Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my colleagues in introducing this Patients' Bill of Rights, which is the product of more than a year's worth of intensive work and negotiations by the Senate Republican Health Care Task Force on which I serve. This comprehensive legislation has three major purposes. First, it will protect patients' rights and hold HMOs accountable for providing the care they have promised. Second, it will expand consumer choice and access to affordable care. And third, it will improve health care quality and outcomes. Mr. President, there is a growing unease across our country about changes in how we receive our health care. People worry that if they or their loved ones become seriously ill, their HMO will deny them coverage and force them to accept either inadequate care or financial ruin--or perhaps both. They feel that vital decisions affecting their lives will be made, not by a supportive family doctor, but by an unfeeling bureaucracy. The American people, known for taking charge of their destiny, feel increasingly powerless about their health care. Our bill will ensure that medical decisions remain in the hands of patients and physicians, not HMO accountants and trial lawyers. All of us agree that medically-necessary patient care should not be sacrificed to the bottom line. However, according to a 1997 study by Lewin, every one percent increase in health care premiums results in as many as 400,000 uninsured Americans. I have therefore been alarmed by reports that American businesses everywhere--from large multinational corporations to the corner store--are facing huge hikes in health insurance premiums in 1999, ranging from about 8 percent on average, to 20 percent or more. This is a remarkable contrast to the last few years, when premiums rose less than 2 or 3 percent, if at all. We are engaged in an extremely delicate balancing act as we attempt to respond to concerns about quality, without resorting to unduly burdensome federal controls and mandates that will further drive up costs, causing thousands of Americans to lose their coverage and pushing health insurance further out of reach for many uninsured Americans. Our Patients' Bill of Rights does not pre-empt, but rather builds upon the good work that states have done in the area of patients' rights and protections. Congress agreed that states should have primary responsibility for the regulation of health insurance when it passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945. And, as someone who has overseen a Bureau of Insurance in state government, I think state regulators have done a good job of responding to the needs and concerns of their citizens. For instance, at my last count, 44 states had passed laws prohibiting ``gag clauses'' that restrict communications between patients and their doctors, and the remaining six had bills pending in their legislatures. States acted without any mandate or prod from Washington to protect consumers. Moreover, one size does not fit all, and what may be appropriate for one state may not be necessary in another. Florida, for instance, provides for direct access to a dermatologist, which is understandable, given the high rate of skin cancer in that state. But in a state like Maine this may not be so important. So why does Congress need to act? The answer is that federal law prohibits states from regulating the self-funded, employer-sponsored health plans that cover 48 million Americans. Our bill extends many of the same rights and protections to these individuals and their families that Americans in state-regulated plans already enjoy. For the first time, they will be guaranteed the right to talk freely and openly with their doctors about their treatment options without being subject to ``gag clauses'' that limit communications. They will be guaranteed coverage for emergency room care that a ``prudent layperson'' would consider medically necessary without prior authorization from their health plan. They will be able to see their OB-GYN or pediatrician without a referral from their plan's ``gatekeeper,'' and they will have the option of seeing a doctor who is not a part of their HMO's network. They will also have some assurance of continuity of care if their health plan terminates its contract with their doctor or hospital. Moreover, all patients will be given the right to review their medical records and will have added protections to ensure that this information will be kept confidential. Finally, insurers will be prohibited from collecting or using predictive genetic information about a patient to deny coverage or set premium rates. Mr. President, the states are way ahead of the federal government in the area of insurance reform, and the State of Maine has already enacted many of these same consumer rights and protections--a ban on gag clauses, a prudent layperson definition for emergency care, and direct access to OB/GYNs. Our bill would extend these and other rights to the nearly 220,000 Maine citizens in health plans that are not subject to state regulation and who currently do not enjoy these protections. A key provision of our bill would give all 125 million Americans in employer-sponsored plans assurance that they will get the care that they need, when they need it. This includes 535,735 people in Maine who are in fully-insured ERISA plans. For the first time, these individuals will be entitled to clear and complete information about their health plan--about what it does and does not cover, about any cost-sharing requirements, and about the plan's providers. Helping patients understand their coverage before they need to use it will help to avoid coverage disputes later. The goal of any patient protection legislation should be to solve disputes about coverage up from, when the care is needed. Not months, or even years later, in a court room. Our bill would accomplish this goal by creating both an internal and external review process. First, patients or doctors who are unhappy with an HMO's decision could appeal it internally through a review conducted by individuals with ``appropriate expertise'' who were not involved in the initial decision. Moreover, this review would have to be conducted by a physician if the coverage denial is based on a determination that the service is not medically necessary or is an experimental treatment. Patients could expect results from this review within 30 days, or 72 hours in cases when delay poses a serious risk to the patient's life or health. Patients turned down by this internal review would then have the right to a free, external review by medical experts who are completely independent of their health plan. This review must be completed within thirty days--and even faster in a medical emergency or when delay would be detrimental to the patient's health. Moreover, the decision of these outside reviewers is binding on the health plan, but not on the patient. If the patient is not satisfied, they retain the right to sue in federal or state court for attorneys' fees, court costs, the value of the benefit and injunctive relief. Our bill differs from the Democrats' bill in a fundamental respect: it places treatment decisions in the hands of doctors, not lawyers. If your HMO denies you treatment that your doctor believes is medically necessary, you should not have to resort to a costly and lengthy court battle to get the care you need. After all, doesn't it make more sense to put medical care in the hands of doctors, not lawyers? You should not have a resort to hiring a lawyer and filing an expensive lawsuit to get the treatment. You just can't sue your way to quality health care. The purpose of our bill is to solve problems up-front when the care is needed, not months or even years later after the harm has occurred. According to the GAO, it takes an average of 33 months to resolve malpractice cases. One case in the study took 11 years. This does absolutely nothing to ensure a patient's right to timely and appropriate care. Moreover, patients only receive 43 cents out of every dollar awarded in malpractice cases. The rest winds up in the pockets of the trial lawyers and administrators of the court and insurance systems. Finally, more lawsuits are certain to mean higher health care costs. According to the Barents Group of KPMG Peat Marwick, increased lawsuits could drive up premiums as much as 8.6 percent, forcing businesses to pay $94.1 billion ($1,284 per worker) in extra premiums over five years. Close to two million Americans could lose their health insurance next year as increased costs force many employers to eliminate coverage altogether, or to pass on higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs to employees who can't afford them. Last fall I met with a group of Maine employers who expressed their serious concerns about the Democrats' proposal to expand liability for health plans and employers. The Assistant Director for Human Resources at Bowdoin College talked about how moving to a self-funded, ERISA plan enabled them to continue to offer affordable coverage to Bowdoin employees when premiums for their fully-insured plan skyrocketed in the late 1980s. Since they self-funded, they have actually been able to lower premiums for their employees, while at the same time, enhance their benefit designs with such features as well-baby care, free annual physicals, and prescription drug cards with low copayments. They told me that the Democrats' proposal to expand liability seriously jeopardizes their ability to offer affordable coverage for their employees. Similar concerns were expressed by the Maine Municipal Association, L.L. Bean, Bath Iron Works, and others. Mr. President, our bill also contains important provisions to improve health care quality and outcomes for all Americans. For example, I am particularly pleased that our bill contains the proposal introduced by my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, that prohibits insurers from discriminating on the basis of predictive genetic information. Genetic testing holds tremendous promise for individuals who have a genetic predisposition to beat cancer and other diseases and conditions with a genetic link. However, this promise is significantly threatened when insurance companies use the results of such testing to deny or limit coverage to consumers on the basis of genetic information. In addition to the potentially devastating consequences of being denied health insurance on the basis of genetic information, the fear of discrimination may discourage individuals who might benefit from having this information from ever getting tested. And finally, our bill will make health insurance more affordable by allowing self-employed individuals to deduct the full amount of their health care premiums beginning not in 2003, as in current law, but next year. Establishing parity in the tax treatment of health insurance costs between the self-employed and those working for large businesses is a matter of basic equity, and it will also help to reduce the number of uninsured, but working, Americans. It will make health insurance more affordable for the 82,000 people in Maine who are self-employed. They include our lobstermen, our hairdressers, our electricians, our plumbers, and the many owners of mom-and-pop stores that dot communities throughout the state. Mr. President, I believe that our plan strikes the right balance as we effectively address concerns about quality and choice without resorting to unduly burdensome federal controls and mandates that would further drive up costs and cause some Americans to lose their health insurance altogether. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this proposal.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Telephone Services Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Act of 1999.'' I am pleased to have Senators Dick Durbin and Jim Jeffords as cosponsors of this legislation. This bill is designed to curtail two telephone-related fraudulent practices: slamming--the unauthorized change of a consumer's long distance telephone service provider--and cramming--the billing of unauthorized charges on a consumer's telephone bill. This comprehensive bill is needed to ensure that consumers are adequately protected against these unfair practices. Mr. President, telephone slamming and cramming are widespread problems, affecting consumers across the country. Nationwide, slamming is the number one telephone-related complaint to the Federal Communications Commission, and the number of such complaints has grown steadily over the past few years. In 1998, in fact, the FCC received more than 20,000 slamming complaints, a 900 percent increase over the number of complaints received in 1993. For fiscal year 1998 (from October 1, 1997 through September 1, 1998), telephone slamming was the number one complaint made by Maine consumers to the FCC's National Call Center. Since there is still no central repository for slamming complaints, the actual incidents of slamming are undoubtedly far more numerous. Estimates from phone companies indicated that perhaps as many as one million Americans were slammed last year alone. Cramming complaints also remain at unacceptably high levels. In 1998, the FCC's National Call Center received over 15,000 cramming complaints from consumers, making it the 12th most common complaint received by the FCC. In addition, the Federal Trade Commission received over 6,000 cramming complaints from consumers in 1998, making it the FTC's 5th most common complaint. As with slamming, there is no central repository for cramming complaints, so the actual number of such complaints is probably much higher than those documented by the federal government. In late 1997, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, began an extensive investigation into telephone-related fraud against consumers. The story of telephone services fraud, I soon discovered, is a great deal more than just an aggregate number of complaints. On February 18, 1998, I chaired a field hearing on slamming in Portland, Maine, where I heard first-hand from consumers about the problems they experienced when their long distance service was changed without their permission. Their sense of violation was evident. Witnesses used words such as ``stealing,'' ``criminal,'' and ``break- in'' to describe the practices used by unscrupulous telephone companies to boost profits by bouncing unsuspecting customers from carrier to carrier without their permission or even their knowledge. One witness, for example, Pamela Corrigan from West Farmington, Maine, testified that she was sent an unsolicited mailing, which looked like any other letter in the stacks of junk mail that we all receive every day. This ``junk mail,'' however, was not what it appeared to be. This so-called ``welcome package'' automatically signed her up for a new long distance service unless she returned a card rejecting the change. She was amazed and appalled that it was possible for a company to take over her long distance service simply because she did not respond that she did not want their service. Building on this record, my Subcommittee held a second slamming hearing on April 23, 1998, in Washington, DC. This hearing exposed how certain fraudulent long distance switchless resellers (companies with no telephone equipment of their own that buy access to larger telephone companies' long distance lines and then ``resell'' that access to consumers) are responsible for a large proportion of the intentional slamming incidents. These electronic bandits use deceptive marketing practices and often outright fraud to switch consumers' long distance service. The Subcommittee also learned how under current industry practices, many companies reap huge profits by taking advantage of consumers in such a fashion. At my Subcommittee's April 1998 hearing, we examined a case study of telephone services fraud. A man named Daniel Fletcher fraudulently operated as a long distance reseller, using at least eight different company names. In these various guises, Fletcher slammed thousands of consumers, billing them for a total of at least $20 million in long distance charges. The impunity with which Mr. Fletcher deliberately slammed consumers for so long demonstrates the need to establish strong consumer protections to deter intentional slamming. On July 23, 1998, I convened a hearing in Washington to explore the emerging problem of telephone cramming. At that hearing, we learned how cramming is a growing consumer fraud and how companies are using telephone bills to rip-off consumers by slipping unauthorized charges onto their statements without their consent and without proper notice. The National Consumers League testified that cramming has skyrocketed to first place among the more than 50 categories of telemarketing scams reported to its hotline. The FCC testified that it is relying on the telephone industry to voluntarily implement procedures to stop cramming. However, it was evident from the testimony that unless we establish a clear statutory and regulatory scheme and insist upon rigorous enforcement of these rules, cramming will continue to be a problem for consumers. In May 1998, the Senate passed a strong anti-slamming bill by a unanimous vote. This bill contained strong consumer protection provisions and mandated aggressive enforcement by the FCC and other federal agencies. Unfortunately, the House retreated significantly from this strong anti-slamming legislation and sent us, at the very end of the legislative session, a bill significantly weaker than the one which passed the Senate--indeed, a bill so weak that it would provide consumers with less protection than they enjoy today, by preempting the important role states play in enforcing consumer anti-fraud protections. Last fall, in the final days of the session, the Congress was unable to agree to an acceptable compromise bill in the limited amount of time available to it. I was pleased to see, however, that the FCC finally took action in December of last year to curb slamming. Among other measures, the FCC eliminated the ``welcome package'' as a verification method. This method was abused by many long distance carriers, facilitating widespread slamming. I urged the FCC last year to prohibit this practice, and I am glad to see that the Commission promulgated regulations banning the welcome package. The FCC also made positive changes to the consumer liability rules, absolving consumers in certain circumstances from paying companies that slammed them. This provision is designed to take the profit out of slamming, to prevent this scam in the first place. I am pleased to see that the Commission adopted this principle which was a major finding of the Subcommittee's investigation of telephone slamming. The FCC anti-slamming regulations are a step in the right direction, but we need to do more to protect consumers from these fraudulent activities. Today, to increase consumers protections, I am introducing a comprehensive telephone-related anti-fraud bill that will address both the slamming and cramming problems. I want to take this opportunity to explain several provisions in my bill, which is designed to increase consumer protections and to strengthen the enforcement tools available to federal and state regulators. First, the bill enhances the states' ability to enact regulations and take enforcement actions against slamming and cramming. As the Subcommittee's investigation has revealed, the states have been admirably aggressive in taking enforcement action against companies that engage in telephone-related fraud. For example, in February 1998, the Florida Public Service Commission proposed a $500,000 fine against a company called Minimum Rate Pricing for slamming subscribers. The FCC, in contrast, fined the same company only $80,000. In the Fletcher case mentioned previously, the State of Florida fined one Fletcher company $860,000, while the FCC originally fined one of them only $80,000. I am glad to say that since my subcommittee's investigation, the FCC has significantly increased its enforcement efforts, particularly against Mr. Fletcher. For the most part, however, the states have been, and remain, the first line of defense against companies that repeatedly slam or cram consumers. This bill protects the states' ability to continue to fight those illegal practices. Specifically, this bill allows the states to impose tough requirements to protect consumers from those companies who continue to slam or cram American consumers. Moreover, states will be able to continue to obtain refunds for consumers who have been harmed by such fraudulent practices. Second, this bill makes it clear that telephone companies