Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. ENZI. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Enzi pertaining to the introduction of S. 1332 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the State Environmental Audit Protection Act. It is a bill that would improve environmental quality across this Nation by enlisting the voluntary aid of people to seek out environmental problems and to correct violations using State environmental audit laws. This legislation would provide protection for those States that have fully debated the issue and after the debate, have chosen to enact aggressive and proactive environmental audit laws. First, I would like to explain briefly what an audit law is and how it works. State legislatures have chosen to enact many different kinds of audit laws with varying levels of incentives. It is important to note that audit laws are not all the same. This concept is apparently lost on those who try to mis-characterize every audit law in the most sinister and fearful terms. It is important that we recognize the difference. The purpose of audit laws are to provide incentives for regulated entities to search for and disclose environmental violations and to clean them up at their own expense. Entities cover all kinds of groups with operations that may have an effect on the environment, such as businesses, schools, hospitals, towns, and counties. The incentives can range from relief from penalties to protection of voluntarily gathered information. The incentives usually require full disclosure and due diligence in correcting violations. When there is protection of information, some States simply agree not to inspect based on disclosure of an audit, others go further by allowing that certain documents will not be used against the entity in enforcement actions. It is important to keep in mind when considering protection of documents that audits are conducted in good faith. By definition, any information that is compiled is voluntary and as such is above and beyond what is otherwise required by law. Following from that, any disclosures are a net gain above traditional enforcement. Consider for a moment, Mr. President, the decisions a small business faces with regard to its environmental performance. Many small businesses are already required to monitor and report certain emissions and audit protections do not cover those reports. But consider a business that is not on an inspection schedule and has no required emissions reporting. If that entity wants to review its performance under environmental laws, it would have to conduct a study. It would have to pay an auditor to come in and review its operations--that would be voluntary. Without audit protection, that business would take on a big risk--a risk big enough so that most small entities would never undertake a voluntary audit. The risk is that once they spend the money to review their activities, if they find a violation and report it, they face both fines and cleanup expenses. Furthermore, if they don't report it, they risk criminal activity by knowingly violating the law. Faced with the liabilities, without an audit law, most people would not voluntarily police themselves. The risks are too big. Folks choose instead to just take their chances and wait for the inspectors. After all, inspectors only visit 2 percent of all regulated entities anyway. Just 2 percent, Mr. President. How do we encourage the other 98 percent to really think about their environmental performance? Audit laws recognize good-faith efforts to improve environmental compliance. They encourage people to look for problems and know with assurance that they won't be penalized for their efforts. Today, Mr. President, 24 States have enacted some form of audit law; 16 more have legislation pending. These laws have been on the books for several years in some States and I would point out--you don't see the examples of abuses that many claimed would occur during the State legislative debates. Wyoming is one of the States that has passed an audit law. I was the prime sponsor in that process during my time in the Wyoming State Senate. I studied examples and results from other States that had gone through the process. I worked closely with our State Department of Environmental Quality and with members of the regulated community. I worked with various resource and conservation groups in Wyoming and we crafted a bill that provides very reasonable incentives for people to review their operations and clean up the problems they find. We provided no criminal immunity or criminal privilege. We deferred to Federal laws wherever conflicts existed. There was a consensus. The bill made it out of committee unanimously and then passed the House and the Senate by more than a two-thirds majority. We had a vigorous debate in Wyoming. In the end, after all the public deliberation, we passed a reasonable bill. But it was a consensus of the legislators elected by the people of Wyoming. When I got to Washington, several States were meeting with the EPA. The EPA was using threats of overfiling and delayed approval of State enforcement programs. Overfiling means the EPA could use a document done at extra expense and exposure to a company in order to be sure there was no harm to the environment, only to find the EPA could use those documents as a road map for levying fines. The EPA wanted us to change the Wyoming law--in spite of repeated assertions from our own State attorney general that the law did not compromise our enforcement authority. Wyoming's scenario is not unique. Working with other States where this has happened has led me to offer this piece of legislation. The strange thing I find is that the EPA touts the value of audits. The concept has been trumpeted as part of their reinventing environmental regulation initiative and a final policy on audits was released in early 1996. Administrator Carol Browner called it, ``a policy that provides real incentives for industry and others to voluntarily identify and correct environmental violations.'' President Clinton in his 1995 State of the Union Address, stressed the need for more common sense and fairness in our environmental regulations. He recognized the limitations of the command