Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, while I and a number of my colleagues will come to the floor in the days ahead to introduce specific proposals affecting our Nation's parks and public lands, I would like to talk very generally about the environmental and natural resources agenda of the 105th Congress. My hope is that we have learned from the lessons of the last Congress and will not once again attempt to undo the most effective and progressive network of environmental laws in the world. Over 25 years ago, with overwhelming bipartisan support, the National Forest Management Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Water Act were enacted into law. Today, as a result of those and other laws passed with strong support from both sides of the aisle, people are more actively involved in management of their public lands, more people are using public lands for recreation than ever before, our air and waters are cleaner, hunting and fishing is better, our Government is more open about the effects of its actions on the health and safety of families and local communities, and rare species such as the bald eagle and grizzly bear are thriving. By protecting our natural resource heritage, we have become a wiser, stronger, and healthier Nation. At times we have a tendency to overlook the value--our moral and ethical obligation--to pass on healthy lands and waters to our children's children. How else can we explain efforts in the last Congress--and proposals by some of my colleagues today--to rewrite, overturn, or significantly weaken the protections afforded all Americans by these laws? In this regard, I was encouraged by the recent words of Mike Dombeck, the new Chief of the Forest Service. His first day on the job, Chief Dombeck said: More and more, people are realizing that their jobs and professions, the quality of the water they drink and the air they breathe--the very fabric of their lives --are dependent on the land that sustains them. Dombeck told his employees that this Nation's environmental laws: . . . represent the conservation values of mainstream America. Do not be disturbed by the debate surrounding their execution. This is background noise to a complex society and healthy, properly functioning democracy. There is an ongoing debate in this Nation over how national forests and rangelands should be managed. That's just fine. In fact, it is healthy. Debate and information are the essence of democracy. The people we serve, all of the American people, are now more fully engaged in defining how their public land legacy should be managed. The new Chief succinctly stated what we inside the beltway sometimes forget, ``We cannot meet the needs of the people if we do not first conserve and restore the health of the land.'' This Nation is blessed by a public land legacy that is the envy of the world. Our taxpayer- owned lands are the refuge of last resort for vanishing species. Moreover, these lands enable our children to experience the solitude of wilderness, pristine clear lakes, and a hunting and fishing experience unexcelled in pure delight anywhere else. Last year many Members of Congress were shocked by the outrage of our citizenry over the efforts to dramatically cut the EPA budget. In 1960, 65 percent of our lakes and streams were neither swimmable nor fishable. Today 65 percent of our lakes and streams are swimmable and are fishable, and I can tell you, our people want that progress to continue until we reach 100 percent. I applaud Chief Dombeck's views and encourage my colleagues to allow him the time and resources to make the policy and personnel changes needed to achieve his critically important vision. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, tonight the President will address the Nation on the State of the Union. I do not know precisely what the President is going to say, particularly about the economy and about the budget, tax cuts, the deficit, crime, education, the environment, and so on. I am sure he will address each one of those things and more. But I would be less than candid with my colleagues and my constituents--and I would be less than honest with myself--if I did not voice some concerns about what I have been reading about what the Republicans want in the way of tax cuts and what the President wants in the way of tax cuts, what the President wants in the way of Medicare cuts, and what the Republicans want in Medicare cuts, what kind of incentives we want for our children to attend college, what kind of a tax cut we want for so-called middle class people. So let me address those issues seriatim and say, first of all, it is my understanding that the proposal which has been in the public domain for some time now to cut Medicare by $138 billion over the next 6 years will probably be fairly well applauded. Nobody is going to object to any proposal that makes the Medicare system sounder and gives our elderly Medicare recipients a better sense of security. Anything we can do to cause the American elderly population to sleep better at night because they know the Medicare system is sound and will be sound for the foreseeable future is a highly desirable goal. Now, having said that, I think the Republicans will want to cut Medicare more than $138 billion. And I am not saying they are right or wrong. I do not know what the figure ought to be. I might support additional proposals to do anything to make the Medicare system sounder than $138 billion will make it. But having said that, I am puzzled by how you achieve a balanced budget while you are cutting $138 billion in Medicare, which alone would go right on the budget deficit over the next 6 years, I believe it is. But we do not stop with that. The Republicans do not stop with it and the Democrats do not stop with it. The Republicans have a proposal of a tax cut which they call the middle class tax cut. It is designed to provide a $500 tax credit for each child in the family, but it is not refundable. That means that if you are making $30,000 a year, and you pay $1,500 in taxes, you would get $1,500 back if you have three children--$500 for each child. But if you happen to have a $30,000 income, and six children, and you do not pay any tax, you get nothing. So the simple question must be asked, who needs a tax cut more, the parents with three children or the parents with six children? Move on down the ladder to $25,000, move on down the ladder to $20,000, a single mother with one child who is working as a waitress in a Senate cafeteria. Her tax bill is $1,000, we will say. She would get $500. But if she had three children and was still paying $1,000, she would get $1,000, but nothing for the third child. The third scenario: If she has children and is paying no tax, she gets nothing. And on top of that, as the Presiding Officer will tell you, and recall, we cut the earned income tax credit last year, which is so beneficial to the mother who is a waitress in a Senate cafeteria that I just described because she is entitled to an earned income tax credit by staying on the job and off of welfare. No less a person than Ronald Reagan said it was the greatest incentive for staying off welfare he could think of. Every President since that thing first came into effect has said that this is one of the best incentives to keep people off of welfare we have. That is to say, ``If you stay on the job all year long, don't get on welfare, and if you make less than $28,000 a year, we'll give you a sum of money at the end of the year, as high as $2,000.'' So what are we doing here? What kind of social policy is it? Forget economics. What kind of social policy is it when we give money to people who have one or two children and pay income tax, give no money to people who work and pay no income tax because they have enough dependents to keep them from paying taxes and maybe whose income was cut this year because we cut the earned income tax credit? What kind of fairness is that? So, Mr. President, I am troubled about the so-called $500 tax rebate for all your children. It is not refundable. Only if you pay taxes do you get it. Obviously, the people who are hurting most are not paying taxes because they do not make enough money. Then we have this proposed capital gains tax cut. As I read the Republican proposal, CBO scores it to cost $33 billion over the next 5 years and $111 billion over the next 10 years. And who do you think gets the majority of the benefit? Why, it is the people who own stock in Microsoft and Intel and IBM. It is the people who are big investors in the stock market. The rate of 28 percent on capital gains may be a tad high. There is probably nobody in this room who would quarrel with that. But if you are trying to balance the budget, which we have been doing a magnificent job of for the past 4 years, why do we want to muck it up and start cutting taxes, which is absolutely guaranteed to start the deficit back up again? We tried that in 1981, cutting taxes massively, increasing defense spending massively, and winding up today with a $5.2 trillion debt. This is the slowest learning crowd I have ever seen. It is worse than trying to housebreak a dog I had one time. We just could not do it. So what are we doing talking about these massive tax cuts and balancing the budget at the same time? It has never worked, and it never will. Where did all this talk get started? If you are going to cut taxes, cut taxes for people who honestly need the money. If you cut capital gains, with 75 percent of the benefit going to people who make over $100,000, where is it going to go? Probably into the stock market. The mutual funds are putting $15 billion a month into the market right now. Who here believes that the stock market can absorb those kinds of investments? Everything that goes up has to come down at some point or another. But I am talking about the Republican proposal. And now the President is going to announce tonight apparently a proposed capital gains tax cut for people who have homes worth $500,000. If you bought a home 20 years ago for $100,000 and you sell it today for $500,000, under the proposal of the President you would not pay a nickel tax. I remember many years ago when we passed an exemption for homeowners to exclude $150,000 of the price tag. You could do that one time in your life, a $150,000 exclusion. If you had a $500,000 home that you had paid $100,000 for, you not only get your $100,000 cost back, you can add $150,000 to that and you have $250,000 capital gains on which you would pay a 28 percent tax. The President's proposal is that if you have a $500,000 home and you sell it for $500,000 there is no tax, no matter what you paid for it. You may have paid $25,000 for it and it may be worth $500,000 today because somebody wants to build a McDonald's where you are living, no tax. Now, Mr. President, would you like to know how many people in this country have a home that is valued in excess of $500,000? The answer is 1 percent. The President's proposal of a $500,000 exclusion will take care of 99 percent of all the homeowners in America. I do not know what the cost of it is supposed to be. These things are all laudable. I never lost a vote voting for a tax cut. When you tell people you are for tax cuts, everybody applauds. If there is anything people want to hear, it is that they are overtaxed, they are overregulated, they are overeverything. I understand their frustration. But let me ask you this: When you have an economy that grew at 4.