle against wasteful Government programs.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, along with the problem of allowing the Federal Government unchecked control of local rivers, there are several other problems with this initiative. I am worried about the lack of a requirement stating that only affected individuals and organizations can apply for designation. Senator Hutchinson's amendment puts limits on what designates a river community and allows for the actual interests of those who would be affected to be considered. It requires the opinions of property owners affected to be considered-- something the administration obviously does not feel concerned about. There has been a long trend in this country of slowly cutting away the rights of private property owners. The administration's latest end- run around the Congress--the establishment of this initiative--without congressional authorization or appropriation, and the lack of a guarantee as to what constitutes a local community, and the lack of input from the affected property owners in this initiative, is merely another power grab of the Federal Government at the expense of local government, local communities, and local property owners. A vote for this amendment will be a step in the right direction. And I, again, would like to compliment my colleague in the Senate for stepping forward and addressing this issue. I am proud to be a cosponsor of his initiative. I yield the floor. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment of my colleague, Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas. His amendment deals with the American rivers heritage initiative. I should start off by emphasizing that his amendment does not stop the initiative, it does not end it, and it does not hurt our rivers and their protection. This amendment merely ensures that the Federal Government, based right here in Washington, DC, does not become the controlling authority of rivers that have been used, cherished and developed by local communities all around this country, which, in some cases, the decisions made here in Washington may actually go against the wishes of the local community. I raise the question, why is our President so afraid of having local input into such an important process as the designation of our American rivers as heritage rivers? This amendment ensures that the people who live alongside of a river continue to have a say in the future of that waterway. They are the very ones who enjoy it for recreation, and they use it for commerce, and they actually own the private property on its banks. This initiative lists the members that will be involved in a committee responsible for implementation. Each heritage river will have a local bureaucrat that is going to sort of oversee the management of the committee. There is going to be a committee superintendent. Look at the members who serve on that committee. We have the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, Secretary of Energy, the Chair of the NEA, and the Secretary of HUD. These are all bright people, hard- working people, I am sure; but how can they honestly know more about a river, let's say, for example, that runs through Denver, CO--which is the South Platte River--than those people who actually live in Colorado along the South Platte, who actually know more about the seasonal impact on this particular river? If they don't know more, why are they put in charge of future development of the river above and beyond local control? Nobody out West wants to come to Washington and try to tell people who live along the Potomac how to control that particular river. Why does anybody want the administrators of these various agencies who live right here in Washington, DC, to have that type of control? And, frankly, their knowledge of a river may be nothing more than their perception of what they see happening on the Potomac River during rush hour when they are sitting on the 14th Street Bridge. So I do believe that the real expertise is back at the local communities, the people who live by and use the waters that we are talking about in the heritage river designation. I know of one entity in Colorado that certainly doesn't believe the control should belong in Washington. They believe it should be back at the local level. That one entity happens to be the Denver Post, which recently released an editorial against the initiative, saying that common sense argues against the possibility that a Presidential appointee would know more about the designated streams than those who live along its riverbanks. I happen to agree wholeheartedly with that editorial. I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, campaign finance reform is the catch phrase of the year in politics. The problem is that every Senator has a different definition of reform, including myself. That is why today I am introducing the Campaign Finance Integrity Act. I want to ensure that we change the campaign finance system without being unconstitutional and that flies in the face of the first amendment, especially in light of the fact that today is the 210th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. Some in Congress have stated that freedom of speech and the desire for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy are in direct conflict and that you can't have both. But fortunately for those of us who believe in the first amendment rights of all American citizens, the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court are on our side. Thomas Jefferson repeatedly stated the importance of the first amendment