[Pages S12835-S12840]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. BENNETT (for himself, Mr. Burns, and Mr. McConnell):
S. 1747. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act 0f 1971 to
exclude certain Internet communications from the definition of
expenditure; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

internet freedom protection act

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1747

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1 SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Internet Freedom Protection
Act''.

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

Section 301(9)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(9)(B)) is amended--
(1) in clause (ix), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in clause (x), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(xi) any communication or dissemination of material
through the Internet (including electronic mail, chat rooms,
and message boards) by any individual, if such material--
``(I) is not a paid advertisement;
``(II) does not solicit funds for, or on behalf of, a
candidate or political committee;
``(III) is disseminated for the purpose of communicating or
disseminating the opinion of such individual (including an
endorsement) regarding a political issue or candidate; and
``(IV) is not communicated or disseminated by any
individual that receives payment or any other form of
compensation for such communication or dissemination.''.
______

By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Kohl, Mr.
Torricelli, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 1748. A bill to amend chapter 87 of title 28, United States Code,
to authorize a judge to whom a case is transferred to retain
jurisdiction over certain multidistrict litigation cases for trial; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.

multidistrict jurisdiction act of 1999

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill entitled the
``Multidistrict Jurisdiction Act of 1999.'' This bill would restore a
30-year-old practice under which a single court, to which several
actions with common issues of fact were transferred for pre-trial
proceedings, could retain the multidistrict actions for trial.
This bill is necessary to correct a statutory deficiency pointed out
by the Supreme Court in Lexecon v. Milbert Weiss Bershad Hynes &
Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1997). It is an important bill for judicial
efficiency and for encouraging settlements of multidistrict cases. And
I am pleased that the Judicial Conference and the Multidistrict
Litigation Panel support this bill. Moreover, I am pleased that this is
a bipartisan bill with Senators Leahy, Grassley, Torricelli, Kohl, and
Schumer as cosponsors.
Section 1407(a) of title 28, United States Code, authorizes the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel to transfer civil actions with common
questions of fact ``to any district for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.'' It also requires the Panel, on or before the
conclusion of such pretrial proceedings, to remand any such actions to
the district courts in which they were filed. However, for the 30 years
prior to the Lexecon decision, federal courts followed the practice of
allowing the single transferee court, upon the conclusion of pretrial
proceedings, to transfer all of the actions to itself under the general
venue provisions contained in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404. This had the
practical advantage of allowing the single transferee court to retain
for trial the multiple actions for which it had conducted pretrial
proceedings. This greatly enhanced judicial efficiency and encouraged
settlements.
In Lexecon, however, the Supreme Court held that the literal terms of
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 did not allow the single transferee court to retain
the multidistrict actions after concluding pretrial proceedings.
Instead, the Court held, the plain terms of Sec. 1407 required the
Panel to remand the actions back to the multiple federal district
courts in which the actions originated. The Court noted that to keep
the practice of allowing the single transferee court to retain the
actions after conducting the pretrial proceedings, Congress would have
to change the statute.
The bill would amend 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 to restore the traditional
practice of allowing the single transferee court to retain the multiple
actions for trial after conducting pretrial proceedings. The bill also
includes a provision under which the single transferee court would
transfer the multiple actions back to the federal district courts from
which they came for a determination of compensatory damages if the
interests of justice and the convenience of the parties so require.
Mr. President, this bill is very similar to the first portion of a
H.R. 2112 that passed the House of Representatives under the effective
leadership of Congressman Sensenbrenner. H.R. 2112 includes both the
``Lexecon fix'' and a provision to streamline catastrophe litigation. I
believe that both provisions would make good law. However, the Lexecon
matter constitutes an emergency for the Multidistrict Litigation Panel,
which has a large number of these cases poised for remand if the
retention practice is not restored. The catastrophe legislation would
constitute an important improvement, but is not an emergency matter.
Given this situation, I propose that we pass only the ``Lexecon fix''
during this session by unanimous consent and work to pass the
catastrophe legislation during the second session.
Senators Leahy, Grassley, Torricelli, Kohl, Schumer, and I look
forward to passing the Multidistrict Jurisdiction Act of 1999 very
quickly. The Judiciary awaits our prompt action.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1748

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Multidistrict Jurisdiction
Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION.