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 1996--that is a staggering growth rate--with an inflation rate of 2.2 percent, about as low as you can ever get it, Treasury bills at 5 percent as of yesterday, the unemployment rate as low as it ever gets, in short, you have an economy that is performing absolutely magnificently, and the deficit has gone from $290 billion in 1992 to $107 billion, a 63-percent reduction in 1996, what are we going to do? We are going to start pandering again. Why can we not focus on that deficit? The people of this country have a nonnegotiable demand that we balance the budget. Do you know why a lot of people are going to vote for the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States? Do you think it is because they think it is sound economic or social policy? I do not like to denigrate other people. It is arrogant to do that. But I can tell you one reason is because they have seen the polls. I know what the polls show. One of the reasons the polls show so many people want a constitutional amendment to balance the budget is two things. No. 1, they think a constitutional amendment to balance the budget and a balanced budget are the same thing. A constitutional amendment does not guarantee you anything. Yes, it does, too: It guarantees you chaos. It is the biggest political scam ever perpetrated and foisted off on an unsuspecting public that can bring nothing but utter chaos to this Nation down the road. Do you know something? People did not elect 100 Senators to come up here and vote however the polls show every time. They elected people to come up here and to think, to read the Constitution, understand the sacredness of the Constitution, understanding that every single little problem that comes up ought not to be solved by tinkering with that sacred document. I have never voted for a constitutional amendment. I thought in 1984 when I voted against that great constitutional amendment of prayer in school that I was serving my last term in the Senate. Do you know something? I went home and I went from one end of the State to the other explaining to the people of my State what that meant, how the school boards could pick the prayers the children would say and tell them how many times a day they would say them. What kind of nonsense is that, giving up the greatest religious freedoms we have to the local school board? Do you know what? I had the fundamentalists and the mainliners and everybody clapping and cheering because they did not want that either. But at least I did not hesitate to talk to them about it and tell them where it would lead us. So I do not have any hesitancy today in coming to the floor and saying I am very apprehensive about all the tax cut proposals. Why are we going to cut $138 billion from Medicare and turn right around and give it away in tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America? That is not my idea of responsible legislation. That is not my idea of a responsible economy. If you want a balanced budget, now is the time to show it, and do not tell me you will hide behind this constitutional amendment and go home and say, ``I did my part. I cut taxes and then I voted for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.'' Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Bumpers pertaining to the introduction of S. 237 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1997. This bill provides for the transition toward deregulation and competition in electricity generation. While very few people, including myself, find a discussion of the electric utility industry and the many laws and regulations governing the industry exciting, the fact is that electricity is an extremely important commodity which affects everyone on a daily basis. Any event that increases or reduces electric rates can impact: First, the lives of the poor and those on fixed incomes that depend on electricity to heat their homes in the winter and cool them in the summer; second, the price of goods we buy every day; as well as, third, the competitiveness of our factories. In addition, decisions made by electric generators often have a direct effect on our environment as well as our national security. So, it is not at all inconsequential that the electric industry, which has remained relatively static for the last 60 years, is about to undergo a fundamental change. Instead of the traditional vertically integrated local utility, which generates power at its own plants, transmits that power over its own lines, and sells that power to all consumers in a particular area, consumers will soon be bombarded with all sorts of offers from companies competing to become their power supplier, and other entrepreneurs will be seeking to buy large blocks of power to serve certain kinds of consumers. Naturally, these changes are bound to create considerable apprehension among utilities, their shareholders, and consumers. Mr. President, there are some who would prefer that we maintain the status quo. However, it is becoming increasingly certain that competition is inevitable. At least six States--California, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Massachusetts--have already enacted legislation or promulgated regulations providing for competition. A number of other States have established proceedings to determine how to move toward competition. In all, more than 40 States have either ordered, or are examining the possibility of requiring, deregulation of the retail electric markets. Theoretically, introducing competition among electric power providers should produce greater efficiencies and lower electric rates. Certainly large industrial consumers of electricity would see significant reductions in their energy bills, but I am more concerned about the potential impact on residential and small commercial consumers--the biscuit cookers as we call them in Arkansas. Generating companies may be less eager to compete to serve these customers, especially those located in rural areas. This reduced bargaining power could also end up causing residential and small commercial customers to pay for those costs arising from the transition to competition--that is, stranded costs--costs that industrial consumers can more easily avoid. I believe it is the role of both Congress and the States to ensure that the biscuit cookers also benefit. It is not enough to simply proclaim that the days of the utilities' vertically integrated monopolies are over. We also have a solemn obligation to be fair to utility companies that have been operating in reliance on the ground rules we all created over the last 60 years. This will require a careful balancing of competing interests. Everyone will benefit by restructuring if it is done properly, and I consider this an absolutely essential result. Mr. President, I am introducing this bill to begin the debate in the 105th Congress about how best to promote an orderly transition to a competitive retail electric market. This legislation is designed with the goals of allowing all consumers to enjoy the benefits of competition while not penalizing utilities for prudent decisions they made under the previous regulatory system. There is significant debate over whether Congress should even pass legislation on this subject. The argument that the States should decide these issues certainly has some merit. After all, retail electric service has generally been the domain of the States, although requirements imposed at the Federal level by both FERC and Congress have had a direct impact on retail rates and service. But I personally believe a State-by-State approach could produce a lot of unintended consequences which would limit the benefits associated with retail competition. Electric generation markets are becoming increasingly regional and even multiregional. What happens in one State can have direct and indirect impacts on consumers and utilities located in another State. Utilities operating in more than one State can be subjected to conflicting regulatory regimes which could impact the way they operate their systems and the electric rates paid by consumers. This phenomenon is best illustrated by the multistate utility holding companies registered under the Public Utility Holding Company Act [PUHCA}. I have had a lot of experience with registered holding companies because two of them serve my home State of Arkansas. These holding companies generally plan for, and operate, generating facilities on a systemwide basis for the benefit of customers in the entire region served by the company. If restructuring proceeds on a State-by-State basis, these holding companies would find themselves subjected to different requirements which could negatively impact consumers. For example, the Entergy System serves retail customers in parts of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Arkansas. If Louisiana and Texas were to order retail competition and Arkansas and Mississippi decided to delay competition, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for Entergy to operate a system of generating facilities designed to serve a particular load over a four-State area. It is quite possible that consumers in Arkansas and Mississippi would wind up paying more for their service. Entergy's captive customers in Arkansas and Mississippi could be further disadvantaged to the extent Entergy were to become financially imperiled as a result of the retail competition orders in Texas and Louisiana. A State-by-State approach to retail competition also presents problems where utilities operate entirely within a single State. It would make no sense for a utility in a State that does not require retail competition, to be able to sell power at retail in an adjoining State that requires retail competition, while a utility subjected to retail competition is unable to mitigate its losses by competing for customers in the adjoining State. Such a result both increases stranded costs and distorts the generation marketplace. My legislation requires that retail competition be implemented in each State by 2003. States will continue to have the option of choosing an earlier starting date. In addition, the States can individually oversee the transition to competition. Moreover, if Congress is going to mandate retail competition then I believe we have an obligation to provide for utility recovery of its stranded investment in facilities that become uneconomic as a result of the transition to retail competition. That is not to say that a utility is automatically entitled to recover every penny of its investment. Rather, my bill limits utilities to recovery of their investments that: First, were prudent when incurred; second, are legitimate and verifiable; and third, cannot be mitigated by selling power to others in the competitive market. My bill provides that if a utility seeks to recover stranded costs, a State commission would establish the level of such costs pursuant to an administrative determination or after the utility auctions off its assets to establish the market value of these facilities. Once the stranded costs are calculated, consumers would be assessed a wires charge to compensate the utility for its stranded costs. It is vital that, as we proceed with electric restructuring, we act to ensure that the generation markets are