and control approach. He stated that ``Washington is not the source of all answers and that we should shift more decision-making authority from the Federal Government to States, tribes and local communities.'' Apparently the EPA feels the States are not ready to handle audits. Apparently, Mr. President, State attorneys general are unable to verify with certainty that audit laws are reasonable. In its own astonishing way--and in seeming contradiction to its own objectives--the EPA remains opposed to State efforts to reinvent command and control through the use of audits. The problem with EPA's audit policy is that ordinary people do not want to use it. Big business will agree to negotiate with the EPA. They will enter into cooperative agreements and consent agreements because they have entire departments of environmental litigators. Small businesses don't have that. They don't trust the EPA. They see the EPA Office of Compliance Assistance trying to help them out, while Criminal Enforcement across the hall is concocting ways to put them in jail--and boy would those offices love to work together. The EPA has little accountability to folks at home. It is just too unpredictable. That is why people need statutory protection before they will take on the potential liability of audits. I would like to take a minute to explain my approach to the issue. The legislation I am introducing would provide a safe-harbor for State laws that fit within certain limits. It would not give any authority to any State unless they go through the full legislative process, including all of the local discussion and debate that entails. That is a critical part of this process and something we should recognize. The boundaries of the safe-harbor we create would describe what State laws may provide: Limited protection from discovery for audit information--but only information that is not required to be gathered. All legal reporting requirements and permitting disclosures remain in effect and could not be covered by an audit privilege. A State audit law may provide limited protection from penalties if violations are promptly disclosed and cleaned up. Note, the protection will not cover criminal actions, and the law must preserve the ability of regulators to halt activities that pose imminent danger to public health. Third, if a State law falls within the safe-harbor, the EPA would be prohibited from withholding State enforcement authority or overfiling against individuals simply because of the State's audit law. Last, the bill would require an annual State performance report that will help measure the success of different laws, so we can see what works and what doesn't. I want to point out that this legislation will not dilute enforcement. There are safeguards to ensure that State audit laws always act to supplement--not to supplant--existing enforcement. It is important to note that. Audits are an affirmative tool. Used properly, they can only be used to improve environmental conditions above the status quo. They do not protect any entity from regular inspection or monitoring. The principle of audit incentives is simple and reasonable. It is no surprise to me that nearly half of our States have chosen to enact some form of audit legislation. It is a positive tool that helps people understand and comply with environmental laws. It gives people a chance to ask questions without being penalized. It gives them the chance to figure out what they are doing wrong and fix it--without adding steep penalties to the cost of compliance. This bill will put into law methods that have been tested and work. Mr. President, small business owners don't take time to read the layer after layer of byzantine regulations constructed by Washington lawyers. I know because my wife and I were small business owners for 26 years. In a small business, the owner is the same one who counts the change, helps the customers and vacuums the floor. He or she has to stay in business, make payroll, and keep up with constantly evolving mandates from a never-ending supply of Federal attorneys. And while the small business owner has many jobs, these attorneys have only one job, to create and modify mandates and to investigate citizens. There are over 17,000 employees at the EPA and now, in spite of the rhetoric about reinventing regulations, they want funds for another 200 enforcement police. We don't need more police to improve environmental compliance--we need translators to interpret the regulations. But the fact is, the heavy-handed, command and control approach works well for the EPA--especially in Washington. Here I am beginning to see the process by which they protect and expand their regulatory supremacy. It is an artful combination of nebulous policies, and self- defining authority. Taken from this perspective, the EPA clearly views any State audit laws as a direct assault on its unbridled jurisdiction and power. Shortly after promoting its own audit policy as a reinvention of regulation, the EPA was quick to remind that State audit laws ``would cause environmental programs delegated to states * * * to revert to national control at EPA.'' Since then, they have used their leverage to compel States to modify laws in accordance with the will of EPA guidelines. This absolute circumvention of the democratic process is astonishing to me. As a former State legislator, I think it is a tragedy that the EPA is denying States the chance to test reasonable and innovative solutions to a cleaner environment. Instead of promoting reinvention, the EPA is perpetuating an environmental race to mediocrity. Some of the people listening may wonder how Wyoming's audit law has fared. Well, Mr. President, I am proud to report that after repeated delays from the EPA on our title 5 clean air permits, and after threats to withdraw delegation of other programs--the EPA has finally decided that statutory changes may not be necessary in Wyoming's law, even though there remain problems to be worked out. At least, Mr. President, that's what they tell us today. They just might change their minds tomorrow. It is no wonder that Wyomingites are afraid to use our State audit law. I feel it is time we put this issue to rest by defining a ``safe- harbor'' and giving