Section 1407 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in the third sentence of subsection (a), by inserting
``or ordered transferred to the transferee or other district
under subsection (i)'' after ``terminated''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), any action transferred
under this section by the panel may be transferred, for trial
purposes, by the

[[Page S12836]]

judge or judges of the transferee district to whom the action
was assigned to the transferee or other district in the
interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties
and witnesses.
``(2) Any action transferred for trial purposes under
paragraph (1) shall be remanded by the panel for the
determination of compensatory damages to the district court
from which it was transferred, unless the court to which the
action has been transferred for trial purposes also finds,
for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the
interests of justice, that the action should be retained for
the determination of compensatory damages.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, Senator
Torricelli, Senator Kohl, and Senator Schumer in introducing the Multi-
District Jurisdiction Act of 1999. Our bipartisan legislation is needed
by Federal judges across the country to restore their power to promote
the fair and efficient administration of justice in multi-district
litigation.
Current law authorizes the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation to transfer related cases, pending in multiple Federal
judicial districts, to a single district for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings. This makes good sense because
transfers by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation are based
on centralizing those cases to serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and to promote efficient judicial management.
For nearly 30 years, many transferee judges, following circuit and
district court case law, retained these multi-district cases for trial
because the transferee judge and the parties were already familiar with
each other and the facts of the case through the pretrial proceedings.
The Supreme Court in Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998), however, found that this well-established
practice was not authorized by the general venue provisions in the
United States Code. Following the Lexecon ruling, the Judicial Panel on
Multi-District Litigation must now remand each transferred case to its
original district at the conclusion of the pretrial proceedings, unless
the case is already settled or otherwise terminated. This new process
is costly, inefficient and time consuming.
The Multi-District Jurisdiction Act of 1999 seeks to restore the
power of transferee judges to resolve multi-district cases as
expeditiously and fairly as possible. Our bipartisan bill amends
section 1407 of title 28 of the United States Code to allow a
transferee judge to retain cases for trial or transfer those cases to
another judicial district for trial in the interests of justice and for
the convenience of parties and witnesses. The legislation provides
transferee judges the flexibility they need to administer justice
quickly and efficiently. Indeed, our legislation is supported by the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Judicial Conference of
the United States and the Department of Justice.
In addition, we have included a section in our bill to ensure
fairness during the determination of compensatory damages by adding the
presumption that the case will be remanded to the transferor court for
this phase of the trial. Specifically, this provision provides that to
the extent a case is tried outside of the transferor forum, it would be
solely for the purpose of a consolidated trial on liability, and if
appropriate, punitive damages, and that the case must be remanded to
the transferor court for the purposes of trial on compensatory damages,
unless the court to which the action has been transferred for trial
purposes also finds, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and in the interests of justice, that the action should be retained for
the determination of compensatory damages. This section is identical to
a bipartisan amendment proposed by Representative Berman and accepted
by the House Judiciary Committee during its consideration of similar
legislation earlier this year.
Multi-district litigation generally involves some of the most complex
fact-specific cases, which affect the lives of citizens across the
nation. For example, multi-district litigation entails such national
legal matters as asbestos, silicone gel breast implants, diet drugs
like fen-phen, hemophiliac blood products, Norplant contraceptives and
all major airplane crashes. In fact, as of February 1999, approximately
140 transferee judges were supervising about 160 groups of multi-
district cases, with each group composed of hundreds, or even
thousands, of cases in various stages of trial development.
But the efficient case management of these multi-district cases is a
risk after the Lexecon ruling. Judge John F. Nangle, Chairman of the
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, recently testified before
Congress that: ``Since Lexecon, significant problems have arisen that
have hindered the sensible conduct of multi-district litigation.
Transferee judges throughout the United States have voiced their
concern to me about the urgent need to enact this legislation.''
Mr. President, Congress should listen to the concerned voices of our
Federal Judiciary and swiftly approve the Multi-District Jurisdiction
Act of 1999 to improve judicial efficiency in our Federal courts.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in
introducing the Multidistrict Jurisdiction Act of 1999. This
legislation would make a technical fix to section 1407 of Title 28, the
multidistrict litigation statute, in response to the recent Supreme
Court decision in Lexecon v. Milberg Weiss.
Section 1407(a) of Title 28 authorizes the Judicial Panel on Multi-
District Litigation to transfer civil actions with common issues of
fact to any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings, but requires the Panel to remand any such action to the
original district at or before the conclusion of such pretrial
proceedings. Until the Lexecon decision, the federal courts followed
the practice of allowing a transferee court to invoke the venue
transfer provision and transfer a case to itself for trial purposes.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed this practice, holding that
the literal terms of section 1407 do not give a district court
conducting pretrial proceedings the authority to assign a transferred
case to itself for trial.
This legislation would amend section 1407 of Title 28 to permit a
judge with a transferred case to retain jurisdiction over multidistrict
litigation cases for trial. This change was approved by the Judicial
Conference and is supported by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation. The legislation also includes a provision under which a
transferee court would transfer actions back to the federal district
courts from which they came for a determination of compensatory damages
if the interests of justice and the convenience of the parties so
require.
The Multidistrict Jurisdiction Act of 1999 will promote the efficient
administration of justice by allowing the federal courts to continue an
effective practice they have been using for almost thirty years. It
makes sense to allow the transferee judge who has conducted the
pretrial proceedings and is familiar with the facts and parties of the
transferred case to retain that case for trial. This significantly
benefits the parties to a case, and reduces wasteful use of judicial
and litigants' resources. I am glad to support this legislation, and I
urge my colleagues to support it as well.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Hatch, Leahy,
Grassley, Torricelli, and Schumer in introducing the Multidistrict
Jurisdiction Act of 1999. Our bipartisan measure will help give back to
Federal judges the authority they need to handle multiple, overlapping
cases as efficiently and effectively as possible.
This legislation essentially overturns the Supreme Court's decision
in Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26
(1998). In that case, the Supreme Court rejected 30 years of practice
during which trial courts overseeing related cases for consolidated
pretrial proceedings had been permitted to retain jurisdiction of those
cases for trial. That long-standing routine made plain common sense,
because oversight by one court (instead of dozens of courts) is often
the best use of resources, regardless of whether the parties are still
in discovery or already at trial. Indeed, a consolidated trial may not
only be more convenient for the parties and the witnesses, but it also
promotes justice by keeping the case before a judge who is already
familiar with the underlying facts.