truly competitive. It will do no good to remove Federal and State rate regulation if consumers do not have access to a sufficient number of potential power marketers. We have already seen this problem in other industries that have deregulated, where after an initial flurry of competitors entering a particular market, significant consolidation occurred. Utilities obviously should not be allowed to use their advantageous positions with regard to transmission and distribution to gain a competitive advantage in the generation market. Utilities should not use funds from their transmission and distribution systems to subsidize their generation businesses. In addition, my bill requires the implementation of independent system operators [ISO's] to oversee the operation of transmission systems in each region. We also must be mindful that power suppliers might not be falling all over themselves to serve certain consumers, especially those located in rural areas. My bill contains a universal service requirement to ensure that everyone who wants electric service has the opportunity to buy it at reasonable rates. The bill also authorizes States to collect fees from all consumers to help pay for the universal service obligation. Mr. President, there are currently a number of utility-based programs which provide societal benefits. For instance, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act [PURPA] provides for utility purchases of energy generated at certain plants which use renewable resources or cogeneration. In addition, many States have programs requiring utilities to contribute to energy conservation and to help low-income people pay their energy bills. The costs of these programs are passed through to ratepayers. It will be more difficult for utilities to continue to implement these programs in a competitive retail environment. My bill authorizes States to collect wire charges to help pay for these kinds of programs. Congressman Dan Schaefer has developed a proposal designed to promote the use of renewable generation. His portfolio approach would require each company selling power at retail to generate a portion of its power using renewable resources or to purchase credits from those companies that do generate in excess of the minimum requirements. I think it is very important that we do everything possible to promote the use of renewable energy and my bill contains a similar proposal. Mr. President, over the last 25 years we have made substantial progress in cleaning our air and rivers, lakes and streams. It has come at a fairly big cost, but I doubt anyone would turn the clock back on our successes. There are understandable conflicting positions about what will happen with the introduction of competition. Some argue that competition will increase the use of natural gas, which is more friendly to the environment than coal. Others argue that existing coal generating plants that were grandfathered in under the provisions of the Clean Air Act will be utilized more frequently. It is difficult to know who is right. But I think it is fair to say that we all have an obligation to protect our air quality and we shouldn't take this issue lightly. My bill requires EPA to submit a study to Congress within 2 years analyzing the issue and suggesting any changes to our laws that may need to be made to protect the environment. Mr. President, the issues addressed by the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1997 are very complex and far reaching. It is going to take Congress some time in order to sort them out and develop a consensus for a comprehensive approach to electric generation deregulation. I am introducing this bill today to begin the debate and propose one roadmap as to how we may get there. I look forward to working with my colleagues and all interested parties as we proceed to examine this very important issue over the next 2 years. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and a summary of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1997. This bill provides for the transition toward deregulation and competition in electricity generation. While very few people, including myself, find a discussion of the electric utility industry and the many laws and regulations governing the industry exciting, the fact is that electricity is an extremely important commodity which affects everyone on a daily basis. Any event that increases or reduces electric rates can impact: First, the lives of the poor and those on fixed incomes that depend on electricity to heat their homes in the winter and cool them in the summer; second, the price of goods we buy every day; as well as, third, the competitiveness of our factories. In addition, decisions made by electric generators often have a direct effect on our environment as well as our national security. So, it is not at all inconsequential that the electric industry, which has remained relatively static for the last 60 years, is about to undergo a fundamental change. Instead of the traditional vertically integrated local utility, which generates power at its own plants, transmits that power over its own lines, and sells that power to all consumers in a particular area, consumers will soon be bombarded with all sorts of offers from companies competing to become their power supplier, and other entrepreneurs will be seeking to buy large blocks of power to serve certain kinds of consumers. Naturally, these changes are bound to create considerable apprehension among utilities, their shareholders, and consumers. Mr. President, there are some who would prefer that we maintain the status quo. However, it is becoming increasingly certain that competition is inevitable. At least six States--California, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Massachusetts--have already enacted legislation or promulgated regulations providing for competition. A number of other States have established proceedings to determine how to move toward competition. In all, more than 40 States have either ordered, or are examining the possibility of requiring, deregulation of the retail electric markets. Theoretically, introducing competition among electric power providers should produce greater efficiencies and lower electric rates. Certainly large industrial consumers of electricity would see significant reductions in their energy bills, but I am more concerned about the potential impact on residential and small commercial consumers--the biscuit cookers as we call them in Arkansas. Generating companies may be less eager to compete to serve these customers, especially those located in rural areas. This reduced bargaining power could also end up causing residential and small commercial customers to pay for those costs arising from the transition to competition--that is, stranded costs--costs that industrial consumers can more easily avoid. I believe it is the role of both Congress and the States to ensure that the biscuit cookers also benefit. It is not enough to simply proclaim that the days of the utilities' vertically integrated monopolies are over. We also have a solemn obligation to be fair to utility companies that have been operating in reliance on the ground rules we all created over the last 60 years. This will require a careful balancing of competing interests. Everyone will benefit by restructuring if it is done properly, and I consider this an absolutely essential result. Mr. President, I am introducing this bill to begin the debate in the 105th Congress about how best to promote an orderly transition to a competitive retail electric market. This legislation is designed with the goals of allowing all consumers to enjoy the benefits of competition while not penalizing utilities for prudent decisions they made under the previous regulatory system. There is significant debate over whether Congress should even pass legislation on this subject. The argument that the States should decide these issues certainly has some merit. After all, retail electric service has generally been the domain of the States, although requirements imposed at the Federal level by both FERC and Congress have had a direct impact on retail rates and service. But I personally believe a State-by-State approach could produce a lot of unintended consequences which would limit the benefits associated with retail competition. Electric generation markets are becoming increasingly regional and even multiregional. What happens in one State can have direct and indirect impacts on consumers and utilities located in another State. Utilities operating in more than one State can be subjected to conflicting regulatory regimes which could impact the way they operate their systems and the electric rates paid by consumers. This phenomenon is best illustrated by the multistate utility holding companies registered under the Public Utility Holding Company Act [PUHCA}. I have had a lot of experience with registered holding companies because two of them serve my home State of Arkansas. These holding companies generally plan for, and operate, generating facilities on a systemwide basis for the benefit of customers in the entire region served by the company. If restructuring proceeds on a State-by-State basis, these holding companies would find themselves subjected to different requirements which could negatively impact consumers. For example, the Entergy System serves retail customers in parts of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Arkansas. If Louisiana and Texas were to order retail competition and Arkansas and Mississippi decided to delay competition, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for Entergy to operate a system of generating facilities designed to serve a particular load over a four-State area. It is quite possible that consumers in Arkansas and Mississippi would wind up paying more for their service. Entergy's captive customers in Arkansas and Mississippi could be further disadvantaged to the extent Entergy were to become financially imperiled as a result of the retail competition orders in Texas and Louisiana. A State-by-State approach to retail competition also presents problems where utilities operate entirely within a single State. It would make no sense for a utility in a State that does not require retail competition, to be able to sell power at retail in an adjoining State that requires retail competition, while a utility subjected to retail competition is unable to mitigate its losses by competing for customers in the adjoining State. Such a result both increases stranded costs and distorts the generation marketplace. My legislation requires that retail competition be implemented in each State by 2003. States will continue to have the option of choosing an earlier starting date. In addition, the States can individually oversee the transition to competition. Moreover, if Congress is going to mandate retail competition then I believe we have an obligation to provide for utility recovery of its stranded investment in facilities that become uneconomic as a result of the transition to retail competition. That is not to say that a utility is automatically entitled to recover every penny of its investment. Rather, my bill limits utilities to recovery of their investments that: First, were prudent when incurred; second, are legitimate and verifiable; and third, cannot be mitigated by selling power to others in the