[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9515-S9524]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

       By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Abraham, Mr. 
     Leahy, Mr. DeWine and Mr. Biden):
  S. 1184. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to waive 
nonimmigrant visa fees for aliens seeking to enter the United States to 
engage in certain charitable activities; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


                THE MOTHER TERESA FEE WAIVER ACT OF 1997

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I am proud today to introduce--along with 
my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Abraham, Leahy, and DeWine--the Mother 
Teresa fee waiver bill of 1997.

  While daily newscasts focus our attention on the scourge of senseless 
crime and deadly drugs in our country and around the world, Mother 
Teresa's death last week focused the world's attention on the simple 
good works that are all too often overlooked.
  As the flag of India was draped over Mother Teresa, an observer 
commented ``She now belongs to the State.'' I think it is more accurate 
to say that Mother Teresa has and will always belong to the world. In 
an era where the phrase ``global economy'' has become commonplace, 
Mother Teresa represented a ``global morality.'' Her good works, and 
those of so many other religious organizations around the world are 
not, and should not be, confined by national borders and boundaries.
  Shortly before her death, Mother Teresa personally sought a waiver of 
the fees charged to her missionaries seeking to enter this country on a 
temporary basis to help the poorest of the poor and the sickest of the 
sick in our own cities. Of course, she was absolutely right. We should 
give thanks to these kind and giving persons who travel to foreign 
lands for no other purpose than to give of themselves to help the 
neediest in those lands. Instead, we've been charging them. It is an 
absurd situation that needs to be remedied.
  I am, therefore, pleased today to stand with my colleagues in 
introducing a simple and straightforward bill that would waive the fees 
for persons coming here temporarily for the purpose of engaging in 
charitable activities to help the needy. This bill is but one small but 
fitting and timely tribute to Mother Teresa who stood under 5 feet but 
whose goodness and righteousness made her tower among us.
  I look forward to the Senate's swift action on this measure.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am pleased to join with Senator Hatch in sponsoring 
legislation requested by Mother Teresa to waive visa application fees 
for religious workers coming to the United States to perform charitable 
work for temporary periods.
  During her visits to the United States, Mother Teresa asked President 
Clinton to take this step to waive visa fees for her missionaries 
coming to work in this country. Her Missionaries of Charity come to 
America to help the poor in our communities and to minister to the sick 
and the elderly. Each time they travel here, they are required to pay a 
$120 visa fee to the U.S. Government.
  It makes no sense to require these religious workers to pay a fee to 
the Federal Government in order to come here to help our communities. 
The legislation we introduce today would waive the fee in these 
instances.
  This past weekend, while attending Mother Teresa's funeral in India, 
the First Lady met with Sister Nirmala, Mother Teresa's successor at 
the Missionaries of Charity Order in Calcutta. Sister Nirmala asked 
once again for a waiver of the visa fee and was delighted to learn that 
the U.S. Senate would be considering legislation this week to 
accomplish this goal as Mother Teresa had requested.
  This is an important step that Congress can take to honor the memory 
of Mother Theresa and the compassionate work that her order brings to 
America. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of 
legislation

[[Page S9516]]

authored by Senators Hatch and Kennedy to waive the visa fees for 
religious workers who enter to perform charitable functions.
  It is not in the U.S. interest to impose fees that inhibit or 
otherwise burden individuals who seek to help our communities. Mother 
Teresa spoke specifically of eliminating these fees for members of her 
mission coming to the United States to serve the poor, so as to make 
the money available for more good works. I applaud Senators Hatch and 
Kennedy for introducing this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 1185. A bill to provide employees with more access to information 
concerning their pension plans and with additional mechanisms to 
enforce their rights under such plans; to the Committee on Labor and 
Human Resources.


                         THE PENSION TOOLS ACT

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce 
the Pension Tools Act of 1997. Why pension tools? Because this 
legislation contains the components, or tools that will assist pension 
participants and retirees to understand the fundamentals of their 
pension plans, get them to think about their retirement for the long 
term, and when problems arise--help put in place a cost-effective 
conflicts resolution process.
  This legislation is very important to today's retirees and workers. 
In June, the Senate Aging Committee, which I chair, convened a hearing 
which highlighted the growing problem of pension mistakes. That's 
right, Mr. President. A pension mistake. The problem addressed at the 
hearing did not target intentional wrongdoing--but honest mistakes by 
employers which can lead to a cut in a monthly pension payment or a 
lump-sum payment a worker takes when leaving a job.
  It's impossible to determine how big the problem is, but it is a 
growing concern. To try to document how big the problem could be, I 
asked the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation [PBGC] to provide me 
with data about a program they administer called the standard 
termination audit program. The program audits a sample of plans which 
have terminated--these are not plans which have gone bankrupt. The PBGC 
released a letter to my committee which showed that certain pension 
payouts have errors in the range of 8 percent. That number has 
increased since the program started back in 1986 when it was 2 percent. 
Many of these errors involve substantial sums of money. In fact, one in 
three people who were shortchanged, were shortchanged by at least 
$1,000.
  Other pension experts and advocates would put the number of mistakes 
at a higher rate--in the range of 15 to 20 percent. But we just can't 
say what the number is because none of the agencies who regulate 
pensions audit whether or not the pensions and lump-sum payments that 
are made to the majority of workers and retirees are usually accurate. 
Most employers are doing their best to pay the right amount but 
mistakes do happen. The problem is that people are not aware that they 
really need to verify that their pension payouts are the right amount.
  The hearing called attention to that very problem. Too many workers 
lack a full understanding of how their pension works and how much their 
benefit will be until just before retirement.
  It is my hope that this legislation will be a vital part of our 
effort to educate people about the need to prepare for retirement. One 
of the components of good retirement preparation is tracking your 
employer-provided pension and knowing your pension rights.
  Specifically, this legislation will give employees the opportunity to 
have benefit statements sent to them on a regular basis. In addition, 
the legislation clarifies that pension plan participants and 
beneficiaries should have access to plan documents which show how their 
pension benefit was calculated. That way, they can check the math and 
verify that their benefit is correct.
  My bill will also address two other problems raised at the hearing. 
First, one problem faced by pension participants and beneficiaries is 
that employers are slow to respond to their requests for information. 
To address that problem, we will authorize the Secretary of Labor to 
assess a fine if an employer fails or refuses to provide information in 
a timely manner. The other problem that this bill will address is to 
clarify that a person who has been cashed out of a plan can still get 
information from the plan administrator if a problem arises after the 
person separates from employment.
  Senator Breaux and I are also including a directive to the Secretary 
of Labor to draft model procedures for alternative dispute resolution. 
The enforcement option open to pension participants now--a lawsuit--is 
simply too costly for many people who are living on a fixed income.
  Part of the problem we see is that pensions are very complex. It is 
hard for employers to administer pensions even with the expert advice 
of paid pension consultants. I am continuing to seek ways to alleviate 
some of the pressure on employers. We have already taken the first step 
of asking the General Accounting Office to review the changes in the 
law since the passage of GATT--this had an impact on interest rates--
one of the areas where we see the most problems in pension errors. We 
are also looking into the usefulness of mandating that employers 
provide a summary annual report of the pension plan to participants 
every year. These summary reports are not user-friendly and do not 
provide the participants with information in an accessible way. Benefit 
statements and the use of education and outreach may provide a 
substitute for the annual mailing of summary annual reports to pension 
participants.
  I am also submitting for the Record two letters of support for the 
legislation. The first letter is from the Pension Rights Center here in 
Washington, DC. The center has a long history as an effective advocate 
for participant rights. The second letter was submitted by the American 
Society of Pension Actuaries. This group strongly supports the idea of 
automatic benefit statements and we will certainly work with them to 
clarify language in the legislation.
  While great strides have been made since the act went into effect, 
participants and beneficiaries still lack access to basic but vital 
information and tools to enforce their rights. Having a pension can 
make all the difference to people once they retire. The Pension Tools 
Act strikes the right balance to get people useful information about 
their pensions and help them enforce basic rights to that information. 
I urge my colleagues to support the efforts of Senator Breaux and 
myself to ensure that retirees and workers get every penny they have 
earned when the time comes to retire.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                               American Society of