[[Page S12837]]

Let me just point out that I do not mean to criticize the Supreme
Court's decision as a matter of law. It may well be that the original
Multidistrict Litigation statute was too narrowly drafted, and
ultimately it is the responsibility of Congress to write--or, in this
case, rewrite--the law to make sure it says what Congress intends.
While this measure is an important step forward, we must recognize
that it is just that--a step. There is much more we can do to promote
efficiency and fairness in litigation for both victims and defendants.
In fact, the proposal to overturn Lexecon was first raised publicly at
a hearing on class action reform in the House early last year, as just
one of several proposals that would help ensure the fair administration
of justice. Ironically, while this measure appears to be on the fast
track, we continue to delay consideration of the other more pressing
class action measures that were the focus of that hearing. And, while
consolidation could be particularly valuable in the class action
context, without class action reforms this bill actually won't affect
most class actions. The reason is simple: while this bill only applies
to cases filed in Federal court, most class actions--even ones that are
nationwide in scope and shape nationwide policies--end up in State
court.
Indeed, increased consolidation would help eliminate one of the most
significant class action abuses--that is, the dangerous ``race to
settlement'' among competing cases. Currently, overlapping class
actions involving the same parties and the same claims put rival class
lawyers in competition to get the first--and only--settlement
available. The result is all too common: one lawyer lines his pockets
with huge fees by taking a quickie settlement, while the class gets the
short end of the stick. For example, in one instance involving
overlapping Federal and State actions, the class lawyers who brought
the State case negotiated a small settlement precluding all other
suits, and even agreed to settle federal claims that were not at issue
in State court. Meanwhile, the Federal court was outraged, finding that
the Federal claims could have been worth more than $1 billion, while
accusing the State class lawyers of ``hostile representation'' that
``surpassed inadequacy and sank to the level of subversion'' and of
having ``more in line with the interests of [defendants] than those of
their clients.''