State laws the certainty they need to be effective. I would encourage Members to take a look at this bill and to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the State Environmental Audit Protection Act. It is a bill that would improve environmental quality across this Nation by enlisting the voluntary aid of people to seek out environmental problems and to correct violations using State environmental audit laws. This legislation would provide protection for those States that have fully debated the issue and after the debate, have chosen to enact aggressive and proactive environmental audit laws. First, I would like to explain briefly what an audit law is and how it works. State legislatures have chosen to enact many different kinds of audit laws with varying levels of incentives. It is important to note that audit laws are not all the same. This concept is apparently lost on those who try to mis-characterize every audit law in the most sinister and fearful terms. It is important that we recognize the difference. The purpose of audit laws are to provide incentives for regulated entities to search for and disclose environmental violations and to clean them up at their own expense. Entities cover all kinds of groups with operations that may have an effect on the environment, such as businesses, schools, hospitals, towns, and counties. The incentives can range from relief from penalties to protection of voluntarily gathered information. The incentives usually require full disclosure and due diligence in correcting violations. When there is protection of information, some States simply agree not to inspect based on disclosure of an audit, others go further by allowing that certain documents will not be used against the entity in enforcement actions. It is important to keep in mind when considering protection of documents that audits are conducted in good faith. By definition, any information that is compiled is voluntary and as such is above and beyond what is otherwise required by law. Following from that, any disclosures are a net gain above traditional enforcement. Consider for a moment, Mr. President, the decisions a small business faces with regard to its environmental performance. Many small businesses are already required to monitor and report certain emissions and audit protections do not cover those reports. But consider a business that is not on an inspection schedule and has no required emissions reporting. If that entity wants to review its performance under environmental laws, it would have to conduct a study. It would have to pay an auditor to come in and review its operations--that would be voluntary. Without audit protection, that business would take on a big risk--a risk big enough so that most small entities would never undertake a voluntary audit. The risk is that once they spend the money to review their activities, if they find a violation and report it, they face both fines and cleanup expenses. Furthermore, if they don't report it, they risk criminal activity by knowingly violating the law. Faced with the liabilities, without an audit law, most people would not voluntarily police themselves. The risks are too big. Folks choose instead to just take their chances and wait for the inspectors. After all, inspectors only visit 2 percent of all regulated entities anyway. Just 2 percent, Mr. President. How do we encourage the other 98 percent to really think about their environmental performance? Audit laws recognize good-faith efforts to improve environmental compliance. They encourage people to look for problems and know with assurance that they won't be penalized for their efforts. Today, Mr. President, 24 States have enacted some form of audit law; 16 more have legislation pending. These laws have been on the books for several years in some States and I would point out--you don't see the examples of abuses that many claimed would occur during the State legislative debates. Wyoming is one of the States that has passed an audit law. I was the prime sponsor in that process during my time in the Wyoming State Senate. I studied examples and results from other States that had gone through the process. I worked closely with our State Department of Environmental Quality and with members of the regulated community. I worked with various resource and conservation groups in Wyoming and we crafted a bill that provides very reasonable incentives for people to review their operations and clean up the problems they find. We provided no criminal immunity or criminal privilege. We deferred to Federal laws wherever conflicts existed. There was a consensus. The bill made it out of committee unanimously and then passed the House and the Senate by more than a two-thirds majority. We had a vigorous debate in Wyoming. In the end, after all the public deliberation, we passed a reasonable bill. But it was a consensus of the legislators elected by the people of Wyoming. When I got to Washington, several States were meeting with the EPA. The EPA was using threats of overfiling and delayed approval of State enforcement programs. Overfiling means the EPA could use a document done at extra expense and exposure to a company in order to be sure there was no harm to the environment, only to find the EPA could use those documents as a road map for levying fines. The EPA wanted us to change the Wyoming law--in spite of repeated assertions from our own State attorney general that the law did not compromise our enforcement authority. Wyoming's scenario is not unique. Working with other States where this has happened has led me to offer this piece of legislation. The strange thing I find is that the EPA touts the value of audits. The concept has been trumpeted as part of their reinventing environmental regulation initiative and a final policy on audits was released in early 1996. Administrator Carol Browner called it, ``a policy that provides real incentives for industry and others to voluntarily identify and correct environmental violations.'' President Clinton in his 1995 State of the Union Address, stressed the need for more common sense and fairness in our environmental regulations. He recognized the limitations of the command and control approach. He stated that ``Washington is not the source of all answers and that we should shift more decision-making authority from the Federal Government to States, tribes and local communities.'' Apparently the EPA feels the States are not ready to handle audits. Apparently, Mr. President, State attorneys general are unable to verify with certainty that audit laws are reasonable. In its own astonishing way--and in seeming contradiction to its own objectives--the EPA remains opposed to State efforts to reinvent command and control through the use of audits. The problem with EPA's audit policy is that ordinary people do not want to use it. Big business will agree to negotiate with the EPA. They will enter into cooperative agreements and consent agreements because they have entire departments of environmental litigators. Small businesses don't have that. They don't trust the EPA. They see the EPA Office of Compliance Assistance trying to help them out, while Criminal Enforcement across the hall is concocting ways to put them in jail--and boy would those offices love to work together. The EPA has little accountability to folks at home. It is just too unpredictable. That is why people need statutory protection before they will take on the potential liability of audits. I would like to take a minute to explain my approach to the issue. The legislation I am introducing would provide a safe-harbor for State laws that fit within certain limits. It would not give any authority to any State unless they go through the full legislative process, including all of the local discussion and debate that entails. That is a critical part of this process and something we should recognize. The boundaries of the safe-harbor we create would describe what State laws may provide: Limited protection from discovery for audit information--but only information that is not required to be gathered. All legal reporting requirements and permitting disclosures remain in effect and could not be covered by an audit privilege. A State audit law may provide limited protection from penalties if violations are promptly disclosed and cleaned up. Note, the protection will not cover criminal actions, and the law must preserve the ability of regulators to halt activities that pose imminent danger to public health. Third, if a State law falls within the safe-harbor, the EPA would be prohibited from withholding State enforcement authority or overfiling against individuals simply because of the State's audit law. Last, the bill would require an annual State performance report that will help measure the success of different laws, so we can see what works and what doesn't. I want to point out that this legislation will not dilute enforcement. There are safeguards to ensure that State audit laws always act to supplement--not to supplant--existing enforcement. It is important to note that. Audits are an affirmative tool. Used properly, they can only be used to improve environmental conditions above the status quo. They do not protect any entity from regular inspection or monitoring. The principle of audit incentives is simple and reasonable. It is no surprise to me that nearly half of our States have chosen to enact some form of audit legislation. It is a positive tool that helps people understand and comply with environmental laws. It gives people a chance to ask questions without being penalized. It gives them the chance to figure out what they are doing wrong and fix it--without adding steep penalties to the cost of compliance. This bill will put into law methods that have been tested and work. Mr. President, small business owners don't take time to read the layer after layer of byzantine regulations constructed by Washington lawyers. I know because my wife and I were small business owners for 26 years. In a small business, the owner is the same one who counts the change, helps the customers and vacuums the floor. He or she has to stay in business, make payroll, and keep up with constantly evolving mandates from a never-ending supply of Federal attorneys. And while the small business owner has many jobs, these attorneys have only one job, to create and modify mandates and to investigate citizens. There are over 17,000 employees at the EPA and now, in spite of the rhetoric about reinventing regulations, they want funds for another 200 enforcement police. We don't need more police to improve environmental compliance--we need translators to interpret the regulations. But the fact is, the heavy-handed, command and control approach works well for the EPA--especially in Washington. Here I am beginning to see the process by which they protect and expand their regulatory supremacy. It is an artful combination of nebulous policies, and self- defining authority. Taken from this perspective, the EPA clearly views any State audit laws as a direct assault on its unbridled jurisdiction and power. Shortly after promoting its own audit policy as a reinvention of regulation, the EPA was quick to remind that State audit laws ``would cause environmental programs delegated to states * * * to revert to national control at EPA.'' Since then, they have used their leverage to compel States to modify laws in accordance with the will of EPA guidelines. This absolute circumvention of the democratic process is astonishing to me. As a former State legislator, I think it is a tragedy that the EPA is denying States the chance to test reasonable and innovative solutions to a cleaner environment. Instead of promoting reinvention, the EPA is perpetuating an environmental race to mediocrity. Some of the people listening may wonder how Wyoming's audit law has fared. Well, Mr. President, I am proud to report that after repeated delays from the EPA on our title 5 clean air permits, and after threats to withdraw delegation of other programs--the EPA has finally decided that statutory changes may not be necessary in Wyoming's law, even though there remain problems to be worked out. At least, Mr. President, that's what they tell us today. They just might change their minds tomorrow. It is no wonder that Wyomingites are afraid to use our State audit law. I feel it is time we put this issue to rest by defining a ``safe- harbor'' and giving State laws the certainty they need to be effective. I would encourage Members to take a look at this bill and to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent the Senate recess from the hours of 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy luncheons to meet.