Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, be recognized for approximately 10 minutes, if that is sufficient for the Senator.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the reauthorization of the Northeast Dairy Compact. I am pleased that it appears Congress will accomplish this vital task before we adjourn for the year. The reauthorization of the Compact is more critical now than ever before. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently predicted that milk prices for dairy farmers will be reduced 40 cents per gallon in December as a result of the announced drop in the basic formula price this past week. This translates into a 30 percent reduction in blend prices in December and will continue on into next year with additional declines in prices expected throughout the winter. The Dairy Compact will blunt the 40 cent per gallon drop in farm milk prices by one-half and will, by itself, make the difference between continuing in business and closing down for many small dairy farmers. The Northeast Dairy Compact is a proven success and is critical to the survival of dairy farmers in Maine and throughout New England. The Compact has a proven track record of quantifiable benefits to both consumers and farmers. The Compact works by simply evening out the peaks and valleys in fluid milk prices, providing stability to the cost of milk and ensuring a supply of fresh, wholesome, local milk. The Compact works with market forces to help both the farmer and the consumer. As prices climb and farmers receive a sustainable price for milk, the Compact turns off. When prices drop to unsustainable levels, the Compact is triggered. The Compact simply softens the blow to farmers of an abrupt and dramatic drop in the volatile fluid milk market. It is important to reiterate that consumers also benefit from the Compact. Not only does the Compact stabilize prices, thus avoiding dramatic fluctuation in retail cost of milk, it also guarantees that the consumer is assured of the availability of a supply of fresh, local milk. Let's remember that under the Compact, New England has lower retail fluid milk prices than many regions operating without a Compact. Moreover, the Compact, while providing clear benefits to dairy producers and consumers in the Northeast, has proven it does not harm farmers or taxpayers from outside the region. A 1998 report by the Office of Management and Budget showed that, during its first 6 months of operation, the Compact did not adversely affect farmers from outside the Compact region and added no federal costs to nutrition programs. In fact, the Compact specifically excepts the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program from any costs related to the Compact. The reauthorization of the Northeast Dairy Compact is also important as a matter of states rights. We often hear of criticism of the inside- the-beltway mentality that tells states, we here in Washington know better than you, even on issues traditionally under state and local control. Mr. President, that is wrong. In the Northeast Dairy Compact, we have a solution that was approved by all the legislatures and governors of the New England States. It is supported by every state commissioner in the region and overwhelmingly--if not unanimously--by Northeastern dairy farmers. We in Congress should not be an obstacle to this practical, workable, local solution. I urge my colleagues to refrain from holding up this critical measure for Maine and for our Nation's dairy farmers. To small farms in my State and in states throughout New England, this is not just a matter of profit margins; it is a matter of their survival. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed as in morning business for not to exceed 10 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it has been a pleasure to work with the Senator from New York on this issue.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to join my distinguished colleague, Senator Schumer, in introducing legislation that provides an effective option to the President and the Secretary of Energy to address the unfair, harmful manipulation in the global oil market. The Oil Price Safeguard Act would help to moderate sharp spikes in oil and gas prices caused by price fixing and production quotas through the judicious use of our enormous petroleum reserves. The global oil market is dominated by an international cartel with the ability to dramatically affect the price of oil. The eleven member countries of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries known as OPEC supply over 40 percent of the world's oil and possess 78 percent of the world's total proven crude oil reserves. Their control of the world's oil supply allows these countries to collude to drive up the price of oil. OPEC has power to dominate the market and when it wields this power, consumers lose. Mr. President, if OPEC operated in the United States, the Department of Justice would undoubtedly prosecute the cartel for violation of U.S. anti-trust laws, but the cartel is beyond the reach of our antitrust enforcement. To appreciate how much economic power OPEC wields, it is helpful to review the historical relationship between world oil prices and the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. When OPEC cuts production to increase profits, the American consumer suffers, as does our economy. Rising oil prices increase transportation and manufacturing costs, dampening economic growth. The chart behind me entitled, ``Oil is a Vital Resource for the U.S. Economy,'' was prepared by the Energy Information Administration of the Department of Energy. On this chart, world oil prices are represented by the blue line, and U.S. Gross Domestic Product is represented by the red line. It is easy to see the inverse relationship between the two. When world oil prices are high, U.S. Gross Domestic Product drops. For example, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, as the price of oil climbed, the U.S. economy slumped into a deep recession. Conversely, the strength currently enjoyed by the U.S. economy was until recently accompanied by low oil prices. If these historical trends hold, the current rise in crude oil prices is a serious threat to our economic prosperity. This second chart entitled ``EIA Crude Oil Price Outlook,'' shows that crude oil prices have risen since January 1999 and are expected to continue rising this winter. To a large extent, this chart