that continue to slam or cram consumers will be subject to tough civil penalties. The bill will create new civil penalties for cramming, and authorize the imposition of stiff penalties by the FCC on those companies who violate FCC regulations against slamming or cramming. The FCC is currently authorized to assess forfeiture penalties of no more than $110,000 for each violation, for a total forfeiture not to exceed $1.1 million for a continuing violation. This bill sends a clear message to the FCC, however, that forfeiture penalties against companies that engage in telephone-related fraud should be large enough to deter such practices. These and other penalties the FCC will be authorized to impose ought to ensure that telephone companies follow proper procedures and refrain from slamming and cramming. If they break the rules by trying to cheat consumers, they will pay a steep price. But prevention is better than punishment, and any effective enforcement program designed to reduce or eliminate telephone-related fraud must take the financial incentive for fraud away from companies who engage in these practices. The new FCC regulations go a long way to protecting consumers by absolving them from paying any charges for 30 days after they are slammed and by allowing consumers to pay their previously authorized carrier for telephone calls made in the period during which the slamming company fraudulently seized their long distance telephone service. Unfortunately, this FCC regulation does not apply to consumers who did not notice that they were slammed and consequently paid this long distance bill to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission apparently does not have the authority to mandate this requirement. My bill would change the law to allow all consumers to get refunds from unauthorized carriers. Under this plan, all consumers will be treated equally. The bill will also require telephone billing agents to make it clear to consumers that their telephone service will not be terminated when consumers dispute unauthorized charges that are crammed onto their telephone bills. Finally, the bill will protect a consumer's right to a ``freeze option.'' This provision makes it clear that consumers have the right to stop slammers from changing their long distance service without their authorization. By invoking the freeze option, consumers can retain control over their telephone service by prohibiting any change in a consumers choice of telephone service provider, unless that change is expressly authorized by the consumer. This provision, I should also note, does not in any way prevent the FCC from regulating the marketing practices of telephone companies that use the freeze option in an unfair or deceptive manner. The Commission will be fully empowered to guarantee that consumers' right to protect their choice of local or long distance telephone service is not abridged or diminished. In sum, this language should increase consumers' right to prevent unauthorized changes in their telephone service. This bill will go a long way to provide strong consumer protection against telephone-related fraud. It preserves the important role states play in protecting consumers and enforcing tough sanctions against unscrupulous carriers; it authorizes tough federal civil penalties against those companies that continue to slam and cram consumers; and it protects consumers' right to a freeze option so that they--and not the telephone companies--have control over their long distance services. Mr. President, this bill will provide the federal government and the states with the statutory tools to fight the practices of slamming and cramming and to end the systematic defrauding of countless thousands of consumers every year. I urge my colleagues to join me in the fight against telephone-related fraud by supporting this bill.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation introduced by the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee. I would have preferred the approach taken in my own home health bill, which I introduced last April and which has 29 Senate cosponsors, because it would have done more to level the playing field and provide more relief to historically cost-effective agencies. However, I understand that the chairman faced a difficult task of balancing a number of competing issues, and the bill we are considering today is an important first step that will move the process forward and provide a measure of relief to those cost-effective agencies in every State that are currently being penalized by the formula used to calculate the per- beneficiary limit. America's home health agencies provide invaluable services that have enabled a growing number of our most frail and vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and stay just where they want to be--in their own homes. However, critics have long pointed out that Medicare's historic cost-based payment for home health care has inherent incentives for home care agencies to provide more services, which has driven up costs. Therefore, there was widespread support for the Balanced Budget Act provision calling for the implementation of a prospective payment system for home care. Until then, home health agencies are being paid according to a new ``interim payment system,'' which unfortunately is critically flawed. As we are all aware, the Health Care Financing Administration has diverted considerable resources to solving its Y2K problem so that there will be no slowdown of Medicare payments in 2000. As a result, implementation of the prospective payment system for home health agencies will be delayed, and home health agencies will remain on IPS far longer than Congress envisioned when it enacted the Balanced Budget Act. This makes it all the more imperative that we act now to address the problems with a system that effectively rewards the agencies the have provided the most visits and spent the most Medicare dollars, while it penalizes low-cost, more efficient providers. Home health agencies in the Northeast are among those that have been particularly hard-hit by the formula change. As the Wall Street Journal recently observed, ``If New England had been just a little greedier, its home health industry would be a lot better off now . . . Ironically, . . . [the region] is getting clobbered by the system because of its tradition of nonprofit community service and efficiency. Moreover, there are wide disparities in payments and no logic to the variance in payment levels. The average patient cap in the East South Central region is almost $2,500 higher than New England's without any evidence that patients in the southern States are sicker or that nurses and other home health personnel in this region cost more. Moreover, the current per-beneficiary limits range from a low of $760 for one agency to a high of $53,000 at another. As such, the system gives a competitive advantage to high-cost agencies over their lower costs neighbors, since agencies in a particular region may have dramatically different reimbursement levels regardless of any differences among their patient populations. And finally, this system may force low-cost agencies to stop accepting patients with more serious health care needs. Mr. President, I realize that we cannot address every home health issue that has been raised this year. Some matters will have to carry over to the next Congress, and I fully intend to work with my colleagues next year on these items. Nonetheless, there are things we can do this year, and I believe that it is imperative that Congress act now to begin to address these problems. At least one agency in Maine has closed because the reimbursement levels under this system fell so short of its actual operating costs. Other cost-efficient agencies in my State are laying off staff or declining to accept new patients with more serious health conditions. Which brings us back to the central and most critical issue--the real losers in this situation are our seniors, since cuts of this magnitude simply cannot be sustained without ultimately affecting patient care. Mr. President, once again, I commend the chairman of the Finance Committee for his efforts on this difficult issue and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to commend Senator Campbell for his efforts to protect consumers from con artists who try to cheat Americans using deceptive mailings. I am pleased to join in support of his legislation. Senator Campbell's bill would require a disclosure on mailings to inform individuals that they have not automatically won a prize and that a purchase is not necessary to participate in a sweepstakes contest. New civil penalties could be imposed on violations of the provisions against sending deceptive mail. Senator Campbell has been a strong leader and forceful advocate for curtailing abuses by sweepstakes firms who send misleading mailings that suggest that people have won hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars. Such deceptive mailings have caused people across the country to buy unnecessary products or to send money in the hope of winning a large prize. One scam even prompted some individuals to fly to Florida thinking they had won the grand prize in a major sweepstakes. Millions of Americans have received sweepstakes letters that use deceptive marketing ploys to encourage the purchase of magazines and other products. A common tactic is a promise of winnings printed in large type, such as: ``You Were Declared One of Our Latest Sweepstakes Winners And You're About to Be Paid $833,337 in Cash!'' Of course, the recipient isn't really a winner, as the fine print said the money is won only ``If you have and return the grand prize winning number in time.'' Another problem is what I call ``government look-alike mailings,'' which look deceptively like mailings from Federal agencies. An example of such a deceptive mailing was sent to be by a woman from Machiasport, Maine. The letter was marked ``Urgent Delivery, A Special Notification of Cash Currently Being Held by the U.S. Government is ready for shipment to you.'' A postcard asks the consumer to send $9.97 to learn how to receive this cash. Of course, this was not a legitimate mailing from the Federal Government, but simply a ploy used by an unscrupulous individual to trick an unsuspecting consumer into sending money. The experience of my constituents, as well as testimony presented by Senator Campbell and others at the hearing chaired by our colleague, Senator Cochran, convinced me that Congress must pass strong legislation to stop sweepstakes fraud and deceptive mailings. As Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I have focused our agenda on a number of consumer frauds, and I will be working with Senator Cochran to further examine the issue of deceptive mailings in the coming months. I commend Senator Campbell for his leadership and look forward to working with him on this issue next year.