This danger was recently underscored by the Judicial Conference's
Advisory Committee on Civil Rules Report on Mass Tort Litigation, which
found that ``[T]he risk is considerable that speedy justice may be
converted into speedy injustice . . . if two or more courts enter a
race to be first to achieve a disposition binding on all courts.'' The
report added that, ``This risk is aggravated by the `reverse auction'
scenario . . . , in which a defendant may play would-be class
representatives off against each other, bidding down the terms of
settlement to the lowest level that can win approval by the most
complaisant available court.'' This race to settlement, or ``reverse
auction,'' shortchanges legitimate victims, while allowing blameworthy
defendants to get off easy.
Mr. President, we can prevent abuses like this--and encourage
efficiency--simply by permitting more overlapping nationwide class
actions to be brought into Federal court, the only place where the
consolidation procedure is available. Once the cases are consolidated,
lead counsel will be appointed, making it impossible to shop around
low-priced settlements and to pit competing class lawyers against each
other. However, as long as these class actions can be kept in various
State courts, this bill won't succeed in bringing consolidation to the
complex cases that need it most.
That's one of the principal reasons why Senator Grassley and I
introduced the Class Action Fairness Act of 1999 (S. 353) earlier this
year. Our proposal, which among other provisions allows more nationwide
class actions to be removed to Federal court, would--in conjunction
with the bill we are introducing today--help eliminate the race to
settlement in most class actions, save court resources and promote
efficiency by placing related class actions before one court. A similar
measure has already passed the House, and we look forward to moving
this measure ahead in the Senate.
Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues today in offering our
proposal to return to Federal courts the authority they need to
consider multiple, overlapping cases in a fair, expeditious and just
manner. This is a necessary step in the direction of real reform, and I
hope it will build momentum for more comprehensive reform, like the
Grassley/Kohl Class Action Fairness Act.
______

By Mr. CRAPO:
S. 1749. A bill to require the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to
issue revised regulations relating to dietary supplement labeling, to
amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to provide that certain types of
advertisements for dietary supplements are proper, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