competitive market. My bill provides that if a utility seeks to recover stranded costs, a State commission would establish the level of such costs pursuant to an administrative determination or after the utility auctions off its assets to establish the market value of these facilities. Once the stranded costs are calculated, consumers would be assessed a wires charge to compensate the utility for its stranded costs. It is vital that, as we proceed with electric restructuring, we act to ensure that the generation markets are truly competitive. It will do no good to remove Federal and State rate regulation if consumers do not have access to a sufficient number of potential power marketers. We have already seen this problem in other industries that have deregulated, where after an initial flurry of competitors entering a particular market, significant consolidation occurred. Utilities obviously should not be allowed to use their advantageous positions with regard to transmission and distribution to gain a competitive advantage in the generation market. Utilities should not use funds from their transmission and distribution systems to subsidize their generation businesses. In addition, my bill requires the implementation of independent system operators [ISO's] to oversee the operation of transmission systems in each region. We also must be mindful that power suppliers might not be falling all over themselves to serve certain consumers, especially those located in rural areas. My bill contains a universal service requirement to ensure that everyone who wants electric service has the opportunity to buy it at reasonable rates. The bill also authorizes States to collect fees from all consumers to help pay for the universal service obligation. Mr. President, there are currently a number of utility-based programs which provide societal benefits. For instance, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act [PURPA] provides for utility purchases of energy generated at certain plants which use renewable resources or cogeneration. In addition, many States have programs requiring utilities to contribute to energy conservation and to help low-income people pay their energy bills. The costs of these programs are passed through to ratepayers. It will be more difficult for utilities to continue to implement these programs in a competitive retail environment. My bill authorizes States to collect wire charges to help pay for these kinds of programs. Congressman Dan Schaefer has developed a proposal designed to promote the use of renewable generation. His portfolio approach would require each company selling power at retail to generate a portion of its power using renewable resources or to purchase credits from those companies that do generate in excess of the minimum requirements. I think it is very important that we do everything possible to promote the use of renewable energy and my bill contains a similar proposal. Mr. President, over the last 25 years we have made substantial progress in cleaning our air and rivers, lakes and streams. It has come at a fairly big cost, but I doubt anyone would turn the clock back on our successes. There are understandable conflicting positions about what will happen with the introduction of competition. Some argue that competition will increase the use of natural gas, which is more friendly to the environment than coal. Others argue that existing coal generating plants that were grandfathered in under the provisions of the Clean Air Act will be utilized more frequently. It is difficult to know who is right. But I think it is fair to say that we all have an obligation to protect our air quality and we shouldn't take this issue lightly. My bill requires EPA to submit a study to Congress within 2 years analyzing the issue and suggesting any changes to our laws that may need to be made to protect the environment. Mr. President, the issues addressed by the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1997 are very complex and far reaching. It is going to take Congress some time in order to sort them out and develop a consensus for a comprehensive approach to electric generation deregulation. I am introducing this bill today to begin the debate and propose one roadmap as to how we may get there. I look forward to working with my colleagues and all interested parties as we proceed to examine this very important issue over the next 2 years. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and a summary of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the Public Confidence in Campaigns Act of 1997 for Senator Murray and myself. We chose that title because the purpose of the bill is to establish public finance of political campaigns in this country. The McCain-Feingold bill, of course, is the topic right now. That is the one that the press talks about. That is the one that everybody in the Senate is looking at. I am for the McCain-Feingold bill--and I have the utmost respect for the authors of the bill--but I can tell you that the McCain-Feingold bill is only a small step in the right direction, if the people of this body are really interested in reversing the pervasive cynicism about the political process that is abroad in our country. Everybody knows that the money game is out of control in politics. Contributions during the last 2 years--that is, soft money and hard money combined--was up 73 percent from 1993 and 1994. You think about it. A 73-percent increase. I have no reason to believe that the increase will not be another 50 to 100 percent in the 2-year cycle prior to the year 2000. Why wouldn't the American people be cynical? The average Senate race today costs $4 million. I have never spent more than $1.5 million, not because of choice but because I am a lousy fundraiser. I never had it. But the average Senate race is $4 million. In California, $20 to $25 million is now typical for each of the candidates. More and more millionaires are running for Congress because it is obvious that money dictates the outcome. Ninety percent of the people who are elected to Congress spent more money than their opponents. That means if you are a millionaire, or if you have the ability to raise more money than your opponent, you have a 90-percent chance of being elected. That is what the statistics show. The Congress is supposed to be a microcosm of America. There are at least 25 to 35 millionaires in the U.S. Senate. There are hardly 25 percent of the American people who are millionaires. In 1995 and 1996, 400 corporations, labor unions, and individuals-- 400--gave the two major parties $100,000 or more in soft money. I repeat: Soft and hard money to the political parties is up 73 percent in 2 years. Even the stock market has not gone up that fast. And rightly or wrongly the cynicism of the American people about our political system is reflected in the small number of people in this country who contribute to campaigns. Why? Because ``Joe Lunch Bucket'' out there has this nagging suspicion that $100,000 contributions, $500,000 contributions, or even $5,000 individual contributions, are completely out of his league. He knows that his $10 or $15 is going nowhere. That is the one of the reasons he does not bother to vote. He has no confidence in his own ability to participate and make a difference, the very foundation of a democracy. And ``Joe Lunch Bucket'' knows that people who give $100,000 are not giving money out of patriotism and altruism. For the whole process of Federal election in the last 2 years the parties and the individual candidates spent $2 billion. That is a staggering sum of money. Campaign spending 20 years ago when we started reforming the system was a mere fraction of $2 billion. This morning, yesterday morning, every morning you pick up the Washington Post and the New York Times, and you'll see a story in there about the influence of money. It isn't just soft money given by Indonesians or aliens. The Times last week had a story showing that Members who vote right on particular issues get five times as much money later on from the people who benefit from that right vote than they had gotten in the past. As long as we finance campaigns the way we are financing them now, the Post and the Times will continue to have a field day, and the Members of Congress will be like gladiators in the arena for the amusement and enjoyment of people who like to watch the battle. I am not being critical of the press for reporting these stories. All I am saying is that democracy is threatened by cynicism. The formula for voluntary limits in the McCain-Feingold bill is a step in the right direction. It's the same formula we have in our bill: $400,000 plus 30 cents for the first 4 million eligible voters in your State; 25 cents for every eligible voter over 4 million with a minimum of $950,000 and maximum of $5.5 million. My State of Arkansas would get the minimum, $950,000, in a Senate race, and a maximum of $5.5 million would apply in California. And the figure of $5.5 million as a maximum is not an inducement for a Senate candidate in California to accept public funding and comply with that kind of a maximum when they are spending $20 to $25 million each in California. But let us admit it: Even $5.5 million is an obscene amount of money. That is what you get if you voluntarily limit the amount of money you are going to spend. If you agree, if you are from Arkansas, to accept $950,000, in the general election you will get full funding from the U.S. Treasury. And I will come back to where the money comes from in just a moment. Mr. President, there is a fundamental question being asked in this country. And, if it isn't being asked, it ought to be; that is, how long can a democracy survive when the laws we pass and the people we elect depend on how much special interest money is put into a campaign? And consider the fact that the candidate with the most money wins 90 percent of the time. That speaks volumes. When you consider the fact that if you vote right on a bill that benefits somebody, and you get five times as much money from that somebody as you got in the past, that speaks volumes. Of course, our democracy is threatened when we continue this money game. There is a study by the Library of Congress--and anybody who is interested in it, if they will drop me a line or call me, I will send them a copy of it--of campaign finance in 19 nations. And other than the United States only 1 of the 19 nations, Malaysia, finances campaigns with private contributions. We are the only Western nation that finances campaigns with private contributions in this way. Mr. President, we may not pass this bill, but until a public finance bill passes, the media will continue to have a field day, and you can expect a story, not because you did anything illegal or unethical, but you can depend on a story anytime you vote on a major piece of legislation if anybody who benefited from that gave you money in the last election in any significant amount. And the people will harbor those same suspicions. Why would the people of this body and the House of Representatives not want to get rid of such a system? They are the ones who are most vulnerable, to say nothing of the destruction of our democracy. Even under the McCain-Feingold bill, which I will support, you still are going to have special interest money, and it is not going to eliminate the basic problem, which