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as a Senator from a State with an excellent records of accomplishment at the secondary education level, but a discouraging low rate of participation in higher education, I am extremely pleased to rise in support of the conference report on the higher education act amendments of 1998. Mr. President, I have had no higher priority than bringing this important legislation to completion this year. I am very proud of the record of Maine's primary and secondary schools. We have one of the lowest high school dropout rates in the country, and we rank in the top third of the Nation for residents over 25 years old with high school diplomas. More important, the academic achievement of our schools is impressive. Education Week's ``Quality Counts'' assessment found that the performance of Maine's students in mathematics, science, and reading was at the very top of the Nation. Unfortunately, Mr. President, there is one dark cloud in this otherwise very bright and sunny picture, and that is the low rate of participation in higher education by Maine's high school graduates. That low rate results not from a lack of interest or lack of ability, but rather from a lack of opportunity. The legislation we are considering today holds the key for young people of limited means to get through a door that, often for financial reasons, would otherwise remain closed to them. This reauthorization of the Higher Education Act continues the historic commitment begun 40 years ago when Congress enacted the National Defense Education Act. In the NDEA, Congress stated, ``The security of the Nation requires the fullest development of the mental resources and technical skills of its young men and women.'' In 1958, Congress was thinking of security in terms of the cold war and the recent launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union. However, Mr. President, this statement remains equally valid today--although the challenge to our national security is greatly different. Today, we face an internal threat--not the threat of the rapidly advancing technology of a foreign enemy, but the quiet threat of failing to provide educational opportunity to all our citizens. Those deprived of that opportunity lose the chance to participate in our Nation's bright, technology-based economic future. Given the well-established relationship between educational attainment and lifetime earnings, the consequences of not affording educational opportunity to lower-income Americans are predictable. Indeed, the result is a vicious cycle, in which the income gap leads to an education gap, which in turn leads to an even more pronounced income gap. Unless steps are taken to close the education gap, one that is rooted in economics rather than in ability, we lock the children of America's lower income families into a self-perpetuating cycle of inadequate education and low income. The Higher Education Act seeks to close that education gap. It assumes that all qualified high school students graduating are entitled to higher education and strives to make this a reality through a program of grants, guaranteed loans, and Opportunity Programs. The grant programs authorized by the Higher Education Act are the most important part of our attempt to assure access to higher education. Nationwide, Pell grants have assisted millions of students in obtaining postsecondary education. In Maine, 15,000 students were awarded $24 million in Pell Grants last year. In addition, Maine institutions received more than $6.5 million in Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants, which they distributed to the most needy students. My strong belief in the importance of grant aid in expanding access to higher education has led me to introduce several bills to increase the level of Pell Grants for which students can qualify. One of these bills, the Working Students Income Protection Act, eliminated an unfair penalty that is imposed on low-income students who work to pay part of their educational expenses--just the kind of thing we ought to be encouraging. The bill was incorporated, I am pleased to say, into the Higher Education Act Amendments and, as a result, students may now earn $2,000 a year more before their Pell Grants are reduced. The act also reflects my efforts to ensure that the formula used to calculate the amount of a student's Pell Grant reflects the true costs of dependent care. As we increase the maximum level of Pell Grants, we approach the point at which this arbitrary cap of $750, which is in the current law, would limit Pell Grants to some of the most deserving students--those balancing caring for their children and going to college. The changes in the Higher Education Act will prevent such students from having to choose between supporting their children and pursuing higher education. In addition to Pell Grants, the Higher Education Act has provided funding for a joint Federal-State effort to award grants to needy students. This program is known as the State Student Incentive Grants Program. This bill incorporates a proposal authored by Senator Reed of Rhode Island and myself to not only maintain this important program, but to expand it to fund a series of other State efforts to promote access to higher education for low-income students. This year, for every dollar in Federal SSIG funds, my State of Maine is contributing almost $50, and the result is that 10,000 students will receive a total of $5 million to further their education. Mr. President, the combined Federal and State grant aid based on the Higher Education Act totals more than $35 million to students in Maine who are enrolled in institutions of higher education. This represents a direct investment in equal opportunity and bright futures for Maine families. The other major financial assistance program in the Higher Education Act is the guaranteed student loan program. This reauthorization assures that students will continue to have access to both private loans, as well as those that come directly from the Department of Education, and it establishes the lowest interest rate in 17 years for guaranteed student loans. This is good news, indeed. Mr. President, unless individuals from disadvantaged social and economic backgrounds aspire to higher education, no amount of financial aid will help them. Therefore, in reauthorizing the Higher Education Act, we are continuing a very successful effort by the Federal Government to put higher education on the radar screens of disadvantaged youths through the Opportunity or Trio Programs. In my home State, TRIO programs, such as Talent Search and Upward Bound, have lifted the aspirations of thousands of young people who otherwise never would have even considered postsecondary education. I am very pleased to have worked for the extension and improvement of these programs along with the creation of an exciting new program known as Gear Up, through which colleges will reach out to entire middle school classes. I have had the opportunity to visit outstanding Upward Bound programs at both the University of Maine at Orono and the University of Maine at Presque Isle. The high school students in these programs were enthusiastic, challenged, and so excited about their opportunities. As one student told me, ``No one in my family has ever been to college. I had no idea that college could be part of my future--Upward Bound has given me confidence and experience; it's opened my eyes to all sorts of new opportunities.'' The Federal Government cannot guarantee equal educational achievement, but we can take steps and must take steps to guarantee equality of access by removing the barriers that prevent students from lower- and middle-income families from pursuing postsecondary education. That is the very purpose of the Higher Education Act. Its student loan programs have assisted countless students in overcoming the financial obstacles to higher education while its opportunity programs, such as Upward Bound, have an admirable record of breaking down the social and academic areas. Despite our successes, the statistics show that we have not yet done the job. The education gap still exists, and to close it we need to reaffirm and extend our commitment to equal access to education. Establishing equality of opportunity is the ultimate goal of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. The American people expect their Government to prepare our Nation for the next century. I can think of no better way to carry out that responsibility than to assist today's young people in realizing their full potential to become not just productive members of society but also the leaders upon whom America's future depends. I am pleased to have played a role in bringing this very important legislation before the Senate today. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes from the control of the time of the Senator from Vermont, Senator Jeffords.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to engage my colleague from Michigan, the sponsor of the Child Custody Protection Act, in a colloquy to clarify the legislation's intent with regard to existing State parental notification laws. The State of Maine has a carefully constructed adult consent requirement. In my state, a minor under 18 may obtain an abortion with the informed consent of either one parent, a guardian or an adult family member. Absent that consent, she may obtain an abortion if she receives counseling from a physician, psychiatrist, ordained member of the clergy, nurse, physician's assistant or qualified counselor. She may also obtain an abortion without parental or adult family member consent by securing a court order. Will the legislation we are considering today in any way override or supersede Maine State law?