dietary supplement fairness in labeling and advertising act

<bullet> Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce the
Dietary Supplement Fairness in Labeling and Advertising Act. The
purpose of the legislation is to reaffirm Congress' intent in enacting
the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act (DSHEA). In enacting DSHEA,
Congress intended to insure that all Americans had access to factual
information about vitamins and other dietary supplements so that they
can make informed decisions about their health and well-being.
In recent years, the prevalence of scientific data demonstrating the
benefits of proper nutrition, education, and appropriate use of dietary
supplements to promote long-term health has increased tremendously.
Additionally, preventative practices, including the safe consumption of
dietary supplements, has been shown to significantly reduce the health-
care expenditures in this country. That is why I continue to support
research efforts that focus on preventative care. The role government
funding can have in achieving scientific and medical gains in crucial.
Past successes have frequently led to rapid technological advancements
in medicine, biotechnology, and other important areas that shape our
lives.
Over 100 million people use dietary supplements daily throughout the
United States. This bill that I am introducing would allow access by
the public to solid scientific research about the safe and proper use
of dietary supplements. It prevents the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) from promulgating rules that change the intent of congressional
regulations regarding structure and function claims and would amend the
Federal Trade Commission Act to provide that certain types of
advertisements for dietary supplements are proper.
DSHEA required the FDA to promulgate reasonable guidelines to
regulate the content of dietary supplements labels. The goal of this
requirement is to insure that the labels give consumers information
necessary for them to decide whether they want to take a particular
supplement, without making claims regarding medical or disease benefits
(which are reserved for FDA-approved drugs).
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) currently enforces a standard for
advertising that conflicts with the intent of DSHEA. The FTC does not
always allow the same information in advertising of dietary supplements
that is allowed in labeling of the same products. For instance, the FTC
has made it difficult to advertise the benefits of calcium, vitamin C,
and other common and heavily studied supplements.
The information that the FDA allows as part of the labeling of a
dietary supplement should also be allowed in advertising that same
supplement, yet the FTC is seeking to regulate the advertising of
dietary supplements by denying to consumers some of the very
information that DSHEA required the FDA to let them use. This forces
manufacturers to work under two sets of contradictory regulations and
undermines the intent of Congress.
Additionally, this bill would instruct the FDA to withdraw the notice
of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register of April 29,
1998, which attempts to regulate the types of statements made
concerning the effects of dietary supplements on the structure or
function of the body. The FDA is asserting responsibilities beyond
congressional intent. Specifically, it is

[[Page S12838]]

seeking to change the definition of ``disease'' by deeming improper any
claim that refers to the ``prevention or treatment of abnormal
functions.'' In these cases, the product would be subject to regulation
as a drug, rather than a dietary supplement. Furthermore, it was never
Congress' intent to disallow the use of citations from credible
scientific publications in providing accurate information in labeling
of dietary supplements. Numerous, common sense examples can be made to
demonstrate the irresponsible nature of this rule. Aging and pregnancy
would now be considered diseases under the policy.
In passing this legislation, my hope is to continue to open up
communication and provide access to fair and adequate reviews of all
claims. This bill prescribes a method by which the Commission must act
prior to filing a complaint that initiates any administrative or
judicial proceeding alleging noncompliance by an advertiser. Simply,
the FTC would be required to provide a full and fair opportunity for
advertisers to consult with the Commission's scientific experts.
Decisions about the use of dietary supplements should not be made by
bureaucrats. Instead, meetings with scientific experts would provide
for an open exchange of ideas and information, and ensure that
decisions are based on concrete, substantial scientific evidence. This
is good government practice, and during a time where our society has
become far too litigious, I support strengthening the review process,
prior to filing any claims or complaints.
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Dietary Supplement Fairness in
Labeling and Advertising Act. It would insure that all Americans have
access to factual information about vitamins and other dietary
supplements so they can make informed decisions about their health and
well-being, while continuing to provide adequate safeguards to protect
the public good.<bullet>
______

By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Kohl):
S. 1750. A bill to reduce the incidence of child abuse and neglect,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT

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

Our bill also would allow the use of funds from the $550 million
Byrne grant program for activities aimed at cracking down on and
preventing child abuse and neglect. Since 1986, Byrne grant dollars
have been used successfully to provide financial assistance to State
and local governments to coordinate government efforts to fight crime
and drug abuse. With our bill, State and local agencies could use Byrne
grant dollars to train child welfare investigators and child protection
workers. The funding also could help build and develop child advocacy
centers and hospitals for the abused. These are just a few of many
possible uses.
Mr. President, our bill would go even one step further to direct
resources to fight against child abuse. It would double the amount of
funds available to States and localities to assist the victims of
crimes against children. Currently, $10 million of the Federal Crime
Victims $383 million fund are earmarked for child abuse and domestic
assistance programs. This fund is financed not by taxpayer dollars, but
through criminal fines, penalties and forfeitures. While the fund has
grown since its beginning in 1984, the amount reserved for assistance
to victims of abuse has remained stagnant. Our bill would earmark $20
million to help public and nonprofit agencies provide necessary
services like rescue shelters, 24-hour abuse hotlines, and counseling
to victims of child abuse.
Mr. President, this is one piece of legislation that can and should
pass the Senate quickly. As I noted earlier, a similar bill was
overwhelmingly approved by the House by a vote of 425-2. More than 50
child protection organizations have endorsed this legislation,
including the National Child Abuse Coalition; the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children; Fight Crime: Invest in Kids; the Family
Research Council and the Christian Coalition; the American Professional
Society of the Abuse of Children; and Prevent Child Abuse America.
I urge my colleagues here in the Senate to demonstrate their
commitment to America's abused and neglected children by supporting
this legislation. Let's show some compassion and support our States and
local communities in the fight against child abuse.<bullet>
<bullet> Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the senior
Senator from Ohio in introducing the Child Abuse Prevention and
Enforcement Act. Our bipartisan legislation builds on the successful
passage into law of the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998,
which Senator DeWine and I sponsored in the last Congress. Our bill
also complements S. 249, the Missing, Exploited and Runaway Children
Protection Act, which Senator Hatch and I worked together to steer to
final passage just last month.
Unfortunately, the number of abused or neglected children in this
country nearly doubled between 1986 and 1993. Each day there are 9,000
reports of child abuse in America and more than three million cases
annually of abused or neglected children. In my home state of Vermont,
2,309 children were reported to child protective services for child
abuse or neglect investigations in 1997, the last year data is
available. After investigation, 1,041 of these reports found
substantiated cases of child maltreatment in Vermont.
Each child behind these statistics is an American tragedy.

[[Page S12839]]

But we can help. The Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act
provides these abused or neglected children with the Federal assistance
that they deserve. And our legislation can make a real difference in
the lives of our nation's children without any additional cost to
taxpayers.
Our bipartisan legislation will make a difference by giving State and
local officials the flexibility to use existing Department of Justice
grant programs to prevent child abuse and neglect, investigate child
abuse and neglect crimes and protect children who have suffered from
abuse and neglect. The bill does this by making three changes to
current law.
First, the Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act amends the
Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998 to make grant dollars
available specifically to enhance the capability of criminal history
information to agencies and workers for child welfare, child abuse and
adoption purposes. Congress has authorized $250 million annually for
grants under the Crime Identification Technology Act.
Second, the Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act amends the
Byrne Grant Program to permit funds to be used for enforcing child
abuse and neglect laws, including laws protecting against child sexual
abuse, and promoting programs designed to prevent child abuse and
neglect. Congress has traditionally funded the Byrne Grant Program at
about $500 million a year.
Third, the Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act doubles the
available funds, from $10 million to $20 million, for grants to each
State for child abuse treatment and prevention from the Crime Victims
Fund. This fund is financed through the collection of criminal fines,
penalties and other assessments against persons convicted of crimes
against the United States. In the 1998 fiscal year, the Crime Victims
Fund held $363 million. To ensure that other crime victim programs
support by the Fund are not reduced, the expansion of the child abuse
treatment and prevention earmark applies only when the Fund exceeds
$363 million in a fiscal year. This year, the Crime Victims Fund is
expected to collect more than $1 billion due in part to large anti-
trust penalties.
Despite the tireless efforts of concerned Vermonters, including the
many dedicated workers and volunteers at Prevent Child Abuse in Vermont
and the Vermont Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services,
Vermont is below the national average for its ability to provide
services to abused or neglected children. In 1997, 411 children found
to be abused or neglected received no services, about 40 percent of
investigated cases. Nationally, about 25 percent of all abused or
neglected children received no services. Our legislation provides more
resources to help Vermonters and other Americans provide services to
all abused or neglected children.
I thank the many advocates who support our bill and the companion
legislation introduced by Representatives Pryce and Stephanie Tubbs
Jones, H.R. 764, which passed the House of Representatives by a vote of
425-2 on October 5, 1999. These advocates include the diverse National
Child Abuse Coalition: ACTION for Child Protection; Alliance for
Children and Families; American Academy of Pediatrics; American Bar
Association; American Dental Association; American Professional Society
on the Abuse of Children; American Prosecutors Research Institute;
American Psychological Association; Association of Junior Leagues
International; Boy Scouts of America; Child Welfare League of America;
Childhelp USA; Children's Defense Fund; General Federation of Women's
Club; National Alliance of Children's Trust and Prevention Funds;
National Association of Child Advocates; National Association of
Counsel for Children; National Association of Social Workers; National
Children's Alliance; National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse;
National Council of Jewish Women; National Court Appointed Special
Advocates Association; National Education Association; National
Exchange Club Foundation for Prevention of Child Abuse; National
Network for Youth; National PTA; Parents Anonymous; and Parents United.
In addition, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and
Prevent Child Abuse America have endorsed our bill and its House
counterpart.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Child Abuse
Prevention and Enforcement Act for the sake of our nation's
children.<bullet>
______