                                            Pension Actuaries,

                                Arlington, VA, September 16, 1997.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Grassley: The American Society of Pension 
     Actuaries appreciates your efforts to ensure that plan 
     participants and beneficiaries have sufficient information 
     about their plan benefits. ASPA believes that better informed 
     participants will become more active participants. 
     Particularly, ASPA strongly supports your proposals to 
     provide for participant benefit statements and benefit 
     calculations. This invaluable information will allow plan 
     participants to more accurately plan for retirement.
       We agree conceptually with the other proposals outlined in 
     the ``Summary of Pension Tools Act of 1997,'' which was 
     provided to us by your staff. However, we are unable to more 
     fully endorse the entire bill until we have had an 
     opportunity to review the detailed legislative language. 
     Further, we would like to alert you about two general 
     concerns we have pertaining to two of the proposals outlined.
       First, one of the proposals would treat participants who 
     have been ``cashed out'' of the plan as ``active'' 
     participants for purposes of obtaining information about the 
     plan as allowed under the Employee Retirement Income Security 
     Act. Although we appreciate the general objective underlying 
     this proposal, we are concerned if the proposal would allow, 
     for instance, a former participant to request a benefit 
     calculation after ten years. Such a request would be a 
     tremendous hardship on the plan sponsor or plan administrator 
     since in most cases such records are not retained for a long 
     period of time. We would suggest giving participants a fixed 
     period of time--such as 18 months after they have received 
     their benefits--to request this information.

[[Page S9517]]

       Second, another proposal would require the Secretary of 
     Labor to develop model alternative dispute resolution 
     procedures. We agree that such procedures can often be a more 
     efficient means for resolving disputes, and we also agree 
     with your conclusion to give plans the option of choosing to 
     adopt such procedures. The summary further indicates that the 
     Secretary of Labor would formulate a list of neutral experts 
     to serve as mediators. We are concerned that such a list 
     would become politicized. Consequently, we would suggest as 
     an alternative that the Secretary of Labor be tasked with 
     simply maintaining the list and that any pension professional 
     meeting objective qualification requirements be permitted to 
     be listed.
       We hope these comments are helpful and we look forward to 
     working with you and your staff toward passage of this 
     legislation.
           Respectfully,
                                             Brian H. Graff, Esq.,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____



                                        Pension Rights Center,

                               Washington, DC, September 11, 1997.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Chairman, Special Committee on Aging, Senate Dirksen Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley: I am writing to express the Pension 
     Rights Center's strong support for the Pension Tools Act of 
     1997. Your proposed legislation will help assure that 
     employees will receive accurate and timely information about 
     their future pension benefits. It will also give retirees the 
     opportunity to check the accuracy of plan calculations, and 
     develop an inexpensive forum where they can challenge 
     improper benefit denials.
           Sincerely your,
                                                Karen W. Ferguson,
                                                         Director.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. 
        Wellstone):
  S. 1186. A bill to provide for education and training, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                the workforce investment partnership act

  Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, as a member of the Senate Labor and 
Human Resources Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Employment and Training, I have spent the last few years examining our 
Federal job training programs. During this examination, it has become 
clear to me as well as many others, that these programs are in dire 
need of reform. The status quo is just plain unacceptable.
  What we are faced with today is a fragmented and duplicative maze of 
narrowly focused programs administered by numerous Federal agencies 
that lack coordination, a coherent strategy to provide training 
assistance, and the confidence of the two key consumers who utilize 
these services--those seeking the training, and those businesses 
seeking to hire them. Despite spending billions of tax dollars each 
year on job training programs, most Federal agencies do not know how 
their programs work and if their programs are really helping people 
find jobs.
  Here is what we do know. Today's job training system is no system at 
all--it is a complex patchwork of numerous rules, regulations, 
requirements, and overlapping bureaucratic responsibilities. As a 
result, programs are largely ineffective. Frustration and confusion is 
widespread throughout the system--by program administrators and 
employers, and most important, by those seeking assistance. People have 
difficulty knowing where to begin to look for training assistance 
because there are no clear points of entry and no clear paths from one 
program to another.
  This is frustration at the breaking point.
  Frustration to the point that business community participation, which 
is absolutely necessary for success, is waning.
  Frustration to the point that community activists, again whose 
participation is absolutely necessary for success, are becoming 
disenchanted.
  Frustration to the point that we have begun to question our 
commitment to job training.
  Fragmentation, duplication, ineffectiveness, and frustration--these 
are the words that describe the current Federal job training apparatus. 
That is the status quo. That is unacceptable. That is largely why 
reform is needed now.
  There are other important reasons why reform is necessary. The 
economic future of our country depends on a well-trained work force. I 
have heard from employers at every level who find it increasingly 
difficult to attract and find qualified employees for high-skilled, 
high-paying jobs as well as qualified entry level employees. If we are 
going to remain economically competitive, we must address this growing 
shortage of workers.
  Reform also is needed if the welfare reform bill Congress passed last 
year is going to have any chance of succeeding. We need to provide 
States with the tools necessary to develop a comprehensive system to 
assist people make work, not welfare, their way of life.
  To achieve all of these goals, job training is the key.
  The bill that I introduce today with Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, and 
Wellstone represents a bipartisan belief that we can do better and we 
can achieve these goals. We can replace the current system of 
frustration and provide a framework for success.
  By removing or reforming outdated rules and regulations, we can 
remove the barriers that have stymied reform in the past. We can 
empower States to boldly move forward, transforming the current 
patchwork of programs into a comprehensive system to make it easier for 
all consumers seeking assistance to receive assistance.
  Just like we did with welfare reform, job training reform is about 
recognizing the leadership of States that have shown innovation and 
initiative over the last few years, even in the midst of numerous 
Federal barriers and obstacles. It is about allowing them and 
encouraging them to continue with the innovations they have implemented 
without Federal reform legislation.
  We can establish a framework for a system that provides consumer 
choice. Individuals seeking assistance should have a say in where, how, 
and what training they will receive. At the same time, the Federal 
bureaucracy should not engage in micro-management by mandating vouchers 
or any other specific local delivery system. This is a decision that 
belongs to the States and localities. This bill takes the opposite 
approach--it provides States and localities the flexibility to develop 
training programs that meet the real needs of those seeking training. 
It is to the consumer that these programs should be tailored to, not 
Washington.
  We can establish an accountable system. Training programs must 
demonstrate their effectiveness to be certified as eligible programs. 
This means proving that training leads to meaningful, unsubsidized 
employment--showing how many people were placed, at what cost, and how 
many people remained employed 6 months to a year later. We owe this to 
the individuals seeking assistance and to the American taxpayers who 
pays for these programs.
  We can establish a framework that not only allows for business 
community involvement, but business community leadership. The private 
sector must outline their employment needs and assist in the design of 
training programs.
  The Workforce Investment Partnership Act incorporates all of these 
principles. The programs incorporated in the legislation include job 
training, vocational education, and adult education. Additionally, it 
provides strong, mandatory linkages to welfare to work, Wagner-Peyser, 
Job Corps, Older Americans, Vocational Rehabilitation, the Bureau of 
Apprenticeship and Training, veterans, Trade Adjustment Assistance, as 
well as other training related programs.
  While separate funding streams will be maintained for each of the 
activities, in recognition of their function, States and localities 
will be empowered with the tools and the flexibility to implement real 
reform in order to provide comprehensive services to those seeking 
assistance.
  Under this bill, States will have the ability to submit a unified 
plan for all of the programs incorporated in and linked to this 
legislation to the appropriate Secretary describing how they will 
coordinate services in order to avoid duplication.
  Statewide and local partnerships, led by the business community, will 
be established to assist in the development of such a plan, set policy 
for training, and generally advise the appropriate elected official 
overseeing the system.
  At the local level, all services provided must be accessible through 
a one stop customer service system. Consumers, both employers and job 
seekers seeking assistance, will be able to receive comprehensive 
information regarding the availability, eligibility,