Ms. COLLINS. Opponents of this bill contend that health care providers in states like Maine that do not have a law requiring parental involvement could still be liable for conspiracy or as accomplices under this legislation. The liability would presumably apply when they perform or participate in performing an abortion on a minor brought into Maine in violation of the proposed statute. Is this analysis correct? Are there any circumstances under which Maine's health care providers performing or participating in the performance of what, under Maine state law, would be legal abortion on a minor, could be held liable under your bill? Would these providers have any new legal responsibilities as a consequence of the enactment of this legislation?

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining with my colleagues, Senators Durbin and Snowe, in introducing this bill to ban all late-term abortions, including partial birth abortions, that are not necessary to save the mother's life or to protect her from grievous physical harm. Let me be clear from the outset. I am strongly opposed to all late- term abortions, including partial birth abortions. I agree that they should be banned. However, I believe that an exception must be made for those rare cases when it is necessary to save the life of the mother or to protect her from grievous physical harm. Fortunately, these procedures are extremely rare in my State, where there were just two late-term abortions between 1984 and 1996. We believe that this debate should not be about one particular method of abortion, but rather about the larger question of under what circumstances should late-term, or post-viability, abortions be legally available. We believe that all late-term abortions--regardless of the procedure used--should be banned, except in those rare cases where the life or the physical health of the mother is at serious risk. In my view, Congress is ill-equipped to make judgments on specific medical procedures. As the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists--which represents over 90 percent of ob-gyns and which opposes the partial birth abortion ban--has said, ``the intervention of legislative bodies into medical decision-making is inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous.'' Most politicians have neither the training nor the experience to decide which procedure is most appropriate in a given case. These medically difficult and highly personal decisions should be left for families to make in consultation with their doctors. The Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, has identified ``viability''--the point at which the fetus is capable of sustaining life outside the womb with or without support--as the defining point in determining the constitutionality of restrictions on abortion. While I don't believe that it is appropriate for us to dictate medical practice, I do believe that it is appropriate for Congress to determine the circumstances under which access to late-term abortions--by any procedure--should be restricted. That is what the legislation we are introducing today would do. Our bill goes beyond the partial birth abortion ban, which simply prohibits a specific medical procedure and will not prevent a single abortion. Let me emphasize that point. The partial birth legislation would not prevent a single late-term abortion. A physician could simply use another, perhaps more dangerous method to end the pregnancy. By contrast, our bill would prohibit the abortion of any viable fetus, by any method, unless that abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the mother or to prevent ``grievous injury'' to her physical health. We have taken great care to tightly limit the health exception in this bill to ``grievous injury'' to the mother's physical health. It would not allow late-term abortions to be performed simply because the woman is depressed or feeling stressed or has a minor health problem because of the pregnancy. ``Grievous injury'' is narrowly and strictly defined by our bill as either a ``severely debilitating disease or impairment specifically caused by the pregnancy,'' or ``an inability to provide necessary treatment for a life-threatening condition.'' Moreover, ``grievous injury'' does not include any condition that is not medically diagnosable or any condition for which termination of the pregnancy is not medically indicated. This bill includes an additional safeguard. The initial opinion of the treating physician that the continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health must be confirmed by a ``second opinion.'' This second opinion must come from an independent physician who will not be involved in the abortion procedure and who has not been involved in the treatment of the mother. This second physician must also certify--in writing--that, in his or her medical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health. What we are talking about are the severe, medically diagnosable threats to a woman's physical health that are sometimes brought on or aggravated by pregnancy. Let me give you a few examples: primary pulmonary hypertension, which can cause sudden death or intractable congestive heart failure; severe pregnancy-aggravated hypertension with accompanying kidney or liver failure; complications from aggravated diabetes such as amputation or blindness; or an inability to treat aggressive cancers such as leukemia, breast cancer, or non-Hodgkins lymphoma. These are all obstetric conditions that are cited in the medical literature as possible indications for pregnancy terminations. In these extremely rare cases--where the mother has been certified by two physicians to be at risk of losing her life or suffering grievous physical harm--I believe that we should leave the very difficult decisions about what should be done to the best judgment of the women, families and physicians involved. Mr. President, the legislation we are introducing today is a fair and compassionate compromise on this extremely difficult issue. It would ensure that all late-term abortions--including partial birth abortions--are strictly limited to those rare and tragic cases where the life or the physical health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. This legislation presents an unusual opportunity for both ``pro-choice'' and ``pro- life'' advocates to work together on a reasonable approach. I also ask unanimous consent that a recent editorial from the Bangor Daily News endorsing our approach be included in the Congressional Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining with my colleagues, Senators Durbin and Snowe, in introducing this bill to ban all late-term abortions, including partial birth abortions, that are not necessary to save the mother's life or to protect her from grievous physical harm. Let me be clear from the outset. I am strongly opposed to all late- term abortions, including partial birth abortions. I agree that they should be banned. However, I believe that an exception must be made for those rare cases when it is necessary to save the life of the mother or to protect her from grievous physical harm. Fortunately, these procedures are extremely rare in my State, where there were just two late-term abortions between 1984 and 1996. We believe that this debate should not be about one particular method of abortion, but rather about the larger question of under what circumstances should late-term, or post-viability, abortions be legally available. We believe that all late-term abortions--regardless of the procedure used--should be banned, except in those rare cases where the life or the physical health of the mother is at serious risk. In my view, Congress is ill-equipped to make judgments on specific medical procedures. As the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists--which represents over 90 percent of ob-gyns and which opposes the partial birth abortion ban--has said, ``the intervention of legislative bodies into medical decision-making is inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous.'' Most politicians have neither the training nor the experience to decide which procedure is most appropriate in a given case. These medically difficult and highly personal decisions should be left for families to make in consultation with their doctors. The Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, has identified ``viability''--the point at which the fetus is capable of sustaining life outside the womb with or without support--as the defining point in determining the constitutionality of restrictions on abortion. While I don't believe that it is appropriate for us to dictate medical practice, I do believe that it is appropriate for Congress to determine the circumstances under which access to late-term abortions--by any procedure--should be restricted. That is what the legislation we are introducing today would do. Our bill goes beyond the partial birth abortion ban, which simply prohibits a specific medical procedure and will not prevent a single abortion. Let me emphasize that point. The partial birth legislation would not prevent a single late-term abortion. A physician could simply use another, perhaps more dangerous method to end the pregnancy. By contrast, our bill would prohibit the abortion of any viable fetus, by any method, unless that abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the mother or to prevent ``grievous injury'' to her physical health. We have taken great care to tightly limit the health exception in