[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 119 (Thursday, September 10, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10207-S10211]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DASCHLE:
S. 2455. A bill to amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 to
prevent the canceling of annuities to certain divorced spouses of
workers whose widows elect to receive lump sum payments; to the
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
RAILROAD RETIREMENT AMENDMENT ACT OF 1998''
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on
behalf of Valoris Carlson of Aberdeen, SD, and the handful of others
like her whose lives have been terribly disrupted. This legislation
will right a wrong that was not due to any error or deception on
Valoris' part, but due to an administrative error by the Railroad
Retirement Board [RRB]. In addition, the majority of the Board supports
the amendment.
In 1984 Valoris, as the divorced spouse of a deceased railroad
employee, applied for a tier I survivor's annuity. The RRB failed to
check if a lump sum withdrawal had previously been made on the account
at the time of her former spouse's death--even though Valoris clearly
stated on her application that there was a surviving widow. In fact, a
lump sum payment had been made, but not identified. The RRB began
paying Valoris $587 per month in 1984 and continued to pay her benefits
for 11 years. In 1994 the RRB discovered that an error had been made
over a decade ago.
Subsequently, Valoris was told she was not eligible for the pension
she was awarded in 1984. Had the RRB thoroughly reviewed their records,
they would have seen that a lump-sum payment had been made on that
account. Valoris, who was married for 26 years, lost her eligibility to
the widow of the railroad worker who had been married to him for only 3
years. Valoris made an honest application for benefits. The RRB made an
error, resulting in 11 years of ``overpayments'' to Valoris.
These payments affected Valoris' planning for the future. Valoris
planned her retirement on that modest sum of $587. Had she been told
she was not eligible for benefits, she would have worked longer to
build up her own Social Security benefits. Her railroad divorced
widow's benefit has been her only steady income. She has picked up a
few dollars here and there by renting out rooms in her home, but
without her monthly benefit income, Valoris has had a terrible time
struggling to make ends meet.
The bill I am introducing today will address the errors made by the
RRB that have disrupted the life of Valoris Carlson and others like
her. The RRB advises that 15 other widows are similarly situated, and
their pensions would also be restored by this bill.
The bill, which was developed with technical assistance from the RRB,
would allow the 16 women impacted by the RRB's administrative error to
begin receiving their monthly benefits again. It requires them to repay
the lump sum, but they are allowed to do so through a modest
withholding from their monthly benefit. The RRB could waive the monthly
withholding if it would cause excessive hardship for a widow.
According to the RRB, the costs of this legislation would be
negligible for scoring purposes.
Mr. President, I will work to enact this legislation as quickly as
possible to restore the benefits to those women who are now suffering
as a result of the Government's mistakes. It has been four years since
these women have lost their retirement income. There is no excuse for
further delay in providing these Americans with benefits they were led
to expect by the RRB.
Mr. President, I ask that the full 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. 2455
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 ``Railroad Retirement
Amendment Act of 1998''.
SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF DIVORCED SPOUSES.
(a) In General.--Section 6(c) of the Railroad Retirement
Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231e(c)) is amended--
(1) in the last sentence of paragraph (1), by inserting
``(other than to a survivor in the circumstances described in
paragraph (3))'' after ``no further benefits shall be paid'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Notwithstanding the last sentence of paragraph (1),
benefits shall be paid to a survivor who--
``(A) is a divorced wife; and
``(B) through administrative error received benefits
otherwise precluded by the making of a lump sum payment under
this section to a widow;
if that divorced wife makes an election to repay to the Board
the lump sum payment. The Board may withhold up to 10 percent
of each benefit amount paid after the date of the enactment
of this paragraph toward such reimbursement. The Board may
waive such repayment to the extent the Board determines it
would cause an unjust financial hardship for the
beneficiary.''.
(b) Application of Amendment.--The amendment made by this
section shall apply with respect to any benefits paid before
the date of enactment of this Act as well as to benefits
payable on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. GORTON (for himself and Mrs. Murray):
S. 2457. A bill to make technical correction to the Columbia River
Gorge National Scenic Area Act of 1986; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
columbia river gorge boundary adjustment act
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure today to
introduce legislation which will correct a longstanding technical error
to the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area Act of 1986.