[[Page S9518]]

and quality of the programs. With this kind of system, we can remove 
the confusion and frustration inherent in the current programs.
  Finally, training will be delivered under a framework of an 
individual training account which will be used to ensure the principle 
of consumer choice. The specific nature of the individuals training 
account will be determined by States and localities.
  In conclusion, I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators 
Jeffords, Kennedy, and Wellstone, as well as the other members of the 
Subcommittee of Employment and Training for their cooperation and 
dedication in developing a piece of legislation that moves us forward. 
This has been a bipartisan effort from Day One. I believe that level of 
cooperation and leadership is essential if we are to have a chance to 
pass real reform.
  There have been a number of orgnizations--both public and private--
who have participated in an open and constructive process used to 
develop this legislation. Their input has been vital.
  Again, the Workforce Investment Partnership Act is designed to 
address and reform the Federal Government's role in providing job 
training assistance to Americans. For too long, that role has been to 
foster confusion, frustration and complication. With this bill, we 
offer a new foundation, and a positive framework for success. Instead 
of rules that tie the hands of States and localities, this bill 
provides the tools to empower them to develop comprehensive work force 
investment systems that address the needs of job seekers and employers. 
This bill is a road map to a better system, and if we are to achieve 
the goals we have set--a stronger economy, a better-trained work force, 
and welfare reform--we need to begin that journey today.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, an educated work force has become the 
most valuable resource in the modern economy. Our Nation's long term 
economic vitality depends on the creation of an effective, accessible, 
and accountable system of job training and career development which is 
open to all our citizens. Schools must assume more responsibility for 
preparing their students to meet the challenges of the 21st century 
workplace. Disadvantaged adults and out of school youth need the 
opportunity to develop job skills which will make them productive 
members of the community. Dislocated workers who have been displaced by 
the rapid pace of technological change deserve the chance to pursue new 
careers. The way in which we respond to these challenges today will 
determine how prosperous a nation we are in the next century.
  The importance of highly developed employment skills has never been 
greater. The gap in earnings between skilled and unskilled workers is 
steadily widening. For those who enter the work force with good 
academic training and well developed career skills, this new economy 
offers almost unlimited potential. However, for those who lack basic 
proficiency in language, math and science and who have no career 
skills, the new economy presents an increasingly hostile environment.
  The Workforce Investment Partnership Act which I am introducing with 
Senators Jeffords, DeWine, and Wellstone will provide employment 
training opportunities for millions of Americans. It responds to the 
challenge of the changing workplace by enabling men and women to both 
acquire the skills necessary to enter the work force and upgrade their 
skills throughout their careers. It will provide access to the 
educational tools that will enable them not only to keep up, but to get 
ahead.
  The legislation which we will be introducing represents a true 
collaboration of our four offices. I want to publicly commend Senators 
Jeffords and DeWine for the genuine spirit of bipartisanship which has 
made this collaborative effort possible. Senator Wellstone and I 
appreciate it. Over the last 6 months, each of us has devoted an 
enormous amount of time and effort to fashioning a legislative 
consensus which will truly expand career options, encourage greater 
program innovation, and facilitate cooperative efforts amongst 
business, labor, education, and State and local government. While each 
of us can cite provisions in this bill which we would like to change, 
we all believe that the Workforce Investment Partnership Act will 
accomplish our principal goals.
  I also want to recognize the important role President Clinton has 
played in bringing about this dramatic reform of our current job 
training system. He has consistently emphasized the need for greater 
individual choice in the selection of career paths and training 
providers. The philosophy behind the skill grant proposal is reflected 
in our legislation.
  The Workforce Investment Partnership Act is designed to provide easy 
access to state of the art employment training programs which are 
geared to real job opportunities in the community. The cornerstones of 
this new system are individual choice and quality labor market 
information. In the past, men and women seeking new careers often did 
not know what job skills were most in demand and which training 
programs had the best performance record. All to often, they were 
forced to make one of the most important decisions in their lives based 
on anecdotes and late-night advertisements.
  No training system can function effectively without accurate and 
timely information. The frequent unavailability of quality labor market 
information is one of the most serious flaws in the current system. In 
order to make sound career choices, prospective trainees need both 
detailed information on local career opportunities and performance 
based information on training providers. That information will now be 
available at easily accessible one stop employment centers, along with 
career counseling and other employment services. The legislation places 
a strong emphasis on providing information about what area industries 
are growing, what skills those jobs require, and what earning potential 
they have. Extensive business community participation is encouraged in 
developing this information. Once a career choice is made, the 
individual must still select a training provider. At present, many 
applicants make that choice with a little or no reliable information. 
Under our bill, each training provider will have to publicly report 
graduation rates, job placement and retention rates, and average 
earnings of graduates.
  Because of the extensive information which will be available to each 
applicant, real consumer choice in the selection of a career and of a 
training provider will be possible. The legislation establishes 
individual training accounts for eligible participants, which they can 
use to access career education and skill training programs. Men and 
women seeking training assistance will no longer be limited to a few 
predetermined options. As long as there are real job opportunities in 
the field selected and the training provider meets established 
performance standards, the individual will be free to choose which 
option best suits his or her needs.
  This legislation will organize the delivery of services more 
effectively and utilize resources more creatively. There will be a 
significant consolidation of the dozens of narrowly focused programs 
which currently exist into several broad funding streams for the 
distinct populations needing assistance. Consolidation makes sense in 
those areas in which multiple programs are currently serving the same 
population. However, it is equally important to preserve separate 
streams of funding for distinct populations. The programmatic needs of 
middle age dislocated workers with extensive employment histories are 
quite different from the services required by young adults with limited 
skills and no work histories. Similarly the problems faced by out of 
school youth require very different solutions than those confronting 
the adult population. Ensuring that services which are designed to meet 
the needs of each of these populations are available is a Federal 
responsibility. For that reason, this legislation maintains distinct 
programs with separate appropriations for dislocated workers, 
disadvantaged adults, and at risk youth.
  The WIPA gives State and local government significantly enhanced 
discretion in designing their training systems. If this reform is to be 
truly responsive to those at the community level who are in need of 
services, it is essential that the authority which the Federal 
Government delegates to the States be exercised through a broad