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9 a.m., Tuesday, October 28. I further ask unanimous consent on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and there be a period for morning business until the hour of 10 o'clock a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Warner, 5 minutes; Senator Grams, 5 minutes; Senator Ashcroft, 10 minutes; Senator Landrieu, 20 minutes; and Senator Bingaman, 10 minutes.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: Nos. 323, 341, 342, 343, and 344; I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, any statements relating to the nominations appear at this point in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at this point in the Record

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent the Commerce Committee be discharged from further consideration of Senate Resolution 140 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Tomorrow morning, the Senate will be in a period of morning business from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. At 10 o'clock a.m. under rule XXII, a live quorum will begin. Once a quorum is established, the Senate will proceed to a cloture vote on the modified committee amendment to S. 1173, the highway legislation. Following that vote, the Senate will be in approximately 90 minutes of debate on the Interior appropriations conference report. If all of that time is used, Members can anticipate a second vote at approximately 12:15 tomorrow. Under the previous order, at 12:30 p.m. the Senate will recess for the weekly policy luncheons to meet. Hopefully, when the Senate reconvenes at 2:15 p.m., the Senate will be able to begin consideration of either the Amtrak legislation dealing with the impending strike or Amtrak reform which would address the strike. In addition, the Senate may begin debate on Senator Coverdell's education IRA legislation, H.R. 2646. Therefore, Members can anticipate rollcall votes throughout Tuesday's session of the Senate.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the action of my State's Governor in proclaiming September 19, 1997, as Wyoming's POW/ MIA Recognition Day. I believe such a proclamation to be wholly appropriate in light of the fact that over 2,000 Americans are still missing in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, and over 8,000 on the Korean Peninsula. These men gave their last full measure in causes whose worthiness is rendered more secure with every passing year of historical distance. Though the same can be said of all who sacrificed so, we often forget the sacrifice of those who have no headstones to call to us each memorial day. Hence the importance of efforts such as Governor Geringer's, which remind the Nation of our continuing and unfulfilled responsibility to account for the remains of these men for the sake of their families and our national conscience. I am reminded of something written half a century ago: The universe is so vast and so ageless that the life of one man can only be justified by the measure of his sacrifice. That passage was in a young Royal Air Force pilot's last letter to his mother before his death during the Battle of Britain. I commend Governor Geringer for his proclamation and I urge the President to intensify his efforts at retrieving the remains of America's missing in action. In their sacrifice they proved their measure. America owes them this small debt.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in favor of campaign reform, but not the proposal before us. I resent that we must apparently be for this bill before us or we are pictured as being opposed to reform. This bill has gone through somewhat of a transformation, but not much. Rather than reform the way campaigns are financed, this legislation would infringe on the first amendment rights of millions of American citizens and place enormous burdens on candidates running for office. We must ensure the enforcement of the current law before we build a whole new bureaucracy. That is what we are talking about. I believe this debate over changes in campaign laws is especially timely in light of the recent discovery of the video tapes of the White House coffees. It is illegal to campaign, it is illegal to raise money on Federal property. They are more suspicious since the White House withheld the critical evidence from the investigative committee for over 8 months. They just found the tapes? They just found part of the tapes--44 out of 150? How hard can tapes be to find? Don't they have a procedure for storing tapes? If they are important enough for history in the first place, should there not be a mechanism for finding them? While it's not clear what took place, it calls out for a serious investigation and the appointment of a special prosecutor. Now we want to add extra criteria. If we just add them, will Congress be the only ones who have to abide by them? Will an acceptable defense be that everybody is doing it, even if that is not true? One of the lessons I learned in my 18 years in elected office is that you don't increase compliance with existing laws by increasing the complexity. We haven't talked about truth in advertising. We haven't talked about how much money is being spent and a way to disclose and to get accurate and complete disclosure from all groups that are involved in the process. We are only touching on campaign finance reform, and we are calling it the whole ball of wax, the whole answer to everything. Mr. President, while the McCain-Feingold legislation claims to clean up elections, it does so by placing unconstitutional restrictions on citizen's ability to participate in the political process. For the past few weeks, we have heard Members of this Senate bemoan the fact that various citizen groups have taken out ads criticizing them during their elections. Having just run my first statewide campaign last year, I can sympathize with my colleagues who have been the object of often pointed and critical campaign ads. I've said frequently that campaigns need a good truth in advertising law. That's not restriction of free speech. That's requiring honest speech. Yes, there are fine lines of spin, but we haven't even tried to clean up the blatantly wrong ads. Instead we want to restrict the right to even tell the truth. I believe that in a free society it is essential that citizens have the right to articulate their positions on issues and candidates in the public forum. The first amendment to our Constitution was drafted to ensure that future generations would have the right to engage in public political discourse that is vigorous and unfettered. Throughout even the darkest of chapters in our Nation's history, our first amendment has provided an essential protection against inclinations to tyranny. Our political future relies on the protection of free speech. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the first amendment protects the right of individual citizens and organizations to express their views even through issue advocacy and even if its aimed at an individual. The Court has consistently maintained that individuals and organizations do not fall within the restrictions of the Federal election code simply by engaging in this advocacy. Issue advocacy includes the right to promote any candidate for office and his views as long as the communication does not in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate. As long as independent communication does not cross the bright line of expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, individuals and groups are free to spend as much as they want promoting or criticizing a candidate and his views. While these holdings may not always be welcome to those of us running campaigns, they represent a logical outgrowth of the first amendment's historic protection of core political speech. We talk about how much money is spent that way for advocacy, but we are just guessing. We are jumping to the step of precluding that right of free speech talking about how much the cost of campaigns have gone up, but we don't even have a mechanism for reporting that in any meaningful way. That should be the first step. We need quick and complete disclosure of all funds spent in a campaign, directly and indirectly. That means hard money and soft. We need to know from where and whom it comes and for what it was spent. Obviously we need to know how the money got there. We need to know that the laws on collecting it apply to everyone. That's a simpler step than what is proposed and more constitutional too. These unconstitutional restrictions of this bill would increase the power of the media elites at the expense of the average American voter. Our Founding Fathers drafted the first amendment to protect against attempts such as these to prohibit one segment of our society from entering into public discourse on issues that greatly affect them. I commend the sponsors for eliminating from the most recent version of their legislation the provision that forced businesses to give away their product in the form of free broadcast time. I also appreciated them taking out the complicated funding formulas. Nonetheless, I still cannot support legislation that stifles the free speech of the American citizens and gives expanded new powers to a Washington bureaucracy. For these reasons, I must oppose the revised McCain-Feingold legislation. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying trouble to the first amendment and opposing the McCain-Feingold legislation. I thank the Chair and yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Safety Advancement for Employees Act of 1997. I send the bill to the desk. Mr. President, I ask that further reading of the bill be dispensed with. Mr. President, during this first Session of the 105th Congress, my esteemed colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and I, each introduced a bill related to workplace safety and health. On July 10, a comprehensive OSHA oversight hearing was held by Chairman Frist in the Subcommittee on Public Health and Safety. This hearing specifically focused on OSHA modernization legislation pending before the committee. The results of this hearing further confirmed the commitment Senator Gregg and I share concerning the safety and health of our Nation's workforce. It is with great pleasure that Senator Gregg and I, introduce this consensus legislation. The SAFE Act has the support of Subcommittee Chairman Frist, as well as Labor Committee Chairman Jeffords. Both are proud to be original cosponsors and I am sincerely grateful to them for all their hard work. They have clearly helped pave the way for this important measure. In addition, my House colleague and chairman of the Small Business Committee, Jim Talent, will introduce similar legislation in the House today. This legislation has received strong bipartisan support--an essential ingredient in the recipe for success. It is important to understand that both the Senate and House versions do not attempt to reinvent OSHA's wheel, just change its tires. Treading water for 27 years, OSHA has never seriously attempted to encourage employers and employees in their efforts to create safe and healthful workplaces. Instead, OSHA chose to operate according to a command and control mentality. This approach has lead to burdensome and often incomprehensible regulations which may not relate to worker safety and health and are, quite often, only sporadically enforced. Even the AFL-CIO has acknowledged that with only 2,451 State and Federal inspectors regulating 6.2 million American worksites, an employer can expect to see an inspector once every 167 years. While changing OSHA's bald tires, it is important to point out that the SAFE Act does not dismantle OSHA's enforcement capabilities. That approach has been tried time and time again. But, enforcement alone cannot ensure the safety of our Nation's workplaces and the health of our working population. America would be better served by an OSHA that places a greater emphasis on promoting employers and employees working together and this bill would strike that balance. The SAFE Act is geared to provide employers who seek a safe and healthful workplace for their employees with the ability to obtain