As those who were around this body over a decade ago remember, the
Columbia Gorge Act was a highly complicated and contentious piece of
legislation. A great number of impacted citizens made substantial
sacrifices to see that this Act which was intended to protect one of
the most pristine and magnificent natural resources anywhere in America
could become law. Because of the detailed nature and the sometimes
convoluted process established under this Act, it is not surprising
that a mistake along the lines of what my bill today intends to correct
could happen. My legislation simply makes a technical correction to the
Gorge Act by excluding approximately 29 acres of land owned by the Port
of Camas-Washougal. This area was inadvertently included within the
southwestern boundary of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area
12 years ago.
Mr. President, ever since the establishment of the National Scenic
Area, the Port of Camas-Washougal has been diligent in its efforts to
prove that a small portion of its property was unintentionally included
in the Scenic Area. In fact, even before the Gorge Act became law, the
Port was successful in getting legislation passed that established the
Steigerwald Lake National Wildlife Refuge and reserved 80 acres of this
area for its own purposes.
Unfortunately, two years later, Congress in its infinite wisdom
located the
[[Page S10208]]
southwest boundary of the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area so that
approximately 19 of the 80 reserved acres and 10 acres of Port-owned
land were included in the National Scenic Area. The legislation I am
offering today would exclude these 29 acres under question as Congress
had originally intended.
I touched earlier on the Port's diligence in seeing this process
through to its completion. Whether it be working with the Washington
State Congressional delegation, getting approval from the Columbia
Gorge Commission, or convincing originally skeptical segments of the
local community, the Port's efforts are proof positive that persistence
pays off when it comes to resolving complicated and contentious
problems. It also helps to have the facts on your side. And clearly
that is what the Port has been demonstrating over the past 12 years.
One concern that was raised in discussions with representatives of a
number of interested parties throughout the local southwestern
Washington community was the possibility that legislation making a
technical boundary change might set a dangerous precedent in which
other less deserving boundary change proposals are cavalierly enacted
into law. Because of these concerns, I have included a provision in my
bill stating in no uncertain terms that is not the intent of this
legislation to set a precedent regarding adjustment or amendment of any
boundaries of the National Scenic Area or any other provisions of the
Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act.
While the Gorge Act remains controversial within some sectors of my
state and is by no means perfect, this legislation represents a special
case where it has been clearly proven that the intent of Congress was
not being carried out and the enabling statute needed correction. Any
further proposals to change boundaries or revisions to the '86 Act will
have to stand on their own merits and pass a similar test.
In addition to the Port of Camas-Washougal, I also want to commend
representatives of the Columbia Gorge Commission and the Friends of the
Gorge for working together with the Port to develop a reasonable
solution to this mistake. I also want to thank my two colleagues,
Senator Murray and Congresswomen Smith, both of whom also have the
pleasure of representing this beautiful area, for their support in this
effort. While my legislation is not intended to set any legislative
precedents, I do hope the positive process by which it was developed
will foster further consensus building efforts throughout the local
community.
______
By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 2458. A bill to amend the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the
creation of the Morristown National Historical Park in the State of New
Jersey, and for other purposes'' to authorize the acquisition of
property known as the ``Warren Property''; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
morristown national historical park legislation
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today with Senator Lautenberg I
introduce legislation to preserve land on which our nation was forged.
During the harsh winter of 1779-1780 the Continental Army, and its
leader, General George Washington camped at Morristown, New Jersey.
Washington chose Morristown for its logistical, geographical, and
topographical advantages and also because of its close proximity to
British-occupied New York City. Washington and his men encountered
great hardships here, as the winter of 1779 was the worst winter here
in over 100 years.
When soldiers first arrived at Morristown, they had no choice but to
sleep out in the open snow as it took most about two to three weeks to
build wooden huts to hold groups of a dozen men. The last of the
Continental Army, however, did not move into the huts until the middle
of February, and conditions were so bad that many soldiers stole
regularly to eat, deserted, or mutinied. Only the leadership of General
Washington held the Continental Army intact, enabling him to plot the
strategy for the coming spring that would turn the tide of the war.
Through the preservation of this site, we honor the men who served at
Morristown and fought for our independence. And more than that, we
preserve the best classroom imaginable to understand how our nation was
born.
Recognizing the importance of this site, Congress created the
Morristown National Historical Park in 1933, the first historical
national park in the National Park System.