and how it allows the people and the press the right to speak their minds freely. Jefferson clearly stated its importance back in 1798 with, ``One of the amendments to the Constitution * * * expressly declares that `Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others.'' Again in 1808, he stated that ``The liberty of speaking and writing guards our other liberties.'' And in 1823, Jefferson stated, ``The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to.'' Jefferson knew and believed that if we begin restricting what people say, how they say it, and how much they can say, then we deny the first and fundamental freedom given to all citizens. The Supreme Court has also been very clear in its rulings concerning campaign finance and the first amendment. Since the post-Watergate changes to the campaign finance system, 24 congressional actions have been declared unconstitutional, with 9 rejections based on the first amendment. Out of those nine four dealt directly with campaign finance reform laws. In each case, the Supreme Court has ruled that political spending is equal to political speech. In the now famous decision, or infamous to some, Buckley versus Valeo, the Court states that, The First Amendment denies government the power to determine that spending to promote one's political views is wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In the free society ordained by our Constitution it is not the government but the people-- individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political committees--who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign. Simply stated, the government cannot ration or regulate political speech of an American through campaign spending limits any more than it can tell the local newspaper how many papers it can print or what it can print. This reinforces Jefferson's statement that to impede one of these rights is to impede all first amendment rights. Also, supporters of some of the campaign finance reform bills, believe that if we stop the growth of campaign spending and force giveaways of public and private resources then all will be fine with the campaign finance system. It seems to me that if you look at history, price controls didn't work in the 1970's and they won't work in the 1990's. The Supreme Court agrees and is again very clear in its intent on price controls in campaigns. The Buckley decision says, ``* * * the mere growth in the cost of federal election campaigns in and of itself provides no basis for governmental restrictions on the quality of campaign spending.* * *'' Campaigns are about ideas and expressing those ideas, no matter how great or small the means. The ``distribution of the humblest handbill'' to the ``expensive modes of communication'' are both indispensable instruments of effective political speech. We should not force one sector to freely distribute our political ideas just because it is more expensive than all the other sectors. So no matter how objectionable the cost of campaigns are, the Supreme Court has stated that this is not reason enough to restrict the speech of candidates or any other groups involved in political speech. We need a campaign finance bill that does not violate the first amendment, while providing important provisions to open the campaign finance of candidates up to the scrutiny of the American people and I believe the Campaign Finance Integrity Act does that. My bill would: Require candidates to raise at least 50 percent of their contributions from individuals in the State or district in which they are running; equalize contributions from individuals and political action committees, PAC's, by raising the individual limits from $1,000 to $2,500 and reducing the PAC limit from $5,000 to $2,500; index individual and PAC contribution limits for inflation; reduce the influence of a candidate's personal wealth by allowing political party committees to match dollar for dollar the personal contribution of a candidate above $5,000; require organizations, groups, and political party committees to disclose within 24 hours the amount and type of independent expenditures over $1,000 in support of or in opposition to a candidate; require corporations and labor organizations to seek separate, voluntary authorization of the use of any dues, initiative fees or payment as a condition of employment for political activity, and require annual full disclosure of those activities to members and shareholders; prohibit depositing of an individual contribution by a campaign unless the individual's profession and employer are reported; encourage the Federal Elections Commission to allow filing of reports by computers and other emerging technologies and to make that information accessible to the public on the Internet less than 24 hours of receipt; ban the use of taxpayer financed mass mailings, and create a tax deduction for political contributions up to $100 for individuals and $200 for a joint return. This is commonsense campaign finance reform. It drives the candidate back into this district or State to raise money from individual contributions. It has some of the most open, full, and timeliest disclosure requirements of any other campaign finance bill in either the Senate or the House of Representatives. I strongly believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant. The right of political parties, groups, and individuals to say what they want in a political campaign is preserved but the right of the public to know how much they are spending and what they are saying is also recognized. I have great faith that the public