is cynicism about what that money buys. So, Mr. President, it is an interesting thing that the people of this body--and I have talked to a number trying to recruit cosponsors, Republicans and Democrats--almost without exception say, ``I know public financing is where we are going, but not yet. Later.'' Why later? McCain-Feingold has gotten all the attention, and perhaps McCain-Feingold is the most we can hope for this year, but it is time to start the debate on the public finance legislation that everybody in this body knows is absolutely essential to our future. It is going to pass. I may not be here when it passes, but I can promise you it is going to pass. Everybody is playing the stock market today. The market has been on a roll, up about 30 percent in 1996. You cannot lose. Just put it on anything, they say. You cannot lose. I will tell you of a better investment than putting your money in the stock market, and that is to put your money into this Congressional Election Campaign Fund we are proposing and take special interest money out of the political process. You talk about a return on your investment. That will be the biggest return America ever got on every dollar it puts in. People in the coffee shops of America do not do as they used to. One time about 2 years ago, I was in my hometown in the coffee shop where I used to drink coffee in this little town of 1,500, 2,000 people, and the subject came up with some of my old coffee-drinking buddies about public financing. The first thing I heard was, ``I don't want my tax money going to politicians to finance campaigns.'' And I gave that friend of mine a lesson in 103-A civics and 103-A economics. No. 1, he has a civic duty to participate, which he does not do. He is not giving any of his private money, which is his right, and he does not want his tax money to be used, which is an abdication of his responsibility and an abdication of everything he believes about campaign finance because he is willing to let the rich people and wealthy organizations of the country give the money and yet it causes the very cynicism he exemplifies and that we are trying to remedy. Why would the people of this body say ``later'' to public finance? Admittedly, 10 years ago, only 27 percent of the people believed public financing of campaigns was a good idea. But it has worked beautifully since 1976 for the Presidential campaign, and it will work for us. Why would it not? And why would Senators in 1997 be afraid to vote for public financing of campaigns when 68 percent of the people in a Mark Mellman Poll this fall said they favor the law in Maine, the only State in the Nation which has passed a full public funding campaign bill. And 68 percent of the people, when you explain the Maine bill, say, ``I favor it.'' And 65 percent of the people in this country in a Gallup Poll said they favored banning all private contributions and believed in 100 percent public financing of campaigns. Let me describe the details of the bill very quickly and then I will introduce the bill. First of all, it establishes a Congressional Election Campaign Fund. And here is the way it works. When you file your tax returns today, there is a provision there which says that if you would like to direct $3 of your tax payment to the Presidential campaign fund, check here. It does not cost you a thing. You think about that. It does not cost you a thing; it is deducted from your taxes, and yet people are declining all the time to check the $3 contribution box even though their taxes are reduced by $3. It is really Federal funds. And yet we have to constantly prop people up and tell them it is their patriotic duty to contribute to that. I found it very healthy in the last campaign to know that Senator Dole and President Clinton were using money in equal amounts. They were not out asking for private contributions. Each one of them said, ``I will participate,'' and each one of them received about $60 million, and they got along just fine. Under our bill, you can give $10, if you want, $3 to the Presidential campaign, $7 to the congressional campaign. As I said, that $10 contribution will pay you bigger dividends by far than any investment you ever made in your life. You will not have to worry why somebody voted for or against a bill; at least you will know they did not do it because somebody gave them money in the last campaign or has promised to give them money in a future campaign. And, in addition to the $10, we allow Americans to add on to their tax payment a contribution to the Congressional Election Campaign Fund. Wealthy people--and there are about 5 times as many millionaires right now as there were 10 years ago--would be allowed to give up to $5,000 to this campaign fund just because they are patriots. Up to $100 of this add-on is tax deductible. And if their spouses join in it, they have a $200 tax deduction. It is not much, a small incentive. But wouldn't it be wonderful if all the people worth $1 million, $5 million, $10 million in this country, or even those of ordinary means, would contribute $5,000 to that fund just because they love the country, believe in democracy and want to see it thrive? We also have a provision that, if the fund runs dry, Congress will appropriate the deficiency. If Congress refuses to appropriate the deficiency, then everybody will be reduced on a pro rata basis. Let me repeat. You do not qualify for this money unless you agree to limit your spending according to the formula that is set out in the bill. How do you get to the general election for full funding, since we have primaries before the general? Well, we will participate in that, too. And here is the way we do that. You can spend 60 percent of what you can spend in a general. Back to my home State of Arkansas, let us assume we are eligible for $1 million. We can spend 60 percent of that in the primary, or $600,000, and, of the $600,000, you must raise 50 percent of that, or $300,000. So, to that extent, you still have to go out with your tin cup and raise $300,000. Contributions are still limited to $1,000, just as they are under existing law. But before you can even qualify for primary money, you have to raise $25,000 in $100 contributions from within your State. That is not harsh. Anybody in the State of Arkansas, or any other State, that cannot get 250 people to give $100 does not have any business running. He is not credible. But, once you raise $25,000, then you become eligible for 50 percent Federal funding in the primary. We eliminate totally soft money. Soft money is what the investigation of contributions to the DNC is all about. When you consider the fact that soft money contributions and hard money contributions to the parties is up 73 percent--get rid of it. Who needs this investigation we are getting ready to launch here in the Congress? You think about all the people's business that we need to be conducting, and what are we doing? Holding an investigation about all the Indonesian money and alien money. Not only do we eliminate soft money, we say that no illegal alien, or even a legal alien, can contribute, unless they are eligible to vote. Nobody--nobody can contribute in these campaigns unless they are eligible to vote. I think that is about as good a test as you can find. Let us assume, in the next election, I say, ``OK, I am going to limit my spending to $1 million.'' That is the limit under my bill for this State. And I agree I will limit my spending to $1 million. My opponent, who happens to be worth $100 million says, ``You have to be kidding. I am planning to buy this election. I have $100 million to do it with.'' Then, for every dollar he spends above $1 million, we will match up to 100 percent, which would be $2 million. If you are running against a man or a woman who is willing to spend $10 million of his or her own money, I think you could win. I can tell you a story of a Governor's race in Arkansas in 1970. There was a young, good looking, dynamic man running for Governor down there who spent $300,000 dollars and beat somebody who spent $3.5 million. You can shame people. You can shame people for spending too much money of their own. Sometimes shame is not enough because, as I have already pointed out, 90 percent of the time the candidate who spends the most money wins. So maybe our bill is not perfect on that score, but it will exact a political price from those who seek to buy an election by outspending a candidate who accepts these limits. And, on independent expenditures, the bane of the Nation, these unnamed, unseen people who run television ads calling you every scurrilous name under the shining Sun, they don't mention the name of the guy running against you, they just tell the voters what a terrible guy you are--using whatever is a hot issue at the time, ``He voted to burn American flags''--they never mention the opponent. Under our bill, if you have an independent expenditure of $1,000 or more, you have to report it within 24 hours, and if you spend more than $10,000 on independent expenditures, we will match that for the poor guy who has volunteered to limit his spending. The only difference between our bill and McCain-Feingold on PAC's is that we allow a $2,000 PAC contribution, and McCain-Feingold only allows $1,000. The current level is $5,000. Let me elaborate just a moment on that. I am not a person who thinks PAC's are inherently evil. I think any time a group of people who get together and contribute to a fund because they would like to have some influence, rather than just giving $10, $20, $50, $100 apiece, they ought to be allowed to do that. As I have already said, we only allow people who can vote in this country in Federal elections to contribute. And, if you agree to accept Federal funding, $10,000 is the maximum amount of your own money you can spend. And our bill takes effect in all elections after December 31, 1998. Mr. President, while my bill is not perfect, we have been working on it for 4 months. We have met through staff conferences. I have talked to other Senators. I can tell you, the time has come to deal with public finance. I guess the best way to close--I think about a movie, one of my three or four all-time favorite movies, ``To Kill A Mockingbird.'' Gregory Peck was a country lawyer, and I guess I relate to it because I was a country lawyer. You remember, he was defending a black man charged with rape, who was totally innocent, in a small Southern town. The case was charged with racism. He made the most eloquent speech to the jury in his closing argument, and he finished by saying, ``For God's sake, do your duty.'' I cannot think of a better way to end this statement to my colleagues. The time has come to do our duty to salvage, to save our democracy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Bumpers pertaining to the introduction of S. 229 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for not to exceed 20 minutes unless the majority leader comes on the floor and seeks recognition.