[[Page S9519]]

based decisionmaking process. Governors, State legislatures, mayors, 
and other county and local officials should all have a meaningful voice 
in the design of a State's new job training system and they will under 
this legislation. Local boards of business, labor, education and 
community leaders are--in my opinion--essential to insuring that 
programs meet the real world needs of participants, and that the 
training programs correspond to labor market demands. The success we 
have had a Massachusetts has been due to large measure to active 
participation by local business leaders on the regional employment 
boards. WIPA strengthens the role of such boards, giving them major new 
policy making responsibilities. These boards will play the primary role 
in assuring that training programs address the actual employment needs 
of area businesses.
  An essential element of the new system we have designed in 
accountability. As I noted earlier, each training provider will have to 
monitor and report the job placement and retention achieved by its 
graduates and their average earnings. Only those training programs that 
meet an acceptable performance standard will remain eligible for 
receipt of public funds. The same principle of accountability is 
applied to those agencies administering State and local programs. They 
are being given wide latitude to innovate under this legislation. But 
they too will be held accountable if they programs fail to meet 
challenging performance targets.
  There is no challenge facing America today which is tougher or more 
important than providing at risk, often out of school, youth with 
meaningful education and employment opportunities. Far too many of our 
teenagers are being left behind without the skills needed to survive in 
the 21st century economy. I am particularly proud of the commitment 
which the Workforce Investment Partnership Act makes to these young men 
and women. This legislation authorizes a new initiative focused on 
teenagers living in the most impoverished communities in America. These 
areas range from the poorest neighborhoods of our largest cities to 
impoverished rural counties. Each year, the Secretary of Labor will 
award grants from a $250 million fund to innovative programs designed 
to provide opportunities to youth living in these areas. The programs 
will emphasize mentoring, strong links between academic and worksite 
learning, and job placement and retention. It will encourage broad 
based community participation from local service agencies and area 
employers. These model programs will, we believe, identify the 
techniques which are most effective in reaching those youth at greatest 
risk.
  The Workforce Investment Partnership Act includes titles 
reauthorizing major vocational education and adult literacy programs. 
Both programs will continue to be separately funded and independently 
administered. We have incorporated them in the Workplace Act because 
they must be integral components of any comprehensive strategy to 
prepare to meet the demands of the 21st century workplace. Students who 
participate in vocational education must be provided with broad based 
career preparation courses which meet both high academic standards and 
teach state of the art technological skills. Adult literacy programs 
are essential for the 27 percent of the adult population who have not 
earned a high school diploma or its equivalent. Learning to read and 
communicate effectively are the first steps to career advancement. In 
vocational education and adult literacy, we are placing the same 
emphasis on program accountability which we did in job training.

  The Workforce Investment Partnership Act we are introducing today 
will make it possible for millions of Americans to gain the skills 
needed to compete in a global economy. In doing so, we are also 
enabling them to realize their personal American dreams.
  In closing, I want to recognize the important contribution which 
Stephen Springer, a key member of my staff during the 104th Congress, 
played in the evolution of job training reform. Tragically, he died at 
a young age after a courageous battle with cancer. He believed that the 
type of innovative work force development system which this legislation 
would create had the potential to open doors of opportunity for 
millions of Americans. His commitment was extraordinary. He continued 
to work on this issue even as his health was failing. He is no longer 
with us, but he continues to inspire us. Stephen Springer's creative 
vision of a work force development system equal to the challenges of 
the 21st century economy is reflected in the Workforce Investment 
Partnership Act. When enacted, it will be a wonderful legacy for this 
extraordinary individual.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, 
Senators DeWine, Jeffords, and Kennedy, in introducing the Workforce 
Investment Partnership Act of 1997. This bipartisan bill is a major 
accomplishment for Americans who need Federal assistance to acquire 
skills to qualify for good jobs.
  The bill also is a major accomplishment for my colleague from Ohio, 
Senator DeWine, Chairman of the Labor Committee's Employment and 
Training Subcommitee, whom I commend for bringing us to this point 
through numerous valuable hearings and a rigorous, cooperative drafting 
process. A number of Minnesotans testified at our hearings. Groups from 
Minnesota and from around the country have been consulted and listened 
to. I thank both Senator DeWine and Senator Jeffords for the openness 
of the process. As always, I would also like to acknowledge the 
leadership of Senator Kennedy. His deep experience and commitment have 
helped make this an excellent bill.
  As leaders for our respective parties on the Subcommittee and on the 
full Labor Committee, the four of us may not always agree on issues 
facing America's working families. But we agree on this bill. It will 
fundamentally improve our Federal system of job training, adult and 
vocational education, and vocational rehabilitation programs.
  The bill will help coordinate, streamline and decentralize our 
Federal job training system. It will make that system more accountable 
to real performance measures. It gives private sector employers--the 
people who have jobs to offer and who need workers with the right 
skills--a greater role in directing policy at the State and local 
level, which is where most decision-making power resides in this bill. 
And it moves the whole country to where Minnesota has already moved 
decisively: to a system of one-stop service centers where people can 
get all the information they need in one location. At these one stops, 
people then will have the ability to make their own choices, based on 
the best information, about which profession they want and ought to 
pursue, about the skills and training they'll need, and about the best 
place to get those skills and that training. I have visited one-stop 
centers in Minnesota. They work.
  In addition, and this is very important, our bill achieves the things 
I have mentioned above without neglecting the need to target resources 
from the Federal level to those who need them most: to disadvantaged 
adults and youth, and to dislocated workers.
  That is crucial. This bill does not overreach. It does not block-
grant all Federal job training, adult education and vocational 
education progams to governors. It retains crucial federal priorities, 
then allows State and local authorities to decide how best to address 
their needs. That is why I believe this Congress will succeed where we 
did not during the last Congress. We'll pass this bill, reach an 
acceptable conference agreement with the House, and send major, 
important legislation to the President for his signature.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Hollings and Mr. Thurmond):
  S. 1187. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on ferroboron; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                      DUTY SUSPENSION LEGISLATION

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
with Senators Hollings and Thurmond to temporarily suspend the rate of 
duty imposed on imported ferroboron. Ferroboron is the key raw material 
in amorphous metal electrical power distribution transformer cores. 
Transformers using these cores reduce energy losses and greenhouse gas 
emissions associated with these losses by 60 to 80 percent when 
compared to other transformer core technologies. This provides both 
increased energy conservation and decreases environmental

[[Page S9520]]

degradation in those developing nations where the most promising market 
opportunities exist.
  While these benefits are tangible and significant, they, and the 
extensive research and development that yielded them, are costly. An 
amorphous metal transformer has an initial cost 20 to 30 percent higher 
than the less energy efficient and environmentally friendly 
transformers it seeks to replace. Fortunately, because of its many 
benefits, the total owning cost of an amorphous metal transformer over 
its 20- to 30-year life is far lower than the initially cheaper 
competition. Reducing the cost of an important and costly raw material, 
by suspending the duty paid on it, helps to ensure the cost-
competitiveness of the end product in the export markets. This is good 
for manufacturers, for American workers, and for our economy.
  Mr. President, I have received assurances from my constituent, 
AlliedSignal, Inc., that there is no U.S. manufacturer of ferroboron, 
thus, this legislation does not adversely affect any American business.
  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. 1187

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

     SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by 
     inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