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

citizens' right to know act of 1999

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, last week, the minority put the Senate in a
take-it-or-leave, it position with respect to campaign finance reform.
Using a parliamentary tactic that foreclosed other amendments from
being offered, and then objecting to requests to take up other
proposals, the proponents of S. 1593, the McCain-Feingold campaign
finance reform bill, got what they wanted--a vote on an unamended, and
therefore unimproved, version of their bill.
Mr. President, there are many of us who agree that we should make
changes in our campaign finance laws; but, we disagree that we should
compromise the First Amendment to do it.
Today, I am introducing the ``Citizens' Right to Know Act,'' a bill
that represents my thinking on campaign finance reform.
Many pundits and many colleagues here in Congress perceive that the
American people think that our government has become too fraught with
special interest influence, bought with special interest campaign
contributions. We have all heard voters voice their frustrations about
government. Given some of the games we play up here that affect
necessary legislation--such as the bankruptcy bill to name just one
example--this attitude is not surprising or unwarranted.
Yet, it may be a mistake to interpret these frustrations as
widespread cynicism about the influence of special interests rather
than about the government's inability to enact tax relief, inertia on
long-term Social Security and Medicare reforms, and the tug-of-war on
budget and appropriations.
Nevertheless, it goes without saying that maintaining the integrity
of our election system and citizens' confidence in it has to be among
our highest priorities. The question is: what is the right reform?
There are a number of flaws in the McCain-Feingold bill. The
principal one is that the McCain-Feingold attempts, unconstitutionally,
I believe, to gag political parties. What Senators McCain and Feingold
forgot is that political parties are organizational instruments for
promoting a political philosophy and ideas. To ban the ability of
parties to get their messages out to the people is an infringement on
free speech.

The proposal I am introducing today has two main goals: (1) to open
up our campaign finances to the light of day, thus allowing citizens to
make their own judgments about how much influence is too much; and (2)
to expand opportunities for individuals to participate financially in
elections, thus decreasing the reliance on special interest money in
campaigns.
The legislation I am introducing today, the ``Citizens' Right to Know
Act,'' would require all candidates and political committees to
disclose every contribution they receive and every expenditure they
make over $200 within 14 days on a publicly accessible website. This
means people will not have to wade through FEC bureaucracy to get this
information, and the information will be continuously updated.
People should be able to compare the source of contributions with
votes cast by the candidate. They can decide for themselves which
donations are rewards for faithfulness to a principle of representation
of constituents and which contributions might be a quid pro quo for
special favors.
Further, my proposal would encourage--not require--non-party
organizations to disclose expenditures in a constitutionally acceptable
manner the funds that they devote to political activity. Organizations
that chose to file voluntary reports with the FEC would make individual
donors to their PACs eligible for a tax deduction of up to $100.
This provision is designed to encourage voluntary disclosure of
expenditures of organizational soft money.