this bill to ``grievous injury'' to the mother's physical health. It would not allow late-term abortions to be performed simply because the woman is depressed or feeling stressed or has a minor health problem because of the pregnancy. ``Grievous injury'' is narrowly and strictly defined by our bill as either a ``severely debilitating disease or impairment specifically caused by the pregnancy,'' or ``an inability to provide necessary treatment for a life-threatening condition.'' Moreover, ``grievous injury'' does not include any condition that is not medically diagnosable or any condition for which termination of the pregnancy is not medically indicated. This bill includes an additional safeguard. The initial opinion of the treating physician that the continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health must be confirmed by a ``second opinion.'' This second opinion must come from an independent physician who will not be involved in the abortion procedure and who has not been involved in the treatment of the mother. This second physician must also certify--in writing--that, in his or her medical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health. What we are talking about are the severe, medically diagnosable threats to a woman's physical health that are sometimes brought on or aggravated by pregnancy. Let me give you a few examples: primary pulmonary hypertension, which can cause sudden death or intractable congestive heart failure; severe pregnancy-aggravated hypertension with accompanying kidney or liver failure; complications from aggravated diabetes such as amputation or blindness; or an inability to treat aggressive cancers such as leukemia, breast cancer, or non-Hodgkins lymphoma. These are all obstetric conditions that are cited in the medical literature as possible indications for pregnancy terminations. In these extremely rare cases--where the mother has been certified by two physicians to be at risk of losing her life or suffering grievous physical harm--I believe that we should leave the very difficult decisions about what should be done to the best judgment of the women, families and physicians involved. Mr. President, the legislation we are introducing today is a fair and compassionate compromise on this extremely difficult issue. It would ensure that all late-term abortions--including partial birth abortions--are strictly limited to those rare and tragic cases where the life or the physical health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. This legislation presents an unusual opportunity for both ``pro-choice'' and ``pro- life'' advocates to work together on a reasonable approach. I also ask unanimous consent that a recent editorial from the Bangor Daily News endorsing our approach be included in the Congressional Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, will hold two days of hearings entitled ``Improving The Safety of Food Imports.'' The hearings will focus on legislative, administrative and regulatory remedies for the weaknesses previously identified in the subcommittee's safety of food imports investigation. The subcommittee will hear from various Members of Congress, Government agencies, as well as industry and interest groups. These hearings will take place on Thursday, September 24 and Friday, September 25, 1998, at 9:30 a.m., in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Timothy J. Shea of the subcommittee staff at 224-3721.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, will hold a hearing entitled ``The National Cancer Institute's Management of Radiation Studies.'' This hearing will take place on Wednesday, September 16, 1998, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Pamela Marple, the Subcommittee's Minority Chief Counsel at 224-2627. committee on rules and administration

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to start by commending the Senator from Wisconsin for his leadership and thanking him for his kind comments. It is with a renewed sense of enthusiasm that I rise today to urge this body to pass much-needed reforms to our campaign finance laws. I am buoyed by the courage shown by my Republican colleagues in the House who were willing to put their commitment to good government ahead of their parochial interests. Mr. President, this amendment is needed because the twin loopholes of soft money and bogus issue ads have virtually obliterated our campaign finance laws, leaving us with little more than a pile of legal rubble. We supposedly have restrictions on how much individuals can contribute to political parties; yet, at last year's hearings before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, we heard from one individual who gave $325,000 to the Democratic National Committee in order to secure a picture with the President of the United States. Another mockingly testified that the next time he is willing to spend $600,000, rather than $300,000, to purchase access to the White House. We supposedly prohibit corporations and unions from financing political campaigns; yet, the AFL-CIO reportedly spent $800,000 in Maine on so-called issue ads which anyone with an ounce of common sense recognized were designed to defeat a candidate for Congress. And as reported in Sunday's Washington Post, when the class action lawyers collect their tens of billions in fees from the tobacco lawsuits, the resulting flood of cash to the Democratic Party will make past contributions look like pocket change. We in this body decry legal loopholes, but we have reserved the largest ones for ourselves. Indeed, these are more like black holes, and that sucking sound you hear during election years is the whoosh of six-figure soft money donations rushing into party coffers. Why should this matter, we are asked by those all too eager to equate freedom of speech with freedom to spend? It should matter because political equality is the essence of democracy, and an electoral system fueled by money is one lacking in political equality. Mr. President, the hope of Maine support campaign finance reform. If my colleagues will indulge me a bit of home state pride, I think the Maine perspective results from old fashion, Down East common sense. Maine people are able to see through the complexities of this debate and focus on what is at heart a very simple, yet very profound, problem. As long as we allow unlimited contributions--whether in the form of hard or soft money--and as long as we allow unlimited expenditures, we will not have political equality in this country. It is not just that there will not be a level playing field for those seeking public office, but more important, there will not be a level playing field for those seeking access to their government. The Maine attitude may well be shaped by the fact that many people in my state live in communities where town meetings are still held each year. I am not talking about the staged, televised town meeting that has become so fashionable of late. I am talking about a rough and tumble meeting held in the high school gym or in the grange hall. Attend one of these meetings and you will observe an element of true democracy; people with more money do not get to speak longer or louder than people with less money. Unfortunately, what is true at Maine town meetings is not true in Washington. Mr. President, the amendment pending before this body is dramatically different from the original McCain-Feingold bill. It does not seek to radically alter how we finance our campaigns. Indeed, it does not alter at all the basic framework that Congress established more than two decades ago in the 1970s. Before us today is legislation designed simply to close election law loopholes that undermine the protections the American people were promised in the aftermath of Watergate. Put differently, this amendment does not create new reforms, but merely restores reforms adopted two decades ago. Let me be more specific. Gone from this version of the legislation are the voluntary limits on how much a campaign can spend. Gone is the free TV time, as well as the reduced TV time. Gone is the reduction in PAC limits. Gone are the restrictions on certain types of so-called issue ads run by nonprofit organizations, replaced instead by a requirement that they disclose their sources of funding. Most of these continue to be very important reforms to which I remain personally committed. But in the interest of securing action on the major abuses in the current system, we who support the McCain-Feingold proposal have agreed to significant compromises. This is now a modest bill but nevertheless, a critical first step in the journey toward reform. Mr. President, history demonstrates that the current uses of soft money and issue ads were not intended by the framers of our election laws. Go back to the early 1980s when soft money was used only for party overhead and organizational expenses, and you will find that the contributions totaled a few million dollars. By contrast, in the last election cycle when soft money took on its current role, these contributions exceeded $250 million. Bogus issue ads were such a small element in the past that it is impossible to find reliable estimates of the amounts expended on them. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case, and these expenditures have now become worthy of studies, the most prominent of which estimates that as much as $150 million dollars was spent on these ads in 1995-96. When I ran for a seat in this body, I advocated major changes to our campaign finance laws, but I recognize that goal must wait for another time. The challenge before us today is far more modest. Are we prepared to address loopholes that subvert the intent of the election laws that we enacted more than two decades ago? Are we willing to restore to the American people the campaign finance system that rightfully belongs to them? Those are the questions before this body. Mr. President, a strong majority of the Members of the House of Representatives support reform as do a majority of the Members of the Senate. I would hope that the Senate this week will finally vote to reform a loophole-ridden system. The American people deserve no less. Mr. President, it remains to be seen whether campaign finance reform is an idea whose time has come. But I can assure my colleagues of one thing--it is an idea that will not die. Thank you, Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to support the McCain- Feingold amendment, and I am proud to be a cosponsor. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, will hold a hearing entitled ``The Safety of Food Imports: Fraud and Deception In The Food Import Process.'' This hearing is the third in a series of hearings the Subcommittee has scheduled as part of an in-depth investigation into the safety of food imports. The upcoming hearing will address specific fraud and deceptive techniques used by unscrupulous individuals to import food products illegally into the United States. This hearing will take place on Thursday, September 10, 1998, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Timothy J. Shea of the Subcommittee staff at 224-3721.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise to join the senior Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe, in urging my colleagues to approve the conference report on H.R. 629, legislation that would ratify the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact, known as the Texas Compact. In entering into an agreement for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste, the States of Maine, Texas, and Vermont followed the direction established by the Congress in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and its 1985 amendments. That legislation contemplated that States would form agreements of this nature for the disposal of low-level waste, and thus, by ratifying the compact, Congress will be completing a process that it set in motion. Since 1985, Congress has ratified 9 compacts involving 41 States. Put differently, 82 of the 100 Members of this body live in States with compacts that have already been ratified by the Senate, and with the approval of the Texas Compact, that number will rise to 88. In short, what Maine, Texas, and Vermont are seeking today has already been routinely granted in the vast majority of States. While the disposal of radioactive waste is bound to generate controversy, this agreement has been overwhelmingly approved by the legislatures of the three compacting States, signed by their Governors, and, in the case of the State of Maine, endorsed by voters in a referendum. This is consistent with the congressional determination that the States bear responsibility for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste and that, in the interest of limiting the number of disposal sites, they work together to carry out this responsibility. Indeed, ratification by Congress is necessitated only because State- imposed limitations on the importation of waste would otherwise violate the commerce clause. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota, whom I enjoy serving with on the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, has criticized the disposal site that is under consideration by the State of Texas. Apart from the fact that the location of the site is a matter for Texas to determine and is not a component of this bill, that criticism is unsupported by the facts. In making the decision to consider the proposed site in Hudspeth County, TX, there has been extensive public involvement as well as a thorough environmental and technical review. The county was found to have two critical characteristics for a disposal site; namely, very little rainfall and very low population density. Indeed, the county is the size of the State of Connecticut and has a population of only 2,800 people, and it must be remembered, Mr. President, that this is only a proposed site. Final approval will not be forthcoming unless all of the standards established by Texas law are satisfied. The decision to consider the site in Texas has nothing to do with who lives there. It has everything to do with the fact that very few people live there. This body has been presented with nine low-level radioactive waste compacts. It has not imposed changes on any one of those agreements. In keeping with congressionally established policy for the disposal of low-level waste, Maine, Texas, and Vermont are simply seeking the same treatment. I commend my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, for her leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support the conference report. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, we must replace this country's Byzantine and loophole-ridden Tax Code. How can anyone stand on the floor of this Senate and defend it? Just look at our current Tax Code. It has been estimated that it takes Americans 5.4 billion hours to do their taxes. Our Tax Code currently consists of nearly 3 million words backed up by nearly 10 million words of regulations. It is impossible to understand, which is why it cost taxpayers an astounding $150 billion a year to comply with. Our Tax Code is riddled with loopholes that benefit special interests at the expense of the general interest. Special interests have filled the code with countless loopholes, poorly constructed tax writeoffs, and expensive subsidies that benefit a few at the expense of the many. Mr. President, our Tax Code is not like a fine wine that gets better with age. It is more like a woolen sweater in a closet full of moths. It acquires more and more holes all of the time, and after a while, you just can't keep on mending it. You have to throw it out. We want to write a new Tax Code that will provide all Americans with a simpler, fairer Tax Code, a Tax Code that they deserve. And we want to do it by Independence Day 2002. Mr. President, I have been in the Senate about a year and a half now. If there is one thing I have learned, it is that the Senate never takes action--that the Congress never acts unless there is a deadline. The Senator from Montana knows that better than most people. Does he really think that we would have acted to reauthorize ISTEA, the transportation bill that he worked so hard on with the Senator from Rhode Island without a deadline, without the existing law expiring unless we act? We are in a deadline situation right now as we rush to complete work before the August recess. We all know what happens towards the end of the fiscal year as we rush to complete work on the funding business to keep our Government open. The fact is, Mr. President, that this Congress will not act to do the necessary step of reforming our Tax Code without a deadline. It is not irresponsible to allow 4\1/2\ years for this task to be undertaken. We are not prejudging the results. We are not saying that the result has to be a national tax or some other possibility. What we are saying is that America deserves a Tax Code that we can be proud of. And the only way we are going to accomplish that goal is if we set a deadline. Mr. President, the Tax Code is not going to expire overnight. We are not proposing sunsetting it tomorrow, or next month, or even next year. What we have laid out is over a 4-year period an adequate amount of time to carefully and responsibly craft an alternative of which America can be proud. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this important legislation. No one--let me repeat that--no one is going to allow our current Tax Code to expire without a responsible alternative in place. But if we are going to restore public confidence in Government, we must start by ending the current Tax Code as we know it, and by crafting a well- thought-out and responsible alternative. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor, and I urge my colleagues to support this very worthwhile initiative. I commend the Senator from Arkansas and the Senator in the Chair for their work in this area. Thank you. I yield the floor. Mr. JOHNSON addressed the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am proud to rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas. I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. The Senator from New York, the distinguished chairman of the committee, knows I am very sympathetic to the goals of the amendment offered by the Senator from Alabama. I am concerned about the burden that the CRA imposes on our small community banks. It is my understanding, however, based on the representations of the chairman and a letter from the administration, that if this amendment is adopted, it will lead to the veto of this legislation, which I strongly support. So I find myself in a real quandary. I support the amendment of the Senator from Alabama, yet I strongly support the underlying bill and do not want to jeopardize it being signed into law. Could the distinguished chairman give me assurances that he is willing to work with me, with the Senator from Alabama, and others who are concerned about easing this burden on our small banks?