``9902.72.0  Ferroboron           Free    No        No        On or     
 2.           (provided for in             change    change    before 12/
              subheading                                       31/      
              7202.99.50.                                      2000''.  
                                                                        

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
     warehouse for consumption, on or after the date that is 15 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 1188. A bill to amend chapters 83 and 85 of title 28, United 
States Code, relating to the jurisdiction of the District Court for the 
District of Columbia, and the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


          THE COURT CONSISTENCY IN COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1997

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Court 
Consistency in Communications Act of 1997. The purpose of this bill is 
to bring consistency to the judicial interpretation of some of the 
central provisions of the Telecommunications Act, to make sure that an 
appellate court with broad and deep understanding of these issues can 
bring its expertise to bear on them, and to resolve related litigation 
as quickly as possible. In many other areas, such as bankruptcy and 
labor, strong precedent exists for consolidation of cases to bring 
about more efficient and informed judgments.
  This measure is simple, effective and straightforward. It 
consolidates in the District of Columbia Federal courts all appeals of 
FCC decisions under title II of the Communications Act of 1934 and 
State commission decisions under section 252 of the Telecommunications 
Act of 1996. Let me tell you why this legislation is crucially needed.
  The telecommunications industry accounts for about one-sixth of our 
national economy. And almost 2 years ago we passed legislation designed 
to unleash competition in the industry. It was signed into law with 
great fanfare. As President Clinton said, ``Today with the stroke of 
[my] pen, competition and innovation can move as quick as light.'' But 
we are still waiting for lower rates, better service, and greater 
innovation that was promised when the Telecom Act was signed.
  The sad truth is that the promise of the Telecom Act has gotten 
bogged down in litigation. Lawyers are arguing about the meaning of its 
provisions in courts all across the country. Indeed, today a major 
challenge to the FCC's jurisdiction over long distance service is being 
filed in the Eighth Circuit. In my opinion, even under current law this 
case should have been filed in the District of Columbia.
  We don't, of course, want to take away people's ability to redress 
grievances through the courts. The right to sue is, for better or 
worse, almost sacred to American culture. But while some people may 
choose to wait for a resolution to emerge from the 93 different Federal 
district courts and 12 distinct Federal circuits, to my mind the better 
way to bring competition to telecommunications markets is to have some 
judicial certainty about the rules of the game--and to have it sooner, 
rather than later. This bill should create the necessary framework for 
predictability in the courts, so that companies can shift their rivalry 
from the courtroom to the marketplace.
  This proposal is not a panacea, but it does move us in the right 
direction. By streamlining the appellate process, the Court Consistency 
in Communications Act will speed the arrival of local and long distance 
telephone competition. It will help consumers--the people who pay the 
bills, who deserve more choice and who wonder why their rates aren't 
going down.
  Mr. President, this judicial reform bill does not alter the substance 
of the Telecommunications Act in any way--that is clearly in the 
jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. Nor does it affect pending 
cases. Finally, to those who have expressed concerns about the measure, 
let me remind them that this is not a final product, but a work in 
progress; in other words, we want to work with you.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure, because all of us have 
an interest in reducing litigation and encouraging competition.
  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. 1188

       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 ``Court Consistency in 
     Communications Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT 
                   OF COLUMBIA AND THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 
                   DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

       (a) Jurisdiction of Review by District Court for the 
     District of Columbia.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 85 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1369. District Court for the District of Columbia; 
       review of certain communications determinations

       ``The United States District Court for the District of 
     Columbia shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review a 
     determination as provided under section 252(j)(2) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 252(j)(2)).''.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 85 of title 28, United States code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``1369. District Court for the District of Columbia; review of certain 
              communications determinations.''.

       (b) Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for the District 
     of Columbia Circuit.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 83 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1297. Jurisdiction of the United States Court of 
       Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

       ``The United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
     Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction of an 
     appeal as provided under sections 252(j)(2) and 402(b) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 252(j)(2) and 
     402(b)).''.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 83 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``1297. Jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the 
              District of Columbia Circuit.''.

       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) In general.--The Communications Act of 1934 is 
     amended--
       (A) in section 252 (47 U.S.C. 252)--
       (i) in subsection (e)(6), by striking the second sentence;
       (ii) by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (k); and
       (iii) by inserting after subsection (i) the following new 
     subsection (j):
       ``(j) Judicial Review of State Commission Actions.--
       ``(1) Review.--In any case in which a State commission 
     makes a determination under this section, any party aggrieved 
     by the determination shall bring an action for the review of 
     the determination, if at all, in the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia.
       ``(2) Appeal.--Any appeal of a decision of the court under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be brought in the United States Court 
     of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.''; and
       (B) in section 402(b) (47 U.S.C. 402(b)), by adding at the 
     end the following:

[[Page S9521]]

       ``(10) By any person challenging any other decision or 
     order of the Commission under title II.''.
       ``(2) Applicability.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply to determinations of the Federal Communications 
     Commission under title II of the Communications Act of 1934 
     and to determinations by State commissions (as that term is 
     defined in section 3(41) of that Act (47 U.S.C. 153(41)) 
     under section 252 of that Act on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 1189. A bill to increase the criminal penalties for assaulting or 
threatening Federal judges, their family members, and other public 
servants, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


              the federal judiciary protection act of 1997

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, former Secretary of State, John 
Foster Dulles once stated that ``Of all the tasks of government, the 
most basic is to protect its citizens against violence.'' While this 
has been one of our biggest challenges, Congress has the ability to 
also strengthen those laws that deter violence and provide protection 
to those whose careers are dedicated to protecting our families and 
also our communities.
  With that intent, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Hatch, to 
introduce the Federal Judiciary Protection Act, a bill to provide 
greater protection to Federal law enforcement officials and their 
families. Under current law, a person who assaults, attempts to 
assault, or who threatens to kidnap or murder a member of the immediate 
family of a U.S. official, a U.S. judge, or a Federal law enforcement 
official, is subject to a punishment of a fine or imprisonment of up to 
5 years, or both. This legislation seeks to expand these penalties in 
instances of assault with a weapon and a prior criminal history. In 
such cases, an individual could face up to 20 years in prison.
  This legislation would also strengthen the penalties for individuals 
who communicate threats through the mail. Currently, individuals who 
knowingly use the U.S. Postal Service to deliver any communication 
containing any threat are subject to a fine of up to $1,000 or 
imprisonment of up to 5 years. Under this legislation, anyone who 
communicates a threat could face imprisonment of up to 10 years.
  Briefly, I would like to share an example illustrating the need for 
this legislation. In my State of Oregon, Chief Judge Michael Hogan and 
his family were subjected to frightening, threatening phone calls, 
letters, and messages from an individual who had been convicted of 
previous crimes in Judge Hogan's courtroom. For months, he and his 
family lived with the fear that these threats to the lives of his wife 
and children could become reality, and, equally disturbing, that the 
individual could be back out on the street again in a matter of a few 
months, or a few years.
  Judge Hogan and his family are not alone. In April of this year, the 
wife of a circuit court judge in Florida was stalked by an individual 
who had been convicted of similar offenses in 1994 and 1995. Mrs. Linda 
Cope, the wife of Circuit Judge Charles Cope was leaving a shopping 
mall one afternoon and as pursued by a man named Stelios Kostakis. As 
she left the parking lot, she realized that she was being followed and 
attempted to lose Kostakis by taking alternative routes and speeding 
through residential streets. In a desperate attempt, Mrs. Cope cut in 
front of a semitrailer truck, risking a serious accident and possible 
loss of life, to escape. Even after this third offense, stalking the 
wife of a circuit court judge, he was sentenced to only 6 months on 
probation and $150 in fines and other court costs.
  In September 1996, Lawrence County Judge Dominick Motto was stalked, 
harassed, and subjected to terrorist threats by Milton C. Reiguert, who 
was upset by a verdict in a case that Judge Motto had heard in his 
courtroom. After hearing the verdict, Reiguert stated his intention to 
``point a rifle at his head and get what he wanted.''
  Mr. President, these are only a few examples of vicious acts focused 
at our Federal law enforcement officials. As a member of the 
legislative branch, I believe it is our responsibility to provide 
adequate protection to all Americans who serve to protect the life and 
liberty of every citizen in this Nation. I encourage my colleagues to 
join us in sponsoring this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD:
  S. 1190. A bill to reform the financing of Federal elections; to the 
Committee on Rules and Administration.