[[Page S12840]]

Those organizations that did so would be shedding light on campaign
finance not because they have to, but because it furthers the cause of
an informed democracy.
An article in the Investor's Business Daily quoted John Ferejohn of
Stanford University as writing that ``nothing strikes the student of
public opinion and democracy more forcefully than the paucity of
information most people possess about politics.''
The article goes on to suggest that ``But many reforms, far from
helping, would cut the flow of political information to an already ill-
informed public.'' Citing a study by Stephen Ansolabehere of MIT and
Shanto Iyengar of UCLA, which demonstrates that political advertising
``enlightens voters,'' the IBD concludes that ``well-informed voters
are the key to a well-functioning democracy.'' [Investor's Business
Daily; 9/20/99]

Morton Kondracke editorializes in the July 30, 1999, Washington
Times, ``Full disclosure would be valuable on its merits--letting
voters know exactly who is paying for what in election campaigns. Right
now, campaign money is going increasingly underground.''
This is precisely the issue my amendment addresses. My amendment,
rather than prohibit the American people from having certain
information produced by political parties, it would open up information
about campaign finance. Knowledge is power. My proposal is predicted on
giving the people more power.
Additionally, my legislation will raise the limits on individual
participation in elections. Special interest PACs sprung up as a
response to the limitations on individual participation in elections.
The contribution limit for individuals is $1000 and it has not been
adjusted since it was enacted in 1974.
Why are these limits problematic? The answer is that if a candidate
can raise $5000 in one phone call to a PAC, why make 5 phone calls
hoping to raise the same amount from individuals? My legislation
proposes to make individuals at least as important as PACs.
My bill also raises the 25-year-old limits on donations to parties
and PACs. It raises the current limits on what both individuals and
PACs can give to political parties. As the League of Women Voters has
correctly pointed out, the activities of political parties are already
regulated, whereas the political activities of other organizations are
not. If we are concerned about the influence of ``soft'' money--that
is, money in campaigns that is not regulated and not disclosed--and
cannot be regulated or subject to disclosure under our Constitution--
then we ought to encourage--not punish--greater political participation
through our party structures.
We need to put individuals back as equal players in the campaign
finance arena. Special interests--both PACs and soft money--have become
important in large part because current law limits are not only a
quarter century old, but are also higher for special interests than
individuals.
Some people have argued that raising the limits on donations to
political candidates and parties exacerbates the problem. Their concern
is that there is too much money in politics, not that there is too
little.
I will respond by saying that, first, all individual donations would
have to be disclosed. The philosophy of the ``Citizens' Right to Know
Act'' is that people have a right to make their own determinations
about whether a contribution is tainted or not.
Second, the higher contribution limits for hard money donations make
individual citizens more important relative to special interests in
campaign finance. If one goal of campaign finance reform is to reduce
the influence of special interests, then raising the limits on
individual contributions is a way to do it.
Third, most of the increases in the bill are merely an adjustment for
25 years of inflation. While the contribution limits have remained
unchanged, the costs of running a campaign have increased. The higher
levels reflect reality.
Most importantly, while money is an essential ingredient in a
campaign, and is necessary to get one's message to the voters, the real
influence in campaigns is the public. Even if wealthy John Smith gives
thousands of dollars to a party or candidate, the fact is that he only
gets one vote on election day. Candidates and parties have to persuade
people to their way of thinking. All the money in the world cannot
compensate for a dearth of principles or unpopular ideas.
The McCain-Feingold approach represents a constitutionally specious
barrier on free speech. It would, by law, prohibit political parties
from using soft money to communicate with voters. Prohibitions are
restrictions on freedom.
My bill, in contrast, does not prohibit anything. It does not
restrict the flow of information to citizens. On the contrary, my
proposal recognizes that citizens are the ultimate arbiters in
elections. They should have access to as much information as possible
about the candidates and the positions they represent.
Thus far, the information that is available to voters about campaign
finance has been difficult to obtain and untimely. My bill, by
empowering voters with this information, will put the role of special
interests where it rightfully belongs--in the eye of the beholder, not
the federal government.

____________________