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator very much for his assurances. This is a matter of great concern for me. I would very much like to vote for this amendment, but in view of the fact that the President has made it very clear he would veto the bill if it were included, I, unfortunately, am going to have to vote against the amendment. I thank the Senator. Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS. Will the Senator from New York yield for a question?

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment introduced by my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, to strengthen the capability of our law enforcement community to protect older women from violence. There is no conduct less consistent with the precepts of a civilized society than the physical abuse of those unable to defend themselves. Our recognition of this has led to an aggressive and ongoing campaign against child abuse, and it must lead to an equally strong response to domestic violence directed at older Americans. Mr. President, at a 1995 hearing in Portland, Maine, chaired by my predecessor, Senator Cohen, elder abuse was aptly described as ``society's secret shame.'' Family violence, particularly when directed at the elderly, was a major concern of Senator Cohen, and I welcome the opportunity to continue his efforts to combat this intolerable mistreatment of older Americans. Mr. President, earlier this year my home state released its crime statistics for 1997. I was cheered by the wonderful news that crime fell by 8.7% from 1996, to the lowest rate in at least 20 years. Hidden behind this positive statistic, however, was one that was very disquieting, namely, that domestic violence increased by 7.8%. Ironically, at the same time as we are becoming less likely to be harmed by strangers, many of our neighbors face an increasing threat from members of their own households. National data demonstrate that cases of domestic elder abuse, which includes neglect as well as physical abuse, are steadily increasing. From 1986 to 1996, the number of cases went from 117,000 to 293,000, an increase of 150%. Furthermore, there is widespread agreement that this type of abuse is greatly underreported. For example, although the number of reported cases in 1994 was 241,000, the National Center on Elder Abuse estimates that the true number of cases was 818,000. Mr. President, while these numbers indicate a serious and growing problem, all of the statistics in the world do not describe the problem as eloquently as the words of a single victim. At the Maine hearing, one such victim told what happened to her at the hands of her husband after her children left home. [T]hings got really bad. I had two broken wrists, cracked ribs, held down with his knee on my chest with a knife at my throat. I was made to crawl across the floor with a gun resting on my head, ready to fire. I've been choked until I was limp, and then he would drop me on the floor with a kick. I've been spit on, thrown through a window, dragged into the lake as he said he was going to drown me. Astonishingly, but not atypically, the witness was married to her husband for 44 years. Mr. President, this type of treatment cannot be tolerated. As a cosponsor of the Durbin amendment, I sincerely hope that my colleagues will take this modest step to enhance the ability of the law enforcement community to protect this vulnerable segment of our society. amendment No. 3313 (Purpose: To modify the membership of the Federal-State Joint Board on universal service) On page 72, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following: Sec. 209. (a) In General.--Section 254(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(a)) is amended-- (1) by striking the second sentence in paragraph (1); (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following: ``(2) Membership of joint board.-- ``(A) In General.--The Joint Board required by paragraph (1) shall be composed of 9 members, as follows: ``(i) 3 shall be members of the Federal Communications Commission; ``(ii) 1 shall be a State-appointed utility consumer advocate nominated by a national organization of State utility consumer advocates; and ``(iii) 5 shall be State utility commissioners nominated by the national organization of State utility commissions, with at least 2 such commissioners being commissioners of commissions of rural States. ``(B) Co-chairmen.--The Joint Board shall have 2 co- chairmen of equal authority, one of whom shall be a member of the Federal Communications Commission, and the other of whom shall be one of the 5 members described in subparagraph (A)(iii). The Federal Communications Commission shall adopt rules and procedures under which the co-chairmen of the Joint Board will have equal authority and equal responsibility for the Joint Board. ``(C) Rural state defined.--In this paragraph, the term `rural State' means any State in which the 1998 high-cost universal service support payments to local telephone companies exceeds 90 cents on a per loop per month basis.''. (b) FCC To Adopt Procedures Promptly.--The Federal Communications Commission shall adopt rules under section 254(a)(2)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(a)(2)(B)), as added by subsection (a) of this section, within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act. (c) Reconstituted Joint Board To Consider Universal Service.--The Federal-State Joint Board established under section 254(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(a)(1)) shall not take action on the Commission's Order and Order on Reconsideration adopted July 13, 1998, (CC Docket No. 96-45; FCC 98-160) relating to universal service until-- (1) the Commission has adopted rules under section 254(a)(2)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(a)(2)(B)); and (2) the co-chairmen of the Joint Board have been chosen under that section.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the UNUM Corporation on its 150th Anniversary. UNUM is based in Portland, Maine, has offices across America and around the globe, and enjoys a reputation for excellence throughout the world. July 17, 1998 marks the 150th Anniversary of the UNUM Corporation, a company incorporated in Maine in 1848 as Union Mutual Life Insurance Company. Throughout the past 150 years, UNUM has stayed true to the charge of its founder Elisha B. Pratt to ``find the better way'' and is known today as the company that ``sees farther.'' UNUM has become the world leader in disability insurance and consistently ranks among the best places to work in America. UNUM has chosen to celebrate its July 17 anniversary by having thousands of its employees volunteer a ``Day of Sharing'' to more than 200 community service projects in six countries. UNUM's ``Day of Sharing'' builds on a record of community partnership that includes contributing more than 75,000 employee volunteer hours during each of the past five years and the UNUM Foundation contributing $2 million to community programs last year alone. Not only is UNUM an outstanding and exemplary business leader, providing insurance protection to its customers, it is also an invaluable community partner, improving the communities where its employees have lived and worked for 150 years. Today, I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me in congratulating and commending UNUM on its 150th anniversary and its outstanding achievements as a business leader and community partner.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, will hold a hearing entitled ``Cramming: An Emerging Telephone Billing Fraud.'' This hearing will examine the emerging problem of telephone cramming--the billing of unauthorized charges on a consumer's telephone bill. Specifically, the hearing will highlight the scope and nature of cramming, educate consumers about cramming, and determine what is being done to control the practice. This hearing will take place on Thursday, July 23, 1998, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Timothy J. Shea of the Subcommittee staff at 224-3721.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the Senator from Mississippi, the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, for so generously honoring my request to support the USDA-Agricultural Research Service's New England Plant, Soil, and Water Research Laboratory, which is located at the University of Maine. I am very pleased that the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee has recommended that this important agriculture research worksite be kept open, despite the administration's misguided attempt to close the facility and curtail its funding. I am also happy that the distinguished chairman has agreed to my request to provide a $300,000 increase in the lab's funding to hire new scientists at the Cropping Systems Center to develop production and disease management systems.