               the campaign finance integrity act of 1997

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, campaign finance reform is the catch 
phrase of the year in politics. The problem is that every Senator has a 
different definition of reform, including myself. That is why today I 
am introducing the Campaign Finance Integrity Act. I want to ensure 
that we change the campaign finance system without being 
unconstitutional and that flies in the face of the first amendment, 
especially in light of the fact that today is the 210th anniversary of 
the signing of the Constitution.
  Some in Congress have stated that freedom of speech and the desire 
for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy are in direct conflict and 
that you can't have both. But fortunately for those of us who believe 
in the first amendment rights of all American citizens, the Founding 
Fathers and the Supreme Court are on our side.
  Thomas Jefferson repeatedly stated the importance of the first 
amendment and how it allows the people and the press the right to speak 
their minds freely. Jefferson clearly stated its importance back in 
1798 with, ``One of the amendments to the Constitution * * * expressly 
declares that `Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment 
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the 
freedom of speech or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same 
sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, speech, and 
of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the 
sanctuary which covers the others.'' Again in 1808, he stated that 
``The liberty of speaking and writing guards our other liberties.'' And 
in 1823, Jefferson stated, ``The force of public opinion cannot be 
resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it 
produces must be submitted to.'' Jefferson knew and believed that if we 
begin restricting what people say, how they say it, and how much they 
can say, then we deny the first and fundamental freedom given to all 
citizens.
  The Supreme Court has also been very clear in its rulings concerning 
campaign finance and the first amendment. Since the post-Watergate 
changes to the campaign finance system, 24 congressional actions have 
been declared unconstitutional, with 9 rejections based on the first 
amendment. Out of those nine four dealt directly with campaign finance 
reform laws. In each case, the Supreme Court has ruled that political 
spending is equal to political speech.
  In the now famous decision, or infamous to some, Buckley versus 
Valeo, the Court states that,

       The First Amendment denies government the power to 
     determine that spending to promote one's political views is 
     wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In the free society ordained 
     by our Constitution it is not the government but the people--
     individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as 
     associations and political committees--who must retain 
     control over the quantity and range of debate on public 
     issues in a political campaign.

  Simply stated, the government cannot ration or regulate political 
speech of an American through campaign spending limits any more than it 
can tell the local newspaper how many papers it can print or what it 
can print. This reinforces Jefferson's statement that to impede one of 
these rights is to impede all first amendment rights.
  Also, supporters of some of the campaign finance reform bills, 
believe that if we stop the growth of campaign spending and force 
giveaways of public and private resources then all will be fine with 
the campaign finance system. It seems to me that if you look at 
history, price controls didn't work in the 1970's and they won't work 
in the 1990's. The Supreme Court agrees and is again very clear in its 
intent on price controls in campaigns. The Buckley decision says, ``* * 
* the mere growth in the cost of federal election campaigns in and of 
itself provides no basis for governmental restrictions on the quality 
of campaign spending.* * *''
  Campaigns are about ideas and expressing those ideas, no matter how 
great or small the means. The ``distribution of the humblest handbill'' 
to

[[Page S9522]]

the ``expensive modes of communication'' are both indispensable 
instruments of effective political speech. We should not force one 
sector to freely distribute our political ideas just because it is more 
expensive than all the other sectors. So no matter how objectionable 
the cost of campaigns are, the Supreme Court has stated that this is 
not reason enough to restrict the speech of candidates or any other 
groups involved in political speech.
  We need a campaign finance bill that does not violate the first 
amendment, while providing important provisions to open the campaign 
finance of candidates up to the scrutiny of the American people and I 
believe the Campaign Finance Integrity Act does that.
  My bill would: Require candidates to raise at least 50 percent of 
their contributions from individuals in the State or district in which 
they are running; equalize contributions from individuals and political 
action committees, PAC's, by raising the individual limits from $1,000 
to $2,500 and reducing the PAC limit from $5,000 to $2,500; index 
individual and PAC contribution limits for inflation; reduce the 
influence of a candidate's personal wealth by allowing political party 
committees to match dollar for dollar the personal contribution of a 
candidate above $5,000; require organizations, groups, and political 
party committees to disclose within 24 hours the amount and type of 
independent expenditures over $1,000 in support of or in opposition to 
a candidate; require corporations and labor organizations to seek 
separate, voluntary authorization of the use of any dues, initiative 
fees or payment as a condition of employment for political activity, 
and require annual full disclosure of those activities to members and 
shareholders; prohibit depositing of an individual contribution by a 
campaign unless the individual's profession and employer are reported; 
encourage the Federal Elections Commission to allow filing of reports 
by computers and other emerging technologies and to make that 
information accessible to the public on the Internet less than 24 hours 
of receipt; ban the use of taxpayer financed mass mailings, and create 
a tax deduction for political contributions up to $100 for individuals 
and $200 for a joint return.
  This is commonsense campaign finance reform. It drives the candidate 
back into this district or State to raise money from individual 
contributions. It has some of the most open, full, and timeliest 
disclosure requirements of any other campaign finance bill in either 
the Senate or the House of Representatives. I strongly believe that 
sunshine is the best disinfectant.
  The right of political parties, groups, and individuals to say what 
they want in a political campaign is preserved but the right of the 
public to know how much they are spending and what they are saying is 
also recognized. I have great faith that the public can make its own 
decisions about campaign discourse if it is given full and timely 
information.
  Many of the proponents of the more popular campaign finance bills try 
to reduce the influence of interests by suppressing their speech. I 
believe the best ways to reduce the special interests influence is to 
suppress and reduce the size of government. If the government rids 
itself of special interest funding and corporate welfare, then there 
would be little influence left for these large donors. Campaign 
contributions would no longer be based on special interests but on 
ideas. Let's stop corporate welfare, especially the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation, OPIC, where companies get a subsidized ride on 
the backs of taxpayers in order to invest without risk or without the 
market controlling the outcome. The best way to eliminate corporate 
subsidies is to eliminate the Department of Commerce, where a majority 
of corporate welfare programs are funded. To break special interest 
money, we must break the so-called iron triangle of big business, big 
labor, and big government.
  Ojbecting to the popular catch phrase of the moment is very difficult 
for any politician, but turning your back on the first amendment is 
more difficult for me. I want campaign finance reform but not at the 
expense of the first amendment and that is what my legislation does. 
Not everyone will agree with the Campaign Finance Integrity Act and 
many of us will disagree on this issue but the first amendment is the 
reason we can disagree.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1190

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Campaign 
     Finance Integrity Act of 1997''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                         TITLE I--CONTRIBUTIONS

Sec. 101. Requirement for in-state and in-district contributions to 
              congressional candidates.
Sec. 102. Use of contributions to pay campaign debt.
Sec. 103. Modification of political party contribution limits to 
              candidates when candidates make expenditures from 
              personal funds.
Sec. 104. Modification of contribution limits.