In the years since the establishment of the park, however, New Jersey
has undergone a revolution of another sort: from Garden State to
Suburban State. In 1959, there were 15,000 farms in New Jersey covering
1.4 million acres. Today, there are 9,000 farms on 847,000 acres, a 40%
decrease. In New Jersey, as much as 10,000 acres of rural land is being
developed every year.
North-central New Jersey and the area around the park has not been
spared from this development. Much of the private land adjacent to the
park has been subdivided and developed for residential use. Many of
these residences are visible from park areas, altering the rural
character of the park and diminishing the visitor's experience of the
park's historic landscape.
The legislation we are introducing today will help preserve the
natural environment of the Park by authorizing the Park Service to
expand the boundary of the park to include the 15-acre Warren property
on Mt. Kemble Ridge. Specifically, our legislation authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior to acquire through purchase, purchase with
appropriated funds, or donation, the Warren Property. This acquisition
will prevent this land, where patriots made their camp during the
winter of 1779-1780, from being re-zoned and subdivided for residential
development.
The National Park Service strongly supports this legislation. NPS
Deputy Director, Denis Galvin, recently testified in support of
legislation to acquire the Warren Property before a House National
Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee hearing on March 26, 1998. This
important parcel of land has been classified as ``desirable for
acquisition'' by the National Park Service since 1976.
In addition, the property's owner, Jim Warren, is a willing seller
and interested in seeing the property preserved as part of Morristown
National Historical Park. Acquisition of the Warren Property for
inclusion in the park would ensure that the character of the park's
historic landscape is not further degraded.
Unfortunately, there are historic sites in my home state of New
Jersey and across our country that need to be preserved. It is my hope
that through this effort, the Morristown National Historical Park and
sites like it across the country will be preserved for generations to
come so that the history of our country and its guiding principles will
remain alive in the hearts of all Americans.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I wanted to announce that
I am cosponsoring legislation authorizing the National Park Service to
acquire and add lands to the Morristown National Historical Park. The
Morristown National Historical Park is an important Revolutionary War
site and this bill would authorize the Park Service to acquire lands
from a willing seller to prevent the encroachment of modern residential
and commercial development in an effort to preserve the visitor's
experience of the park's historic landscape and enable the park to
retain its rural character.
The Morristown National Historical Park was established in 1933 and
hosts approximately 550,000 visitors a year. The park preserves the
sites that were occupied by General George Washington and the
Continental Army during this critical period where he held together,
during desperate times, the small, ragged army that represented the
country's main hope for independence. General Washington chose the area
for its logistical, geographical, and topographical military
advantages, in addition to its proximity to New York City, which was
occupied by the British in 1779. The site proposed for acquisition
would be a 15 acre parcel near the Jockey Hollow Encampment Area of the
park and prevent further degradation of the parks vistas.
I invite my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation
which will ensure that an important historical site for New Jersey and
the nation is protected.
[[Page S10209]]
______
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 2459. A bill for the relief of Paul G. Finnerty and Nancy Finnerty
of Scranton, Pennsylvania; to the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources.
private relief legislation
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, although it is late in the
session, I am introducing legislation to rectify a problem facing one
of my constituents, Mr. Paul Finnerty of Scranton, and his wife
concerning his federal retirement benefits. It is necessary for
Congress to become involved in this case because Mr. Finnerty has
exhausted administrative relief and lost an estoppel claim in the 3rd
Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, which ruled that ``regardless of the
possibility of agency error in this case, we have no authority over the
disbursement of funds that has been assigned by the Constitution to
Congress alone.''
I am advised that Mr. Finnerty and his wife are entitled to employee
and spousal annuities based on his more than 30 years in the railroad
industry. They were misinformed by federal employees as to the actual
retirement benefits they would receive and relied to their detriment on
the higher figure in deciding that Mr. Finnerty should retire in 1993.
Specifically, there is documentation which reflects the failure of the
Scranton Field Office of the Railroad Retirement Board to advise Mr.
Finnerty appropriately regarding the impact of a statutory maximum of
$1200/month in retirement benefits if he remained in the federal CSRS
pension system instead of switching into the FERS system. I have
enclosed an example of such documentation for the Record.
While the private relief legislation is a last resort used sparingly
by the Congress, the Finnertys have provided enough documentation to
suggest that their request merits careful review by the Labor
Committee, which has jurisdiction over such bills. Accordingly, I am
introducing this bill today to begin that review process.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Railroad Retirement
Board letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
United States of America,
Railroad Retirement Board,
Chicago, IL, September 26, 1994.