can make its own decisions about campaign discourse if it is given full and timely information. Many of the proponents of the more popular campaign finance bills try to reduce the influence of interests by suppressing their speech. I believe the best ways to reduce the special interests influence is to suppress and reduce the size of government. If the government rids itself of special interest funding and corporate welfare, then there would be little influence left for these large donors. Campaign contributions would no longer be based on special interests but on ideas. Let's stop corporate welfare, especially the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC, where companies get a subsidized ride on the backs of taxpayers in order to invest without risk or without the market controlling the outcome. The best way to eliminate corporate subsidies is to eliminate the Department of Commerce, where a majority of corporate welfare programs are funded. To break special interest money, we must break the so-called iron triangle of big business, big labor, and big government. Ojbecting to the popular catch phrase of the moment is very difficult for any politician, but turning your back on the first amendment is more difficult for me. I want campaign finance reform but not at the expense of the first amendment and that is what my legislation does. Not everyone will agree with the Campaign Finance Integrity Act and many of us will disagree on this issue but the first amendment is the reason we can disagree. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, campaign finance reform is the catch phrase of the year in politics. The problem is that every Senator has a different definition of reform, including myself. That is why today I am introducing the Campaign Finance Integrity Act. I want to ensure that we change the campaign finance system without being unconstitutional and that flies in the face of the first amendment, especially in light of the fact that today is the 210th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. Some in Congress have stated that freedom of speech and the desire for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy are in direct conflict and that you can't have both. But fortunately for those of us who believe in the first amendment rights of all American citizens, the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court are on our side. Thomas Jefferson repeatedly stated the importance of the first amendment and how it allows the people and the press the right to speak their minds freely. Jefferson clearly stated its importance back in 1798 with, ``One of the amendments to the Constitution * * * expressly declares that `Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others.'' Again in 1808, he stated that ``The liberty of speaking and writing guards our other liberties.'' And in 1823, Jefferson stated, ``The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to.'' Jefferson knew and believed that if we begin restricting what people say, how they say it, and how much they can say, then we deny the first and fundamental freedom given to all citizens. The Supreme Court has also been very clear in its rulings concerning campaign finance and the first amendment. Since the post-Watergate changes to the campaign finance system, 24 congressional actions have been declared unconstitutional, with 9 rejections based on the first amendment. Out of those nine four dealt directly with campaign finance reform laws. In each case, the Supreme Court has ruled that political spending is equal to political speech. In the now famous decision, or infamous to some, Buckley versus Valeo, the Court states that, The First Amendment denies government the power to determine that spending to promote one's political views is wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In the free society ordained by our Constitution it is not the government but the people-- individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political committees--who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign. Simply stated, the government cannot ration or regulate political speech of an American through campaign spending limits any more than it can tell the local newspaper how many papers it can print or what it can print. This reinforces Jefferson's statement that to impede one of these rights is to impede all first amendment rights. Also, supporters of some of the campaign finance reform bills, believe that if we stop the growth of campaign spending and force giveaways of public and private resources then all will be fine with the campaign finance system. It seems to me that if you look at history, price controls didn't work in the 1970's and they won't work in the 1990's. The Supreme Court agrees and is again very clear in its intent on price controls in campaigns. The Buckley decision says, ``* * * the mere growth in the cost of federal election campaigns in and of itself provides no basis for governmental restrictions on the quality of campaign spending.