                   TITLE II--DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS

Sec. 201. Disclosure of certain expenditures for issue advocacy.
Sec. 202. Disclosure of certain non-Federal financial activities of 
              national political parties.
Sec. 203. Political activities of corporations and labor organizations.

                   TITLE III--REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Sec. 301. Time for candidates to file reports.
Sec. 302. Contributor information required for contributions in any 
              amount.
Sec. 303. Prohibition of depositing contributions with incomplete 
              contributor information.
Sec. 304. Filing of reports using computers and facsimile machines; 
              required electronic disclosure by commission.

                        TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 401. Ban on mass mailings.
Sec. 402. Tax deduction for political contributions.
Sec. 403. Effective date.
                         TITLE I--CONTRIBUTIONS

     SEC. 101. REQUIREMENT FOR IN-STATE AND IN-DISTRICT 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 315 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (e), (f), (g), and (h) as 
     subsections (f), (g), (h), and (i), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Requirement for In-State and In-District 
     Contributions to Congressional Candidates.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--
       ``(A) In-State contribution.--In this subsection, the term 
     `in-State contribution' means a contribution from an 
     individual that is a legal resident of the candidate's State.
       ``(B) In-district contribution.--In this subsection, the 
     term `in-district contribution' means a contribution from an 
     individual that is a legal resident of the candidate's 
     district.
       ``(2) Limit.--A candidate for nomination to, or election 
     to, the Senate or House of Representatives and the 
     candidate's authorized committees shall not accept an 
     aggregate amount of contributions of which the aggregate 
     amount of in-State contributions and in-district 
     contributions is less than 50 percent of the total amount of 
     contributions accepted by the candidate and the candidate's 
     authorized committees.
       ``(3) Time for meeting requirement.--A candidate shall meet 
     the requirement of paragraph (2) at the end of each reporting 
     period under section 304.
       ``(4) Personal funds.--For purposes of this subsection, a 
     contribution that is attributable to the personal funds of 
     the candidate or proceeds of indebtedness incurred by the 
     candidate or the candidate's authorized committees shall not 
     be considered to be an in-State contribution or in-district 
     contribution.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 315 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1)(A), by striking ``(e)'' and 
     inserting ``(f)'';
       (2) in subsection (d)(2), by striking ``(e)'' and inserting 
     ``(f)''; and
       (3) in subsection (d)(3)(A)(i), by striking ``(e)'' and 
     inserting ``(f)''.

     SEC. 102. USE OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO PAY CAMPAIGN DEBT.

       Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441a) (as amended by section 101) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(j) Limit on Use of Contributions to Pay Campaign Debt.--
       ``(1) Time to accept contributions.--Beginning on the date 
     that is 90 days after the date of a general or special 
     election, a candidate for election to the Senate or House of 
     Representatives and the candidate's authorized committees 
     shall not accept a contribution that is to be used to pay a 
     debt, loan, or

[[Page S9523]]

     other cost associated with the election cycle of such 
     election.
       ``(2) Personal obligation.--A debt, loan, or other cost 
     associated with an election cycle that is not paid in full on 
     the date that is 90 days after the date of the general or 
     special election shall be assumed as a personal obligation by 
     the candidate.''.

     SEC. 103. MODIFICATION OF POLITICAL PARTY CONTRIBUTION LIMITS 
                   TO CANDIDATES WHEN CANDIDATES MAKE EXPENDITURES 
                   FROM PERSONAL FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 315 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) (as amended by section 
     102) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Contribution Limits for Political Party Committees in 
     Response to Candidate Expenditures of Personal Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of a general election for 
     the Senate or House of Representatives, a political party 
     committee may make contributions to a candidate without 
     regard to any limitation under subsections (a) and (d) until 
     such time as the aggregate amount of contributions is equal 
     to or greater than the applicable limit.
       ``(2) Applicable Limit.--The applicable limit under 
     paragraph (1), with respect to a candidate, shall be the 
     greatest aggregate amount of expenditures that an opponent of 
     the candidate in the same election and the opponent's 
     authorized committee make using the personal funds of the 
     opponent or proceeds of indebtedness incurred by the opponent 
     (including contributions by the opponent to the opponent's 
     authorized committee) in excess of 2 times the limit under 
     subsection (a)(1)(A) with respect to a general election.
       ``(3) Definition of Political Party Committee.--For 
     purposes of this subsection, the term `political party 
     committee' means a political committee that is a national, 
     State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     (including any subordinate committee).''.
       (b) Notification of Expenditures from Personal Funds.--
     Section 304(a)(6) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(6)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B)(i) The principal campaign committee of a candidate 
     for nomination to, or election to, the Senate or House of 
     Representatives shall notify the Commission of the aggregate 
     amount expenditures made using personal funds of the 
     candidate or proceeds of indebtedness incurred by the 
     candidate (including contributions by the candidate to the 
     candidate's authorized committee) in excess of an amount 
     equal to 2 times the limit under section 301(a)(1)(A).
       ``(ii) The notification under clause (i) shall--
       ``(I) be submitted to the Commission not later than 24 
     hours after the expenditure that is the subject of the 
     notification is made;
       ``(II) include the name of the candidate, the office sought 
     by the candidate, and the date and amount of the expenditure; 
     and
       ``(III) include the aggregate amount of expenditures from 
     personal funds that have been made with respect to that 
     election as of the date of the expenditure that is the 
     subject of the notification.''.

     SEC. 104. MODIFICATION OF CONTRIBUTION LIMITS.

       Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``$1,000'' and 
     inserting ``$2,500''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``$5,000'' and 
     inserting ``$2,500''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``subsection (b) and 
     subsection (d)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) 
     of subsection (a) and subsections (b) and (d)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``means the calendar 
     year 1974.'' and inserting ``means--
       ``(i) for purposes of subsections (b) and (d), calendar 
     year 1974; and
       ``(ii) for purposes of paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) of 
     subsection (a), calendar year 1997.''.
                   TITLE II--DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS

     SEC. 201. DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FOR ISSUE 
                   ADVOCACY.

       (a) Issue Advocacy.--Section 304 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(d) Issue Advocacy.--
       ``(1) Required report.--A person (other than a candidate or 
     a candidate's authorized committee) who makes a payment in an 
     aggregate amount equal to or greater than $1,000 for a 
     communication containing issue advocacy shall submit a 
     statement to the Commission (not later than 24 hours after 
     making the payment) describing the amount spent, the type of 
     communication involved, and the market or area in which the 
     communication was disseminated.
       ``(2) Definition.--
       ``(A) In general.--In this subsection, the term `a 
     communication containing issue advocacy' means a 
     communication that--
       ``(i) uses the name or likeness of an individual holding 
     Federal office or a candidate for election to a Federal 
     office;
       ``(ii) mentions a national political party; or
       ``(iii) uses the terms `the President', `Congress', 
     `Senate', or `House of Representatives' in reference to an 
     individual holding Federal office.
       ``(B) Exception.--The term shall not include a payment 
     which would be--
       ``(i) described in clause (i), (iii), or (v) of section 
     301(9)(B) if the payment were an expenditure under such 
     section; or
       ``(ii) an independent expenditure.''.
       (b) Increased Reporting for Independent Expenditures.--
     Section 304(c) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 434(c)) is amended in the matter following 
     paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``after the 20th day, but more 
     than 24 hours, before any election'' and inserting ``during a 
     calendar year''.