Hon. Joseph M. McDade,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman McDade: Your letter on behalf of Mr. Paul
G. Finnerty has been forwarded to me for reply.
Upon investigation of the circumstances described by Mr.
Finnerty in his letter dated August 20, 1994, to you, I have
determined that our Scranton field office repeatedly
overestimated the amount of railroad retirement benefits that
Mr. Finnerty could expect to receive upon his retirement. I
regret this mistake.
The Scranton field office failed to consider the effect of
the railroad retirement maximum provision of the Railroad
Retirement Act of 1974 each time they furnished an estimate
to Mr. Finnerty.
The railroad retirement maximum provision limits the total
amount of railroad retirement benefits payable to an employee
and spouse at the time the employee's annuity begins to a
maximum based on the highest 2 years of creditable railroad
retirement or social security covered earnings in the 10-year
period ending with the year the employee's annuity begins.
Since Mr. Finnerty's Federal employment for the previous 10
years was covered under the Civil Service Retirement System,
his railroad retirement maximum amount could not be based on
the highest 2 years of creditable railroad retirement or
social security covered earnings. Therefore, Mr. Finnerty's
railroad retirement maximum amount is set at the statutory
limit of $1,200 in accordance with section 4(c) of the
Railroad Retirement Act.
Unfortunately, the effect of the railroad retirement
maximum in Mr. Finnerty's case is the reduction of the tier
II component to zero in both the employee and spouse annuity.
Since the Scranton field office included a tier II amount in
the employee and spouse annuity computation, an overestimate
of benefits resulted.
I sincerely regret any problems we have caused Mr.
Finnerty. We strive to furnish the best service possible to
our beneficiaries. When seeking our assistance during the
important time of planning for retirement, our beneficiaries
certainly have a right to expect that accurate annuity
estimates are provided. Although we have failed Mr. Finnerty
in that regard, the Scranton field manager has counseled his
staff to consider the effect of the railroad retirement
maximum provision when calculating estimates in the future.
We will continue to stress the importance of accurate service
to the public and, in an effort to prevent future mistakes,
will issue a reminder to all field employees on this issue.
I am sorry a more favorable response cannot be made in
regard to your constituent as we are required to pay benefits
according to the law. If you need further information, please
do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Kenneth P. Boehne,
Director of Administration and Operations.
______
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. Durbin):
S. 2460. A bill to curb deceptive and misleading games of chance
mailings, to provide Federal agencies with additional investigative
tools to police such mailings, to establish additional penalties for
such mailings, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.
the deceptive mailing elimination act of 1998
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that,
if enacted, will go a long way toward eliminating deceptive practices
in mailings that use games of chance like sweepstakes to induce
consumers to purchase a product or waste their money by paying to play
a game they will not win. The use of gimmicks in these contests, such
as a large notice declaring the recipient a winner--oftentimes a
``guaranteed'' winner or one of two final competitors for a large cash
prize--has proliferated to the point that American consumers are being
duped into purchasing products they don't want or need because they
think they have won or will win a big prize if they do so. Complaints
about these mailings are one of the top ten consumer complaints in the
nation. I have received numerous complaints from my constituents in
Michigan asking that something be done to provide relief from these
mailings.
Earlier this month we held a hearing in our Governmental Affairs
Committee federal services subcommittee on the problem of deceptive
sweepstakes and other mailings involving games of chance. We learned
from three of our witnesses, the Florida Attorney General, the Michigan
Assistant Attorney General and the Postal Inspection Service, that
senior citizens are particular targets of these deceptive
solicitations, because they are the most vulnerable. State Attorneys
General have taken action against many of the companies that use
deceptive mailings. The states have entered into agreements to stop the
most egregious practices, but the agreements apply only to the states
that enter into the agreements. This allows companies to continue their
deceptive practices in other states. That's why federal legislation in
this area is needed. The bill I'm introducing today will eliminate
deceptive practices by prohibiting misleading statements, requiring
more disclosure, imposing a $10,000 civil penalty for each deceptive
mailing and providing the Postal Service with additional tools to
pursue deceptive and fraudulent offenders.