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the Public Confidence in Campaigns Act of 1997 for Senator Murray and myself. We chose that title because the purpose of the bill is to establish public finance of political campaigns in this country. The McCain-Feingold bill, of course, is the topic right now. That is the one that the press talks about. That is the one that everybody in the Senate is looking at. I am for the McCain-Feingold bill--and I have the utmost respect for the authors of the bill--but I can tell you that the McCain-Feingold bill is only a small step in the right direction, if the people of this body are really interested in reversing the pervasive cynicism about the political process that is abroad in our country. Everybody knows that the money game is out of control in politics. Contributions during the last 2 years--that is, soft money and hard money combined--was up 73 percent from 1993 and 1994. You think about it. A 73-percent increase. I have no reason to believe that the increase will not be another 50 to 100 percent in the 2-year cycle prior to the year 2000. Why wouldn't the American people be cynical? The average Senate race today costs $4 million. I have never spent more than $1.5 million, not because of choice but because I am a lousy fundraiser. I never had it. But the average Senate race is $4 million. In California, $20 to $25 million is now typical for each of the candidates. More and more millionaires are running for Congress because it is obvious that money dictates the outcome. Ninety percent of the people who are elected to Congress spent more money than their opponents. That means if you are a millionaire, or if you have the ability to raise more money than your opponent, you have a 90-percent chance of being elected. That is what the statistics show. The Congress is supposed to be a microcosm of America. There are at least 25 to 35 millionaires in the U.S. Senate. There are hardly 25 percent of the American people who are millionaires. In 1995 and 1996, 400 corporations, labor unions, and individuals-- 400--gave the two major parties $100,000 or more in soft money. I repeat: Soft and hard money to the political parties is up 73 percent in 2 years. Even the stock market has not gone up that fast. And rightly or wrongly the cynicism of the American people about our political system is reflected in the small number of people in this country who contribute to campaigns. Why? Because ``Joe Lunch Bucket'' out there has this nagging suspicion that $100,000 contributions, $500,000 contributions, or even $5,000 individual contributions, are completely out of his league. He knows that his $10 or $15 is going nowhere. That is the one of the reasons he does not bother to vote. He has no confidence in his own ability to participate and make a difference, the very foundation of a democracy. And ``Joe Lunch Bucket'' knows that people who give $100,000 are not giving money out of patriotism and altruism. For the whole process of Federal election in the last 2 years the parties and the individual candidates spent $2 billion. That is a staggering sum of money. Campaign spending 20 years ago when we started reforming the system was a mere fraction of $2 billion. This morning, yesterday morning, every morning you pick up the Washington Post and the New York Times, and you'll see a story in there about the influence of money. It isn't just soft money given by Indonesians or aliens. The Times last week had a story showing that Members who vote right on particular issues get five times as much money later on from the people who benefit from that right vote than they had gotten in the past. As long as we finance campaigns the way we are financing them now, the Post and the Times will continue to have a field day, and the Members of Congress will be like gladiators in the arena for the amusement and enjoyment of people who like to watch the battle. I am not being critical of the press for reporting these stories. All I am saying is that democracy is threatened by cynicism. The formula for voluntary limits in the McCain-Feingold bill is a step in the right direction. It's the same formula we have in our bill: $400,000 plus 30 cents for the first 4 million eligible voters in your State; 25 cents for every eligible voter over 4 million with a minimum of $950,000 and maximum of $5.5 million. My State of Arkansas would get the minimum, $950,000, in a Senate race, and a maximum of $5.5 million would apply in California. And the figure of $5.5 million as a maximum is not an inducement for a Senate candidate in California to accept public funding and comply with that kind of a maximum when they are spending $20 to $25 million each in California. But let us admit it: Even $5.5 million is an obscene amount of money. That is what you get if you voluntarily limit the amount of money you are going to spend. If you agree, if you are from Arkansas, to accept $950,000, in the general election you will get full funding from the U.S. Treasury. And I will come back to where the money comes from in just a moment. Mr. President, there is a fundamental question being asked in this country. And, if it isn't being asked, it ought to be; that is, how long can a democracy survive when the laws we pass and the people we elect depend on how much special interest money is put into a campaign? And consider the fact that the candidate with the most money wins 90 percent of the time. That speaks volumes. When you consider the fact that if you vote right on a bill that benefits somebody, and you get five times as much money from that somebody as you got in the past, that speaks volumes. Of course, our democracy is threatened when we continue this money game. There is a study by the Library of Congress--and anybody who is interested in it, if they will drop me a line or call me, I will send them a copy of it--of campaign finance in 19 nations. And other than the United States only 1 of the 19 nations, Malaysia, finances campaigns with private contributions. We are the only Western nation that finances campaigns with private contributions in this way. Mr. President, we may not pass this bill, but until a public finance bill passes, the media will continue to have a field day, and you can expect a story, not because you did anything illegal or unethical, but you can depend on a story anytime you vote on a major piece of legislation if anybody who benefited from that gave you money in the last election in any significant amount. And the people will harbor those same suspicions. Why would the people of this body and the House of Representatives not want to get rid of such a system? They are the ones who are most vulnerable, to say nothing of the destruction of our democracy. Even under the McCain-Feingold bill, which I will support, you still are going to have special interest money, and it is not going to eliminate the basic problem, which is cynicism about what that money buys. So, Mr. President, it is an interesting thing that the people of this body--and I have talked to a number trying to recruit cosponsors, Republicans and Democrats--almost without exception say, ``I know public financing is where we are going, but not yet. Later.'' Why later? McCain-Feingold has gotten all the attention, and perhaps McCain-Feingold is the most we can hope for this year, but it is time to start the debate on the public finance legislation that everybody in this body knows is absolutely essential to our future. It is going to pass. I may not be here when it passes, but I can promise you it is going to pass. Everybody is playing the stock market today. The market has been on a roll, up about 30 percent in 1996. You cannot lose. Just put it on anything, they say. You cannot lose. I will tell you of a better investment than putting your money in the stock market, and that is to put your money into this Congressional Election Campaign Fund we are proposing and take special interest money out of the political process. You talk about a return on your investment. That will be the biggest return America ever got on every dollar it puts in. People in the coffee shops of America do not do as they used to. One time about 2 years ago, I was in my hometown in the coffee shop where I used to drink coffee in this little town of 1,500, 2,000 people, and the subject came up with some of my old coffee-drinking buddies about public financing. The first thing I heard was, ``I don't want my tax money going to politicians to finance campaigns.'' And I gave that friend of mine a lesson in 103-A civics and 103-A economics. No. 1, he has a civic duty to participate, which he does not do. He is not giving any of his private money, which is his right, and he does not want his tax money to be used, which is an abdication of his responsibility and an abdication of everything he believes about campaign finance because he is willing to let the rich people and wealthy organizations of the country give the money and yet it causes the very cynicism he exemplifies and that we are trying to remedy. Why would the people of this body say ``later'' to public finance? Admittedly, 10 years ago, only 27 percent of the people believed public financing of campaigns was a good idea. But it has worked beautifully since 1976 for the Presidential campaign, and it will work for us. Why would it not? And why would Senators in 1997 be afraid to vote for public financing of campaigns when 68 percent of the people in a Mark Mellman Poll this fall said they favor the law in Maine, the only State in the Nation which has passed a full public funding campaign bill. And 68 percent of the people, when you explain the Maine bill, say, ``I favor it.'' And 65 percent of the people in this country in a Gallup Poll said they favored banning all private contributions and believed in 100 percent public financing of campaigns. Let me describe the details of the bill very quickly and then I will introduce the bill. First of all, it establishes a Congressional Election Campaign Fund. And here is the way it works. When you file your tax returns today, there is a provision there which says that if you would like to direct $3 of your tax payment to the Presidential campaign fund, check here. It does not cost you a thing. You think about that. It does not cost you a thing; it is deducted from your taxes, and yet people are declining all the time to check the $3 contribution box even though their taxes are reduced by $3. It is really Federal funds. And yet we have to constantly prop people up and tell them it is their patriotic duty to contribute to that. I found it very healthy in the last campaign to know that Senator Dole and President Clinton were using money in equal amounts. They were not out asking for private contributions. Each one of them said, ``I will participate,'' and each one of them received about $60 million, and they got along just fine. Under our bill, you can give $10, if you want, $3 to the Presidential campaign, $7 to the congressional campaign. As I said, that $10 contribution will pay you bigger dividends by far than any investment you ever made in your life. You will not have to worry why somebody voted for or against a bill; at least you will know they did not do it because somebody gave them money in the last campaign or has promised to give them money in a future campaign. And, in addition to the $10, we allow Americans to add on to their tax payment a contribution to the Congressional Election Campaign Fund. Wealthy people--and there are about 5 times as many millionaires right now as there were 10 years ago--would be allowed to give up to $5,000 to this campaign fund just because they are patriots. Up to $100 of this add-on is tax deductible. And if their spouses join in it, they have a $200 tax deduction. It