[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.
____________________