Sweepstakes solicitations are put together by teams of clever
marketers who package their sweepstakes offers in such a way so as to
get people to purchase a product by implying that the chances of
winning are enhanced if the product being offered is purchased. Rules
and important disclaimers are written in fine print and hidden away in
obscure sections of the solicitation or on the back of the envelope
that is frequently tossed away. Even when one reads the rules, it
frequently takes a law degree to understand them.
The bill I am introducing will protect consumers from deceptive
practices by directing the Postal Service to develop and issue
regulations that restrict the use of language and symbols on direct
mail game of chance solicitations, including sweepstakes, that mislead
the receiver into believing they have won, or will win a prize. The
bill also requires additional disclosure about chances of winning and
the statement that no purchase is necessary. Any mail that is
designated by the Postal Service as being deceptive will not be
delivered. This will significantly reduce if not eliminate the
deceptive practices being used in the direct mail industry to dupe
unsuspecting consumers into thinking they are grand prize winners. The
direct mail industry should benefit as a result. The adverse publicity
recently aimed at the industry because of ``You Have Won a Prize''
campaigns has malign the industry as a whole. Cleaning up deceptive
advertising will certainly improve the industry's image.
[[Page S10210]]
For those entities that continue to use deceptive mailings, my bill
imposes a civil penalty of $10,000 for each offense that violates
Postal Service regulations. Currently the Postal Service can impose a
$10,000 daily fine for evading or not complying with a Postal Service
order. My bill imposes a fine concurrent with issuing an order. This
has the effect of applying the penalty to the deceptive offense, not
for noncompliance of the order.
My bill allows the Postal Service to quickly respond to changes in
deceptive marketing practices by tasking them to draft regulations and
language that will be effective against the ``scheme du jour.'' A
deceptive practice used today, may not be used tomorrow. As soon as
authorities learn about one scheme, it's changes. If legislation is
passed that requires a specific notice, it won't be too long before
another deceptive practice will pop up to by-pass the legislation. The
Postal Service, who is in the business of knowing what is going on with
the mails, will be able to evaluate what regulatory changes will be
required to keep pace with deceptive practices. This will ensure that
deceptive practices are weeded out in a timely manner by keeping
regulations current.
The bill also gives the Postal Service administrative subpoena power
to respond more quickly to deceptive and fraudulent mail schemes.
Currently the Postal Service must go through a lengthy administrative
procedure before it can get evidence to shut down illegal operations.
By the time they get through all the administrative hoops, the crook
has folded up operations and disappeared, or has destroyed all the
evidence. By granting the Postal Service limited subpoena authority to
obtain relevant or material records for an investigation, the Postal
Service will be able to act more efficiently against illegal
activities. Subpoena authority will make the Postal Service more
effective and efficient in its pursuit of justice.
The Deceptive Sweepstakes Mailings Elimination Act of 1998 takes a
tough approach to dealing with sweepstakes solicitations and other
games of chance offerings that are sent through the mail. If you use
sweepstakes or a game of chance to promote the sale of a product and
provide adequate disclosure and abide with Postal Service regulations,
then the Postal Service will deliver that solicitation. If deceptive
practices are used in a sweepstakes or a game of chance solicitation,
then the Postal Service will be able to stop the solicitation, and
impose a significant penalty.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2460
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DECEPTIVE GAMES OF CHANCE MAILINGS ELIMINATION.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Deceptive
Games of Chance Mailings Elimination Act of 1998''.
(b) Nonmailable Matter.--
(1) In general.--Section 3001 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating subsections (j) and (k) as subsections
(k) and (l), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subsection (i) the following:
``(j)(1) Matter otherwise legally acceptable in the mails
that constitutes a solicitation or offer in connection with
the sales promotion for a product or service or the promotion
of a game of skill that includes the chance or opportunity to
win anything of value and that contains words or symbols that
suggest the recipient will, or is likely to, receive anything
of value, shall conform with requirements prescribed in
regulations issued by the Postmaster General.
``(2) Matter not in conformance with the regulations
prescribed under paragraph (1) shall not be carried or
delivered by mail and shall be disposed of as the Postal
Service directs.