is not much, a small incentive. But wouldn't it be wonderful if all the people worth $1 million, $5 million, $10 million in this country, or even those of ordinary means, would contribute $5,000 to that fund just because they love the country, believe in democracy and want to see it thrive? We also have a provision that, if the fund runs dry, Congress will appropriate the deficiency. If Congress refuses to appropriate the deficiency, then everybody will be reduced on a pro rata basis. Let me repeat. You do not qualify for this money unless you agree to limit your spending according to the formula that is set out in the bill. How do you get to the general election for full funding, since we have primaries before the general? Well, we will participate in that, too. And here is the way we do that. You can spend 60 percent of what you can spend in a general. Back to my home State of Arkansas, let us assume we are eligible for $1 million. We can spend 60 percent of that in the primary, or $600,000, and, of the $600,000, you must raise 50 percent of that, or $300,000. So, to that extent, you still have to go out with your tin cup and raise $300,000. Contributions are still limited to $1,000, just as they are under existing law. But before you can even qualify for primary money, you have to raise $25,000 in $100 contributions from within your State. That is not harsh. Anybody in the State of Arkansas, or any other State, that cannot get 250 people to give $100 does not have any business running. He is not credible. But, once you raise $25,000, then you become eligible for 50 percent Federal funding in the primary. We eliminate totally soft money. Soft money is what the investigation of contributions to the DNC is all about. When you consider the fact that soft money contributions and hard money contributions to the parties is up 73 percent--get rid of it. Who needs this investigation we are getting ready to launch here in the Congress? You think about all the people's business that we need to be conducting, and what are we doing? Holding an investigation about all the Indonesian money and alien money. Not only do we eliminate soft money, we say that no illegal alien, or even a legal alien, can contribute, unless they are eligible to vote. Nobody--nobody can contribute in these campaigns unless they are eligible to vote. I think that is about as good a test as you can find. Let us assume, in the next election, I say, ``OK, I am going to limit my spending to $1 million.'' That is the limit under my bill for this State. And I agree I will limit my spending to $1 million. My opponent, who happens to be worth $100 million says, ``You have to be kidding. I am planning to buy this election. I have $100 million to do it with.'' Then, for every dollar he spends above $1 million, we will match up to 100 percent, which would be $2 million. If you are running against a man or a woman who is willing to spend $10 million of his or her own money, I think you could win. I can tell you a story of a Governor's race in Arkansas in 1970. There was a young, good looking, dynamic man running for Governor down there who spent $300,000 dollars and beat somebody who spent $3.5 million. You can shame people. You can shame people for spending too much money of their own. Sometimes shame is not enough because, as I have already pointed out, 90 percent of the time the candidate who spends the most money wins. So maybe our bill is not perfect on that score, but it will exact a political price from those who seek to buy an election by outspending a candidate who accepts these limits. And, on independent expenditures, the bane of the Nation, these unnamed, unseen people who run television ads calling you every scurrilous name under the shining Sun, they don't mention the name of the guy running against you, they just tell the voters what a terrible guy you are--using whatever is a hot issue at the time, ``He voted to burn American flags''--they never mention the opponent. Under our bill, if you have an independent expenditure of $1,000 or more, you have to report it within 24 hours, and if you spend more than $10,000 on independent expenditures, we will match that for the poor guy who has volunteered to limit his spending. The only difference between our bill and McCain-Feingold on PAC's is that we allow a $2,000 PAC contribution, and McCain-Feingold only allows $1,000. The current level is $5,000. Let me elaborate just a moment on that. I am not a person who thinks PAC's are inherently evil. I think any time a group of people who get together and contribute to a fund because they would like to have some influence, rather than just giving $10, $20, $50, $100 apiece, they ought to be allowed to do that. As I have already said, we only allow people who can vote in this country in Federal elections to contribute. And, if you agree to accept Federal funding, $10,000 is the maximum amount of your own money you can spend. And our bill takes effect in all elections after December 31, 1998. Mr. President, while my bill is not perfect, we have been working on it for 4 months. We have met through staff conferences. I have talked to other Senators. I can tell you, the time has come to deal with public finance. I guess the best way to close--I think about a movie, one of my three or four all-time favorite movies, ``To Kill A Mockingbird.'' Gregory Peck was a country lawyer, and I guess I relate to it because I was a country lawyer. You remember, he was defending a black man charged with rape, who was totally innocent, in a small Southern town. The case was charged with racism. He made the most eloquent speech to the jury in his closing argument, and he finished by saying, ``For God's sake, do your duty.'' I cannot think of a better way to end this statement to my colleagues. The time has come to do our duty to salvage, to save our democracy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, Arkansas lost one of its treasures last week. Harold Jinks of Piggott, AR, whom Arkansans affectionately refer to as ``Mr. Democrat,'' passed away at the age of 90. If the term ``yellow-dog Democrat'' were in the dictionary, Harold Jinks would be listed as the definition. Though Harold Jinks studied to be a farmer in school, it was the study and practice of politics that sustained him throughout his life. A friend to many Presidents and to every major Democratic officeholder in Arkansas, Harold Jinks brought enthusiasm into every rook he entered. He admonished young people about their duty to vote and be involved in politics. To Harold, being a mere spectator in politics was a sin. You had a duty to be a player. Active in his community and his church, Harold worked for many years at USDA and was at one time a special assistant to the regional director of the U.S. Postal Service. Harold was southwest regional director for the Democratic National Convention in 1957 and attended most conventions thereafter either as a delegate or strong advocate for the national ticket. He chaired the Arkansas Committee on Seniors for Carter-Mondale. In retirement, if you could call it that with Harold, he authored books and founded the Senior Democrats of Arkansas and served as chairman of the Arkansas Joint Legislative Committee of the National Retired Teachers Association and AARP. He also found time to organize the Washington-based Buy American Action Coalition to promote the buying of American products. He was a walking whirlwind of activity, and always at work promoting a cause or a candidate. A virtual encyclopedia, he enjoyed the history of politics as much as he did the campaigns. Mr. President, Harold Jinks taught us all the importance of being involved in our Government. He chided us when he thought we were dragging our feet and applauded us when we were conscientious. He was loved by those of us in Arkansas who shared his passion for politics, and he will be missed by all who had the good fortune to know him and be touched by him and his infectious enthusiasm for the political process. Betty and I extend our deepest sympathy to Harold's lovely and devoted wife, Wilma. We owe her our gratitude as well for sharing Harold with us.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator for the opportunity to explain the events that have led to this program being transferred to the VA/HUD Subcommittee. This program was previously funded by the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies and administered by the Agricultural Marketing Service through contractual agreements to several States for residue testing and information collection in the field. Although the Senate bill for fiscal year 1997 USDA spending contained this funding, it was dropped in conference at the insistence of the House. It was the sense of the House conferees that since the program was largely designed to assist the Environmental Protection Agency in the reregistration of pesticides, the program would be more appropriately funded through EPA. Following passage of the fiscal year 1997 Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, Congress enacted the Food Quality Protection Act. The Food Quality Protection Act modified the tolerance-setting process and made the availability of actual pesticide residue information more critical than before. During negotiations on the continuing resolution, the question was again raised as to the appropriate agency to implement this program. In an agreement reached with the House and Senate leadership, and the administration, it was decided to fund this program through the Environmental Protection Agency for fiscal year 1997.

Mr. BUMPERS. While the Statement of Managers does indicate that transfers to other Federal agencies should not occur in fiscal year 1997, I agree with the Senator from Missouri that this was in order to distribute funds more efficiently to the participant States. The Food Quality Protection Act has only been signed into law a few weeks and we do not yet fully know the extent to which it will enhance the need for the information provided by the Pesticide Data Program. I certainly expect the Department of Agriculture to explain fully its views of how best to proceed with this program in hearings before our subcommittee next spring. With the expectation that Congress will determine the collection of this information is imperative due to the changes in the pesticide registration laws, I would hope that the Environmental Protection Agency and the Agricultural Marketing Service continue to coordinate efforts and work together. I would further expect that fiscal year 1997 funds not be restricted in such a way as to make this coordination difficult. If, as suggested in the Statement of Managers, there is a more appropriate Federal agency than the Environmental Protection Agency to implement this program, that Federal agency should be allowed to work with the Environmental Protection Agency and leave the final decision for fiscal year 1998 to the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, Senator Thompson and I would like to enter into a brief colloquy with the sponsor of this bill, Senator Domenici. Some concerns were raised in the last Congress, with respect to a similar bill, that such legislation might adversely affect users of propane by interfering with propane markets or artificially stimulating the demand for propane. Does the bill before us address these concerns?

