[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.''.

                          ____________________