compliance evaluations from qualified, third party consultants. In addition, the SAFE Act includes additional voluntary and technical compliance initiatives to assist employers in deeming their worksites safe for their employees. Businesses and employees need clarification on a whole host of issues. They need progress, now. We need good commonsense legislation that advances safety and health of the American workplace, now. Senator Gregg and I are not interested in making another political statement. It is time for us to tuck the political statements into our coat pockets and pass good common sense legislation that advances the safety and health of the American workplace. Advancing safety and health in the American workplace is a matter of great importance and it must be considered in a serious and rational manner by Congress, by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, by employers, and yes, by employees too. Mr. President, I firmly believe that the SAFE Act represents a clean start to addressing the problems that affect OSHA and its dealings with employers and employees. Senator Gregg and I, are quite eager to continue working with my Senate and House colleagues on this important matter. By working together in a bipartisan fashion, we can ensure our Nation's work force that Congress does care about their personal safety and health. I welcome your support in doing just that. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Safety Advancement for Employees Act of 1997. I send the bill to the desk. Mr. President, I ask that further reading of the bill be dispensed with. Mr. President, during this first Session of the 105th Congress, my esteemed colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and I, each introduced a bill related to workplace safety and health. On July 10, a comprehensive OSHA oversight hearing was held by Chairman Frist in the Subcommittee on Public Health and Safety. This hearing specifically focused on OSHA modernization legislation pending before the committee. The results of this hearing further confirmed the commitment Senator Gregg and I share concerning the safety and health of our Nation's workforce. It is with great pleasure that Senator Gregg and I, introduce this consensus legislation. The SAFE Act has the support of Subcommittee Chairman Frist, as well as Labor Committee Chairman Jeffords. Both are proud to be original cosponsors and I am sincerely grateful to them for all their hard work. They have clearly helped pave the way for this important measure. In addition, my House colleague and chairman of the Small Business Committee, Jim Talent, will introduce similar legislation in the House today. This legislation has received strong bipartisan support--an essential ingredient in the recipe for success. It is important to understand that both the Senate and House versions do not attempt to reinvent OSHA's wheel, just change its tires. Treading water for 27 years, OSHA has never seriously attempted to encourage employers and employees in their efforts to create safe and healthful workplaces. Instead, OSHA chose to operate according to a command and control mentality. This approach has lead to burdensome and often incomprehensible regulations which may not relate to worker safety and health and are, quite often, only sporadically enforced. Even the AFL-CIO has acknowledged that with only 2,451 State and Federal inspectors regulating 6.2 million American worksites, an employer can expect to see an inspector once every 167 years. While changing OSHA's bald tires, it is important to point out that the SAFE Act does not dismantle OSHA's enforcement capabilities. That approach has been tried time and time again. But, enforcement alone cannot ensure the safety of our Nation's workplaces and the health of our working population. America would be better served by an OSHA that places a greater emphasis on promoting employers and employees working together and this bill would strike that balance. The SAFE Act is geared to provide employers who seek a safe and healthful workplace for their employees with the ability to obtain compliance evaluations from qualified, third party consultants. In addition, the SAFE Act includes additional voluntary and technical compliance initiatives to assist employers in deeming their worksites safe for their employees. Businesses and employees need clarification on a whole host of issues. They need progress, now. We need good commonsense legislation that advances safety and health of the American workplace, now. Senator Gregg and I are not interested in making another political statement. It is time for us to tuck the political statements into our coat pockets and pass good common sense legislation that advances the safety and health of the American workplace. Advancing safety and health in the American workplace is a matter of great importance and it must be considered in a serious and rational manner by Congress, by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, by employers, and yes, by employees too. Mr. President, I firmly believe that the SAFE Act represents a clean start to addressing the problems that affect OSHA and its dealings with employers and employees. Senator Gregg and I, are quite eager to continue working with my Senate and House colleagues on this important matter. By working together in a bipartisan fashion, we can ensure our Nation's work force that Congress does care about their personal safety and health. I welcome your support in doing just that. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair. Where has our country gone when people appearing before a Senate committee have to have their voices disguised and have to be behind partitions? I commend the Senate Finance Committee for holding the hearings examining the Internal Revenue Service. These hearings have given the American people an insight into one of the most powerful and secretive of Federal agencies. I applaud Chairman Roth and members of the Finance Committee for their diligence in examining this agency. For any who might have missed the hearings, on my web site, which is www.senate.gov/enzi/, you can get the full text of the comments made before the committee. There is also an opportunity there to do an easy e-mail to comment on what has gone on in those hearings. It is important for this body to follow up on those hearings with a complete reexamination of the Nation's tax policy and the IRS. If we are ever to be successful in establishing a just tax code, we in Congress must first come to a consensus about our underlying tax policy. In the past 3 days, we have heard stories from taxpayers who have been mistreated by an inefficient and confrontational Internal Revenue Service. Taxpayers testified that they were forced into personal and financial ruin by an all-too-often faceless agency with little accountability to either the American taxpayers or to Congress. We have heard about the enormous power of the IRS, which includes the power to take a taxpayer's home on nothing more than the signature of the district director. There is no court hearing. There is no notice. There is no opportunity to litigate the merits of the Service's claim. The IRS has the power to close down a person's business and take away his livelihood by merely filing a few papers in Federal court. The judge signs a seizure order without ever giving the taxpayer notice or an opportunity to contest the legality of the assessment or the amount of the tax owed or the problem with the computer system. Madam President, this is precisely the kind of abuse by our Government our Founding Fathers were attempting to avoid when they included the fourth and fifth amendments in the Bill of Rights. These actions amount to administrative tyranny. As I have traveled around the State of Wyoming, I have heard a great deal of concern about the present state of the IRS. Our Tax Code is so frustratingly complex that even the professional tax preparers are pleading for simplicity. These folks know that the present Tax Code exposes them to a great deal of liability due to the likelihood of conflicting interpretations of the code and its myriad of accompanying regulations. As an accountant myself, I am sympathetic to the concerns of those who claim that even the experts cannot agree on many of the provisions of the current system. It is unfair to expect Americans to operate under a tax system with such a mind-numbing complexity and inherent contradictions. Under the current regime, it is perhaps the moderate-income taxpayer and the small businessman who suffer the most. That is not how audits are supposed to work. One of the most surprising facts which came out of the testimony this week is the significant increase in audits of lower income people and very small businesses over the past several years. This increase is not because the IRS believes these people have large amounts of unreported income. Rather, it is because the Service believes these people are the least likely to fight them after an audit since they can least afford professional tax preparers and expensive legal counsel. Just this week, I heard from some small business owners in Wyoming who have been battling the IRS for 5 years over $200,000 in taxes they are convinced they do not owe. After a 3-year onsite audit, the IRS determined that they only owed $30,000, including the fines and penalties. Even though they disputed this amount, they figured they had no choice but to pay it since they could not afford to take the case to court. Moreover, the agency threatened that if they didn't agree to pay the bill, IRS would reopen the investigation and insinuated that this might result in even more money owed. That is blackmail. This treatment of our citizens is unjust. An agency which turns to coercion and intimidation to settle unreasonable disputes is in desperate need of reform. Madam President, while I realize that many of the IRS agents are hard-working, dedicated public servants, I am convinced the problems we have heard about this week are more than isolated occurrences. Instead, they represent a systematic disease which cannot be cured by tinkering with the current Tax Code or modifying a few Internal Revenue Service procedures. I believe these hearings will force us to reexamine the specifics of our current code and our underlying policy as well. I have made the examination of our tax policy one of my top priorities for my service in the Senate. I will work with my colleagues toward developing a policy that reflects the legitimate priorities and goals of raising revenue for a Government which should in its every facet serve the people from whom it derives its power, not control the people from whom it derives its power. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar, Calendar No. 259 and Calendar No. 260. I further ask unanimous consents the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the nominations be printed at this point in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. As in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaties transmitted to the Senate on September 23, 1997, by the President of the United States: Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty (Treaty Document No. 105-28); Protocol Amending Tax Convention With Canada (Treaty Document No. 105-29); Extradition Treaty With India (Treaty Document No. 105-30). I further ask that the treaties be considered as having been read the first time; that they be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's messages be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 12 noon on Wednesday, September 24. I further ask that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate immediately resume consideration of S. 830, the FDA reform bill.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of S. 830, the FDA reform bill. Under the previous order, at noon the Senate will conclude the remaining 4 hours of debate on that measure. Therefore, Members can anticipate a vote on final passage of S. 830, between 3:45 and 4 o'clock tomorrow afternoon. Following disposition of S. 830, it is hoped the Senate will begin consideration of the District of Columbia appropriations bill. Members can expect additional votes during Wednesday's session of the Senate, following the final passage vote of S. 830. In addition, the Senate may consider any other legislative or executive business that can be cleared for action. I thank all Senators for their attention.