* * *'' Campaigns are about ideas and expressing those ideas, no matter how great or small the means. The ``distribution of the humblest handbill'' to the ``expensive modes of communication'' are both indispensable instruments of effective political speech. We should not force one sector to freely distribute our political ideas just because it is more expensive than all the other sectors. So no matter how objectionable the cost of campaigns are, the Supreme Court has stated that this is not reason enough to restrict the speech of candidates or any other groups involved in political speech. We need a campaign finance bill that does not violate the first amendment, while providing important provisions to open the campaign finance of candidates up to the scrutiny of the American people and I believe the Campaign Finance Integrity Act does that. My bill would: Require candidates to raise at least 50 percent of their contributions from individuals in the State or district in which they are running; equalize contributions from individuals and political action committees, PAC's, by raising the individual limits from $1,000 to $2,500 and reducing the PAC limit from $5,000 to $2,500; index individual and PAC contribution limits for inflation; reduce the influence of a candidate's personal wealth by allowing political party committees to match dollar for dollar the personal contribution of a candidate above $5,000; require organizations, groups, and political party committees to disclose within 24 hours the amount and type of independent expenditures over $1,000 in support of or in opposition to a candidate; require corporations and labor organizations to seek separate, voluntary authorization of the use of any dues, initiative fees or payment as a condition of employment for political activity, and require annual full disclosure of those activities to members and shareholders; prohibit depositing of an individual contribution by a campaign unless the individual's profession and employer are reported; encourage the Federal Elections Commission to allow filing of reports by computers and other emerging technologies and to make that information accessible to the public on the Internet less than 24 hours of receipt; ban the use of taxpayer financed mass mailings, and create a tax deduction for political contributions up to $100 for individuals and $200 for a joint return. This is commonsense campaign finance reform. It drives the candidate back into this district or State to raise money from individual contributions. It has some of the most open, full, and timeliest disclosure requirements of any other campaign finance bill in either the Senate or the House of Representatives. I strongly believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant. The right of political parties, groups, and individuals to say what they want in a political campaign is preserved but the right of the public to know how much they are spending and what they are saying is also recognized. I have great faith that the public can make its own decisions about campaign discourse if it is given full and timely information. Many of the proponents of the more popular campaign finance bills try to reduce the influence of interests by suppressing their speech. I believe the best ways to reduce the special interests influence is to suppress and reduce the size of government. If the government rids itself of special interest funding and corporate welfare, then there would be little influence left for these large donors. Campaign contributions would no longer be based on special interests but on ideas. Let's stop corporate welfare, especially the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC, where companies get a subsidized ride on the backs of taxpayers in order to invest without risk or without the market controlling the outcome. The best way to eliminate corporate subsidies is to eliminate the Department of Commerce, where a majority of corporate welfare programs are funded. To break special interest money, we must break the so-called iron triangle of big business, big labor, and big government. Ojbecting to the popular catch phrase of the moment is very difficult for any politician, but turning your back on the first amendment is more difficult for me. I want campaign finance reform but not at the expense of the first amendment and that is what my legislation does. Not everyone will agree with the Campaign Finance Integrity Act and many of us will disagree on this issue but the first amendment is the reason we can disagree. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I rise to address one of the most longstanding and racially sensitive disputes in the criminal justice system. I am introducing legislation to equalize the criminal penalties for offenses involving crack and powder cocaine. Under current law, a seller of 5 grams of crack cocaine receives the same mandatory 5-year prison term as a seller of 500 grams of powder cocaine. That disparity between penalties has been scrutinized by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Congress, and the Clinton administration for the last several years. Although many solutions have called for narrowing the gap in penalties, these recommendations don't go far enough. Instead of equalizing the penalties, they only narrow the disparity in sentencing for powder versus crack cocaine by altering the ratio from 5 to 1 instead of the current 100 to 1. Additional recommendations have called for lessening the penalty for crack dealers, bringing it closer to the lax penalties applied to powder offenders. My legislation rejects the hollow solution of lowering the penalty for crack to make it equal to powder cocaine penalties. The fact is that 90 percent of those convicted of dealing crack are African- Americans, while the majority of powder cocaine offenders are white. Raising the powder cocaine penalties to that of crack will help alleviate the perception of unfairness and racial bias in sentencing. But reducing the penalties for crack cocaine would only increase violent crime and harm those which the law is seeking to help. Statistics