Mr. BUMPERS. How will the PERC distinguish between education and market promotion? What might be some examples, of activities that are intended to be permitted under this bill, and activities that are not?

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. My office has contacted representatives of the Corps of Engineers and they share our interpretation that this provision, as drafted, cannot adversely impact ratepayers. As stated by my colleague from Arkansas, we have no intention that this provision will raise rates, affect energy production or federal revenues or any other project purposes currently authorized. Conversely, it is our strong view that there are measures that can be taken to assist the tourism and fish and wildlife interests that do not impact adversely the existing project purposes. It is not our intention to have this provision result in loss of generation capacity or increase exposure to ratepayers. It was for this reason that we drafted the language in such an explicit manner.

Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator from Missouri is correct. We drafted this language to explicitly preclude adverse impacts to flood control, power generation, and the other project purposes. It is the clear intent of this legislation to recognize the contribution of tourism and recreation to the economies of our respective States and to take such actions as may be proper to protect that contribution. It is equally clear that such action can occur only as long as the primary project purposes, previously established by law and practical application of that law, are fully protected. It should be remembered that prudent use of our Nation's water resources is not limited to a few specific purposes that are mutually exclusive of one another. In addition, we must also recognize that, at times, the establishment and protection of priorities are also proper elements of public policy. Such is the case here. It is true that the tourism and recreation industries have grown beyond the expectations of anyone associated with the original construction of flood control and power generation facilities along the White River. However, this does not mean that our continuing support for flood control and efficient power generation has diminished in any degree. I have long been one of the strongest supporters in the U.S. Senate of hydro-electric power generation. It is one of the most efficient and environmentally based sources available to our ever-growing demand for energy. Reasonable electric rates are critical to economic development and a comfortable standard of living for our people. I understand the concerns of those involved with power generation along the White River that the inclusion of recreation as a project purpose may somehow impair their access to an efficient and affordable energy source. Let me clearly state that these concerns are totally unnecessary. The provision before us plainly prohibits any adverse impact to power generation. We clearly recognize the customary practices employed by the Corps of Engineers and power generators along the White River which have achieved proper resource conservation, energy output, and ratepayer equity. In no way should those practices be impaired or restricted by this provision. Instead, we have made certain that power generation, along with flood control and other prior purposes and practices, will remain intact.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor this morning to pay tribute to my distinguished retiring colleague, David Pryor. When I think about Congress suffering--and I use the term ``suffering'' advisedly--the largest number of retirees in 100 years, I have a tendency to wax eloquent about my own personal beliefs as to why that is happening. There are 13 Senators who have chosen to leave voluntarily this year. Among them are some of the very best. I have confessed on occasion when I didn't think it would hurt me politically to the fact that I am not a terribly effective legislator because I have a very difficult time compromising. I have strong beliefs, and sometimes compromise is just out of the question for me. And, yet, we all know that 535 Members of the Congress cannot each have his or her own way on every issue. But the people who are retiring are essentially people who are very good legislators because they understand the art of politics; the necessity for compromise. And I call them ``bridge builders''--because they don't let stand between them differences in philosophies and personalities. As the U.S. Senate has become more ideological and more entrenched in hard core ideas, where name calling somehow or other has become the substitute for ideas, we need bridge builders. David Pryor was born in Camden, Ouachita County, AR, in 1934 to very devoted parents. All of David's life manifest in his personality and character is the unexcelled upbringing he enjoyed. He graduated from the University of Arkansas Law School in 1964 with an LLB degree, went home to his native Camden and established a newspaper called the Ouachita Citizen that he operated for 4 years. During that period of time he was also elected to the Arkansas State legislature, to the House of Representatives, for three terms--1960, 1962, and 1964. I remember--I guess it was 1966--when David was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. It was in 1968 that I met him for the first time, and that was just one of those typical political handshakes. The Democratic Party was having a forum in Little Rock. I had the itch to run for Governor in 1968. Luckily for me I chose not to do it that year. But David Pryor spoke at this meeting in Little Rock in 1968. And I was absolutely awe-stricken--he was good looking, articulate, and had some very good ideas. And I thought how wonderful it must be to serve in the House of Representatives and be able to come here and say these things for this giant crowd here this evening. And it only piqued my interest in running for office that much more. So besides my father, who actually encouraged me to go into politics when I was a child, David was my next inspiration because of that evening in Little Rock in 1968. After losing a race for the Senate in 1972, he came back in 1974 and ran for Governor and won handily, and served our State for 4 years. That was two terms, then, 2-year terms. He served our State admirably. He became then, and has remained ever since, the most popular politician in Arkansas by far. I said the other evening, and I have said it many times, it pains me to say that. The thing that makes it bearable is I know it is true. Everybody in our State, virtually everybody, loves David Pryor, as does virtually every Member of the U.S. Senate. In all of the years that David has been in politics, and certainly all the years he has been in Congress, I have never heard anybody accuse him of having Potomac fever, and the reason he is easily the most popular politician in Arkansas is because he has never lost that common touch of letting people know that he is concerned about them. He never looks past you to see who is next in line. You get his undivided attention, no matter how crazy the idea might be. David Pryor has always been a listener. I read a book one time called, ``Lee, The Last Years.'' It is the story of Robert E. Lee after the war, written by a man named Charles Bracelen Flood. And the most poignant part of the book was a description of Lee after he surrendered to Grant at Appomattox. He then got on his horse Traveler and, with a small entourage of Confederate officers and men, started on roughly a 5-day trek from Appomattox Courthouse to Richmond, where a home had been prepared for him. As they went through various southern villages and communities, huge crowds lined the streets awaiting for hours the arrival of Lee and his entourage--rebel yells, unbelievable cheers, of people for this losing General. About the third day of this trek toward Richmond, Lee stopped at a point where a battle had been fought and there were still rotting corpses on the battlefield. He got off his horse and he waved his arm toward the battlefield and he said, ``This could have been avoided.'' And the rest of what he said I paraphrase, but it was essentially this: At the time when this Nation needed men of courage and vision and restraint, we had politicians who saw that it was to their advantage to foment the flames of war. And this is the result. James Fallows has written a book called ``Breaking the News: How the Media Undermines American Democracy.'' It is a very interesting and almost unassailable hypothesis, in this book. But I can tell you, democracy always hangs by a thread. And here we have a man like David Pryor, who has all the qualities that Robert E. Lee described, and more: tenacious, determined on what he believes, intellect, the character to stick with his ideas in a totally honest way, and vision about where the country ought to be heading. These are remarkable traits to be wrapped up in one man, and rare and unusual in the U.S. Congress. So, at a time when democracy perhaps hangs by a more slender thread than ever, losing a man like David Pryor, who possesses those qualities, is just short of disastrous for the country and certainly, to me, as a friend and colleague. In the years I have served with David, almost 18 years, now, I have never seen him duck a tough vote, though there have been plenty of opportunities. He has always been able and willing to take the heat in order to cast those votes. When David came to the Senate he had been Governor 4 years, but we really did not know each other. We knew each other politically, and we would see each other at political events, and we were friends. But it was only after he came to the Senate that we developed a friendship in the truest meaning of the word. So, I have been close to him in a lot of his travail. I can tell you, I do not know of very many people who have suffered in their personal life as much as David--really, terribly traumatic things. Despite all of that, including the current trauma, I have never seen him down. I have never seen him look for sympathy or indicate that he was looking for sympathy. I remember when my wife, Betty--and I do not mind saying this now, because it was about 15 years ago--was diagnosed with cancer. It was a dicey situation. She was going to be operated on at Georgetown at 8:30 in the morning. I got there at 8, and David was already there. I guess that morning was the sealing of this, what will now be a lifelong friendship. During his entire adult life since he graduated law school, he and Barbara have undergone these traumatic experiences together. She has been by his side. I have watched her. I have watched her strength. I have watched her values sustain her and David both. And in all fairness, she has never been shy about expressing her thoughts and ideas with her beloved husband, David. Then, of course, it has been a love affair. I know that David never loved anybody else from the day he set eyes on Barbara Lunsford and they have both been tremendous parents to three very fine sons--they are so proud of them, and justifiably. While I am senior by 4 years to David Pryor in the U.S. Senate, he has been my mentor, my consultant, and my best friend. I will miss him and I wish him Godspeed and good luck. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I object.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I think it would be well to debate this amendment awhile longer. I am not prepared to vote on this amendment.

Mr. BUMPERS. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.