``(3) Regulations prescribed under paragraph (1) shall
require, at a minimum, that--
``(A) promotion of games of chance mailings contain
notification or disclosure statements, with sufficiently
large and noticeable type to be effective notice to
recipients that--
``(i) any recipient is not obligated to purchase a product
in order to win;
``(ii) sets out the chances of winning accurately; and
``(iii) advises that purchases do not enhance the
recipient's chances of winning;
``(B) games of chance mailings shall be clearly labeled
to--
``(i) identify such mailings as games of chance mailings;
and
``(ii) prohibit misleading statements representing that
recipients are guaranteed winners; and
``(C) solicitations in games of chance mailings may not
represent that the recipient is a member of a selected group
whose chances of winning are enhanced as a member of that
group.''.
(2) False representations.--Section 3005(a) of title 39,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in the first sentence by striking ``section 3001 (d),
(h), or (i)'' and inserting ``section 3001 (d), (h), (i), or
(j)''; and
(B) in the second sentence by striking ``section 3001 (d),
(h), or (i)'' and inserting ``section 3001 (d), (h), (i), or
(j)''.
(c) Administrative Subpoenas.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 30 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 3016. Administrative subpoenas
``(a) Authorization of Use of Subpoenas by Postmaster
General.--In any investigation conducted under this chapter,
the Postmaster General may require by subpoena the production
of any records (including books, papers, documents, and other
tangible things which constitute or contain evidence) which
the Postmaster General finds relevant or material to the
investigation.
``(b) Service.--(1) A subpoena issued under this section
may be served by a person designated under section 3061 of
title 18 at any place within the territorial jurisdiction of
any court of the United States.
``(2) Any such subpoena may be served upon any person who
is not to be found within the territorial jurisdiction of any
court of the United States, in such manner as the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure prescribe for service in a foreign
country. To the extent that the courts of the United States
may assert jurisdiction over such person consistent with due
process, the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia shall have the same jurisdiction to take any action
respecting compliance with this section by such person that
such court would have if such person were personally within
the jurisdiction of such court.
``(3) Service of any such subpoena may be made by a Postal
Inspector upon a partnership, corporation, association, or
other legal entity by--
``(A) delivering a duly executed copy thereof to any
partner, executive officer, managing agent, or general agent
thereof, or to any agent thereof authorized by appointment or
by law to receive service of process on behalf of such
partnership, corporation, association, or entity;
``(B) delivering a duly executed copy thereof to the
principal office or place of business of the partnership,
corporation, association, or entity; or
``(C) depositing such copy in the United States mails, by
registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, duly
addressed to such partnership, corporation, association, or
entity at its principal office or place of business.
``(4) Service of any subpoena may be made upon any natural
person by--
``(A) delivering a duly executed copy to the person to be
served; or
``(B) depositing such copy in the United States mails by
registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, duly
addressed to such person at his residence or principal office
or place of business.
``(5) A verified return by the individual serving any such
subpoena setting forth the matter of such service shall be
proof of such service. In the case of service by registered
or certified mail, such return shall be accompanied by the
return post office receipt of delivery of such subpoena.
``(c) Enforcement.--(1) Whenever any person, partnership,
corporation, association, or entity fails to comply with any
subpoena duly served upon him, the Postmaster General may
request that the Attorney General seek enforcement of the
subpoena in the district court of the United States for any
judicial district in which such person resides, is found, or
transacts business, and serve upon such person a petition for
an order of such court for the enforcement of this section.
``(2) Whenever any petition is filed in any district court
of the United States under this section, such court shall
have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter so
presented, and to enter such order or orders as may be
required to carry into effect the provisions of this section.
Any final order entered shall be subject to appeal under
section 1291 of title 28. Any disobedience of any final order
entered under this section by any court shall be punished as
contempt.
``(d) Disclosure.--Any documentary material provided
pursuant to any subpoena issued under this section shall be
exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5.''.
(2) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this section, the Postal Service shall
promulgate regulations setting out the procedures the Postal
Service will use to implement this subsection.
(3) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 30 of title 39, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``3016. Administrative subpoenas.''.
(d) Administrative Civil Penalties for Nonmailable Matter
Violations.--Section 3012 of title 39, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
[[Page S10211]]
``(e)(1) In any proceeding in which the Postal Service
issues an order under section 3005(a), the Postal Service may
assess civil penalties in an amount of $10,000 per violation
for each mailing of nonmailable matter as defined under any
provision of this chapter.
``(2) The Postal Service shall prescribe regulations to
carry out the subsection.''.
____________________