remind us that cocaine addiction continues to plague our society. According to the Partnership for a Drug Free America, 1 out of every 10 babies born in the United States is born addicted to drugs, and most are addicted to crack cocaine. Crime exploded between 1985 and 1990, the years crack was introduced. In fact, violent crime went up 37 percent in 1990 and aggravated assaults increased 43 percent. Partly because of crack cocaine, more teens in this country now die of gunshot wounds than all natural causes combined. Lowering sentences on crack cocaine would be devastating to the progress we have made in fighting the drug war. During the 1980's, Congress legislated steep consequences for crack cocaine. The crack epidemic spread across our Nation--and it warranted several drastic legal reforms. We saw the destruction wrought on entire communities by this cheap and highly addictive form of cocaine and realized that tough penalties were needed to restrict its availability. These tougher sentences were needed, but the problem we are seeing today is that powder cocaine sentences were set before the crack epidemic began and do not reflect the influence powder has had on crime and drug trafficking. This bill provides a twofold solution: It corrects the inequality in penalties which has contributed to the perceived race bias in sentencing; while at the same time stiffening the penalty for powder cocaine offenses, which are currently far too lenient. In light of the numerous proposals introduced to correct this problem, I encourage my colleagues to contemplate the alternatives and consider how justice is served in this matter. Maintaining the current ratio is allowing a wrongful disparity in penalties to continue. Congress must act now to correct this injustice.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I rise to address one of the most longstanding and racially sensitive disputes in the criminal justice system. I am introducing legislation to equalize the criminal penalties for offenses involving crack and powder cocaine. Under current law, a seller of 5 grams of crack cocaine receives the same mandatory 5-year prison term as a seller of 500 grams of powder cocaine. That disparity between penalties has been scrutinized by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Congress, and the Clinton administration for the last several years. Although many solutions have called for narrowing the gap in penalties, these recommendations don't go far enough. Instead of equalizing the penalties, they only narrow the disparity in sentencing for powder versus crack cocaine by altering the ratio from 5 to 1 instead of the current 100 to 1. Additional recommendations have called for lessening the penalty for crack dealers, bringing it closer to the lax penalties applied to powder offenders. My legislation rejects the hollow solution of lowering the penalty for crack to make it equal to powder cocaine penalties. The fact is that 90 percent of those convicted of dealing crack are African- Americans, while the majority of powder cocaine offenders are white. Raising the powder cocaine penalties to that of crack will help alleviate the perception of unfairness and racial bias in sentencing. But reducing the penalties for crack cocaine would only increase violent crime and harm those which the law is seeking to help. Statistics remind us that cocaine addiction continues to plague our society. According to the Partnership for a Drug Free America, 1 out of every 10 babies born in the United States is born addicted to drugs, and most are addicted to crack cocaine. Crime exploded between 1985 and 1990, the years crack was introduced. In fact, violent crime went up 37 percent in 1990 and aggravated assaults increased 43 percent. Partly because of crack cocaine, more teens in this country now die of gunshot wounds than all natural causes combined. Lowering sentences on crack cocaine would be devastating to the progress we have made in fighting the drug war. During the 1980's, Congress legislated steep consequences for crack cocaine. The crack epidemic spread across our Nation--and it warranted several drastic legal reforms. We saw the destruction wrought on entire communities by this cheap and highly addictive form of cocaine and realized that tough penalties were needed to restrict its availability. These tougher sentences were needed, but the problem we are seeing today is that powder cocaine sentences were set before the crack epidemic began and do not reflect the influence powder has had on crime and drug trafficking. This bill provides a twofold solution: It corrects the inequality in penalties which has contributed to the perceived race bias in sentencing; while at the same time stiffening the penalty for powder cocaine offenses, which are currently far too lenient. In light of the numerous proposals introduced to correct this problem, I encourage my colleagues to contemplate the alternatives and consider how justice is served in this matter. Maintaining the current ratio is allowing a wrongful disparity in penalties to continue. Congress must act now to correct this injustice.