     SEC. 202. DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN NON-FEDERAL FINANCIAL 
                   ACTIVITIES OF NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTIES.

       Section 304(b)(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(b)(4)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (H)(v), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (I), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(J) for a national political committee of a political 
     party, disbursements made by the committee in an aggregate 
     amount greater than $1,000, during a calendar year, in 
     connection with a political activity (as defined in section 
     316(c)(3));''.

     SEC. 203. POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF CORPORATIONS AND LABOR 
                   ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) Disclosure to Employees and Shareholders Regarding 
     Political Activities.--Section 316 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(c) Authorization Required for Political Activity.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except with the separate, written, 
     voluntary authorization of each individual, a national bank, 
     corporation or labor organization shall not--
       ``(A) in the case of a national bank or corporation 
     described in this section, collect from or assess its 
     stockholders or employees any dues, initiation fee, or other 
     payment as a condition of employment or membership if any 
     part of the dues, fee, or payment will be used for a 
     political activity in which the national bank or corporation 
     is engaged; and
       ``(B) in the case of a labor organization described in this 
     section, collect from or assess its members or nonmembers any 
     dues, initiation fee, or other payment if any part of the 
     dues, fee, or payment will be used for a political activity.
       ``(2) Effect of authorization.--An authorization described 
     in paragraph (1) shall remain in effect until revoked and may 
     be revoked at any time.
       ``(3) Definition of political activity.--For purposes of 
     this subsection, the term `political activity' includes a 
     communication or other activity that involves carrying on 
     propaganda, attempting to influence legislation, or 
     participating or intervening in a political party or 
     political campaign for a Federal office.
       ``(d) Disclosure of Disbursements for Political 
     Activities.--
       ``(1) Corporations and national banks.--A corporation or 
     national bank shall submit an annual written report to 
     shareholders stating the amount of each disbursement made for 
     political activities or that otherwise influences Federal 
     elections.
       ``(2) Labor organizations.--A labor organization shall 
     submit an annual written report to dues paying members and 
     nonmembers stating the amount of each disbursement made for 
     political activities or that otherwise influences Federal 
     elections, including contributions and expenditures.''.
       (b) Disclosure to the Commission of Certain Permissible 
     Activities by Labor Organizations and Corporations.--Section 
     304 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     434) (as amended in section 201) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(e) Required Statement of Corporations and Labor 
     Organizations.--Each corporation, national bank, or labor 
     organization who makes an aggregate amount of disbursements 
     during a year in an amount equal to or greater than $1,000 
     for any activity described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) 
     of section 316(a)(2) shall submit a statement to the 
     Commission (not later than 24 hours after making the 
     payments) describing the amount spent and the activity 
     involved.''.
                   TITLE III--REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

     SEC. 301. TIME FOR CANDIDATES TO FILE REPORTS.

       Section 304(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``and'' following the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in clause (iii), by striking ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) monthly reports during the months of July, August, 
     September, and October, that shall be filed no later than the 
     final day of the reporting month; and
       ``(vi) 24-hour reports, beginning on the day that is 15 
     days preceding an election, that shall be filed no later than 
     the end of each 24-hour period; and''.

     SEC. 302. CONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR CONTRIBUTIONS 
                   IN ANY AMOUNT.

       (a) Section 302.--Section 302 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 432) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, and if the amount'' 
     and all that follows through

[[Page S9524]]

     the period and inserting: ``and the following information:
       ``(A) The identification of the contributor.
       ``(B) The date of the receipt of the contribution.''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subsection (A), by striking ``such contribution'' 
     and inserting ``the contribution and the identification of 
     the contributor''; and
       (ii) in subsection (B), by striking ``such contribution'' 
     and all that follows through the period and inserting ``, no 
     later than 10 days after receiving the contribution, the 
     contribution and the following information:
       ``(i) The identification of the contributor.
       ``(ii) The date of the receipt of the contribution.'';
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (2);
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or contributions 
     aggregating more than $200 during any calendar year''; and
       (C) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) as 
     paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), respectively; and
       (3) in subsection (h)(2), by striking ``(c)(5)'' and 
     inserting ``(c)(4)''.
       (b) Section 304.--Section 304(b)(3)(A) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(b)(3)(A)) is 
     amended by striking ``whose contributions'' and all that 
     follows through ''so elect,''.

     SEC. 303. PROHIBITION OF DEPOSITING CONTRIBUTIONS WITH 
                   INCOMPLETE CONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION.

       Section 302 of Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 432) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Deposit of Contributions.--The treasurer of a 
     candidate's authorized committee shall not deposit or 
     otherwise negotiate a contribution unless the information 
     required by this section is complete.''.

     SEC. 304. FILING OF REPORTS USING COMPUTERS AND FACSIMILE 
                   MACHINES; REQUIRED ELECTRONIC DISCLOSURE BY 
                   COMMISSION.

       Section 304(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 434(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (11) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(11) Electronic filing.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Commission shall issue a regulation 
     to permit a report, designation, or statement required to be 
     filed with the Commission under this Act to be filed in 
     electronic form accessible by computer or through the use of 
     a facsimile machine or other method of transmission that 
     corresponds with the method of record-keeping or transmission 
     used by persons required to file under this Act.
       ``(B) Internet access to campaign finance information.--The 
     Commission shall make the information contained in a 
     designation, statement, report, or notification filed with 
     the Commission under this section accessible to the public on 
     the Internet and publicly available at the offices of the 
     Commission not later than 24 hours after the designation, 
     statement, report, or notification is received by the 
     Commission.''.
                        TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 401. BAN ON MASS MAILINGS.

       (a) In General.--Section 3210(a)(6) of title 39, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(A) A Member of, or Member-elect to, Congress may not 
     mail any mass mailing as franked mail.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 3210 of title 39, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in paragraph (3)--

       (I) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``, including general 
     mass mailings,'';
       (II) in subparagraph (I), by striking ``or other general 
     mass mailing''; and
       (III) in subparagraph (J), by striking ``or other general 
     mass mailing'';

       (ii) in paragraph (6)--

       (I) by striking subparagraphs (B), (C), and (F);
       (II) by striking the second sentence of subparagraph (D); 
     and
       (III) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively; and

       (iii) by striking paragraph (7);
       (B) in subsection (c), by striking ``subsection (a) (4) and 
     (5)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of 
     subsection (a)'';
       (C) by striking subsection (f); and
       (D) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (f).
       (2) Section 316 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations 
     Act, 1990 (39 U.S.C. 3210 note) is amended by striking 
     subsection (a).
       (3) Section 311 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations 
     Act, 1991 (2 U.S.C. 59e) is amended by striking subsection 
     (f) and inserting the following:
       ``(f) [Reserved].''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect at the beginning of the first Congress that 
     begins after December 31, 1998.

     SEC. 403. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as otherwise provided in this Act, this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
     elections occurring, payments made, and filing periods 
     beginning after December 31, 1998.

                          ____________________