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am here today to introduce legislation banning commercial tour overflights at Rocky Mountain National Park. Tour overflight disturbances are a growing problem at a number of parks. This is an issue that other Members of Congress have addressed in the past, and it will continue to be contentious as long as the natural calm treasured by park visitors is threatened. I commend the Members of Congress who have been involved in creating legislation to control national park overflights in general or in a particular park. Details of problems are park specific, which is why I am addressing the issue of overflights at Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado. I hope that introduction of this legislation also serves to help Congress and the administration stay focused on creating a policy to address tour overflights at all national parks. The National Park Service is directed by law to protect the natural quiet in our National Parks. The 1916 National Park Service Organic Act states that the Park Service shall conserve scenery and wildlife and leave the areas unimpaired for future generations. Two other public laws explicitly state the need to preserve national parks in their natural state, most recently the National Parks Overflights Act of 1987 that notes the adverse impact that overflights have on the natural quiet and experience. The law also insists that parks should be essentially free from aircraft sound intrusions. In 1996, President Clinton announced his commitment to the peace of our national parks by ordering that agencies protect them against noise intrusions from park overflights. Furthermore, surveys have indicated that more than 90 percent of park visitors feel that tranquility is very important, but it is not only the quiet atmosphere that overflights threaten; overflights also have the potential to adversely impact wildlife and other natural resources. In particular, I am concerned about proposals for helicopter sightseeing at Rocky Mountain National Park that could seriously detract from the enjoyment of other park visitors and also could have a negative impact on the resources and values of the park itself. I value the wildlife and solitude at Rocky Mountain National Park, and I understand fully the concern that commercial tour overflights will impair visitor enjoyment. Rocky Mountain National Park is a relatively small park in the Rockies, about 70 miles from Denver. The park receives nearly 3 million visitors each year, almost as many as Yellowstone National Park, which is eight times its size. The park is easily accessible, yet continues to provide quiet, solitude, and remoteness to visitors, especially in the back country. Several problems are specific to this mountainous park. The elevation of the Park does not allow a large minimum altitude, therefore, according to the National Park Service, natural quiet is unlikely if overflights are permitted at all. In addition, the terrain, consisting of many 13,000 foot peaks and narrow valleys, coupled with unpredictable weather, presents serious safety concerns. Also, the unique terrain of Rocky Mountain National Park would cause air traffic to cumulate over the popular, lower portions of the park as pilots are forced to navigate around the dangerous peaks and high winds. Not only would the overflights be concentrated directly over the most popular portions of the park, but more powerful, and louder, helicopters must be used to achieve the necessary lift at a high altitude. In August the members of the Clinton administration's appointed task force on commercial tour overflights toured Rocky Mountain National Park. One of the participants, a spokesman for the National Air Transportation Association observed the altitude of the park and extreme weather conditions and stated, ``I don't know that there's anything here that being in a helicopter would make that much more interesting than what can be seen from the road.'' These distinctive qualities lead to the conclusion that the best solution to overflight disturbance is a ban on commercial tour flights at Rocky Mountain National Park. It is important for me to affirm that this legislation would only ban commercial tour overflights. It is not intended to have any adverse effect on emergency, military and administrative flights or on commercial high-level airlines or private planes. A commercial tour overflight ban has widespread support throughout my State. State and local officials in areas adjacent to the park, including Larimer County, Grand County, and the city of Estes Park have indicated their concerns with flights over the park, and they support a ban. In the last session of Congress the entire Colorado delegation went on record in support of an overflight ban. The Governor of Colorado has also expressed a fear shared by many that such disturbances could cause a loss of tourism. Rocky Mountain National Park has been fortunate enough to be free from overflights to this point, partially because local towns have discouraged companies that might provide such services. In addition, there are no existing private property rights that are infringed upon by the implementation of a permanent commercial tour overflight ban. At the beginning of this year the FAA issued a temporary ban on sightseeing flights over Rocky Mountain National Park. However, I remain concerned as we await final ruling by the FAA on park overflights and consider the possibility that such low-flying aircraft could be permitted in the park. In 1995, one of our top Denver newspapers editorialized that the FAA should make Rocky Mountain National Park off-limits to low-flying aircraft use, the sooner the better. Now, 2 years later, it is time to take action on imposing a permanent ban on scenic overflights.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am here today to introduce legislation banning commercial tour overflights at Rocky Mountain National Park. Tour overflight disturbances are a growing problem at a number of parks. This is an issue that other Members of Congress have addressed in the past, and it will continue to be contentious as long as the natural calm treasured by park visitors is threatened. I commend the Members of Congress who have been involved in creating legislation to control national park overflights in general or in a particular park. Details of problems are park specific, which is why I am addressing the issue of overflights at Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado. I hope that introduction of this legislation also serves to help Congress and the administration stay focused on creating a policy to address tour overflights at all national parks. The National Park Service is directed by law to protect the natural quiet in our National Parks. The 1916 National Park Service Organic Act states that the Park Service shall conserve scenery and wildlife and leave the areas unimpaired for future generations. Two other public laws explicitly state the need to preserve national parks in their natural state, most recently the National Parks Overflights Act of 1987 that notes the adverse impact that overflights have on the natural quiet and experience. The law also insists that parks should be essentially free from aircraft sound intrusions. In 1996, President Clinton announced his commitment to the peace of our national parks by ordering that agencies protect them against noise intrusions from park overflights. Furthermore, surveys have indicated that more than 90 percent of park visitors feel that tranquility is very important, but it is not only the quiet atmosphere that overflights threaten; overflights also have the potential to adversely impact wildlife and other natural resources. In particular, I am concerned about proposals for helicopter sightseeing at Rocky Mountain National Park that could seriously detract from the enjoyment of other park visitors and also could have a negative impact on the resources and values of the park itself. I value the wildlife and solitude at Rocky Mountain National Park, and I understand fully the concern that commercial tour overflights will impair visitor enjoyment. Rocky Mountain National Park is a relatively small park in the Rockies, about 70 miles from Denver. The park receives nearly 3 million visitors each year, almost as many as Yellowstone National Park, which is eight times its size. The park is easily accessible, yet continues to provide quiet, solitude, and remoteness to visitors, especially in the back country. Several problems are specific to this mountainous park. The elevation of the Park does not allow a large minimum altitude, therefore, according to the National Park Service, natural quiet is unlikely if overflights are permitted at all. In addition, the terrain, consisting of many 13,000 foot peaks and narrow valleys, coupled with unpredictable weather, presents serious safety concerns. Also, the unique terrain of Rocky Mountain National Park would cause air traffic to cumulate over the popular, lower portions of the park as pilots are forced to navigate around the dangerous peaks and high winds. Not only would the overflights be concentrated directly over the most popular portions of the park, but more powerful, and louder, helicopters must be used to achieve the necessary lift at a high altitude. In August the members of the Clinton administration's appointed task force on commercial tour overflights toured Rocky Mountain National Park. One of the participants, a spokesman for the National Air Transportation Association observed the altitude of the park and extreme weather conditions and stated, ``I don't know that there's anything here that being in a helicopter would make that much more interesting than what can be seen from the road.'' These distinctive qualities lead to the conclusion that the best solution to overflight disturbance is a ban on commercial tour flights at Rocky Mountain National Park. It is important for me to affirm that this legislation would only ban commercial tour overflights. It is not intended to have any adverse effect on emergency, military and administrative flights or on commercial high-level airlines or private planes. A commercial tour overflight ban has widespread support throughout my State. State and local officials in areas adjacent to the park, including Larimer County, Grand County, and the city of Estes Park have indicated their concerns with flights over the park, and they support a ban. In the last session of Congress the entire Colorado delegation went on record in support of an overflight ban. The Governor of Colorado has also expressed a fear shared by many that such disturbances could cause a loss of tourism. Rocky Mountain National Park has been fortunate enough to be free from overflights to this point, partially because local towns have discouraged companies that might provide such services. In addition, there are no existing private property rights that are infringed upon by the implementation of a permanent commercial tour overflight ban. At the beginning of this year the FAA issued a temporary ban on sightseeing flights over Rocky Mountain National Park. However, I remain concerned as we await final ruling by the FAA on park overflights and consider the possibility that such low-flying aircraft could be permitted in the park. In 1995, one of our top Denver newspapers editorialized that the FAA should make Rocky Mountain National Park off-limits to low-flying aircraft use, the sooner the better. Now, 2 years later, it is time to take action on imposing a permanent ban on scenic overflights.