demonstrates the ability of OPEC to drive the price of oil up. It is chilling, that the Federal agency responsible for projecting energy prices for the government is predicting that the price of oil will be above $25 a barrel into January of next year. This prediction underscores the need for the legislation Senator Schumer and I introduce today. The bottom line is that consumers, as well as businesses, are hurt by expensive petroleum products. A rise in crude oil prices increases the price of home heating oil and gasoline. Northern states like Maine are particularly hard hit by increased oil prices because of the need to heat homes through long cold winters. Since about 6 out of 10 Maine homes burn oil and the average household uses 800 gallons annually increases in oil prices have a dramatic impact on the state's population and particularly on low-income families and seniors. A rural state like Maine is also hard hit by increased gasoline prices at the pump since rural residents often travel further distances than those living in urban or suburban areas. For example, my constituents in Aroostook County are currently paying close to $1.50 a gallon for regular octane gasoline. At the same time, higher petroleum prices increase the cost of transporting oil and gasoline to rural areas, like Northern Maine. At a recent OPEC meeting, the member nations reasserted their resolve to maintain high crude oil prices through production quotas. This is particularly troubling considering that the Energy Information Administration has projected that if New England experiences a particularly cold winter, the price of home heating oil could reach as high as $1.20 per gallon. This is 50 percent higher than what New Englanders paid for oil last year. Even if this winter has normal weather, the Energy Information Administration predicts significantly increased oil prices due in large measure to the OPEC production reductions. This chart, ``Crude and Distillate Price Outlook Higher than Last Winter'' shows projections for steeply increased prices in crude oil and, consequently, home heating oil. As you can see, prices have risen already and are expected to reach levels higher than those experienced during the winter of 1996-97. Even if our diplomatic efforts fail to break OPEC's choke-hold on the world oil supply, we need not sit idly as oil and gas prices rise well- beyond where they would be in a normally-functioning market. The United States has a tool available to ease the sting of this unfair market manipulation. The United States owns the largest strategic reserve of crude oil in the world. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) consists of roughly 571 million barrels of crude oil held in salt caverns in Texas and Louisiana. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act allows the Secretary of Energy to sell oil from the reserve if the President makes certain findings set forth in the law. In order to tap into the Reserve, the President must determine that an emergency situation exists causing significant and lasting reductions in the supply of oil and severe price increases likely to cause a major adverse impact on the national economy. In the history of the Reserve, the President has only made this declaration once, during the Gulf War. The legislation I am proud to sponsor with Senator Schumer today, who has been a leader on this issue, will give the President more flexibility in using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to protect American consumers. Specifically, this measure will amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to authorize a draw down of the reserve when the President finds that a significant reduction in the supply of oil has been caused by anti-competitive conduct. While many, myself included, believe that the President currently should consider ordering a draw down to counteract OPEC's latest market-distorting production quotas, this legislation will make it clear that he has the power to do so. It will also ensure that the proceeds from a draw-down of the Reserve are used to replenish its oil. The bill does by mandating that the proceeds are deposited in a special account designed for that purpose. We want to give the President the authority to use the SPR to restore market discipline, but not to permanently deplete the reserve in the process. To further encourage the use of the SPR to offset harmful and uncompetitive activities of foreign pricing cartels, the Oil Price Safeguard Act will require the Secretary of Energy to consult with Congress regarding the sale of oil from the Reserve. If the price of a barrel of crude exceeds 25 dollars for a period greater than 14 days, the President, through the Secretary of Energy, will be required to submit to Congress a report within thirty days. This report will have four parts. First, it will detail the causes and potential consequences of the price increase. Second, it will provide an estimate of the likely duration of the price increase, based on analyses and forecasts of the Energy Information Administration. Third, it will provide an analysis of the effects of the price increase on the cost of home heating oil. And fourth, the report will provide a specific rationale for why the President does or does not support a draw down and distribution of oil from the SPR to counteract anti-competitive behavior in the oil market. The bill we are introducing today will grant important new authority to the President to protect consumers from the market-distorting behavior of foreign cartels. It will require the President to explain to Congress and the American people why actions available to the President have not been exercised to protect consumers. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Schumer and me in working for expeditious passage of this important measure. I yield to my colleague, the distinguished Senator from New York, so he may provide further explanation of our legislation. I commend him for his leadership on this issue.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to join my distinguished colleague, Senator Schumer, in introducing legislation that provides an effective option to the President and the Secretary of Energy to address the unfair, harmful manipulation in the global oil market. The Oil Price Safeguard Act would help to moderate sharp spikes in oil and gas prices caused by price fixing and production quotas through the judicious use of our enormous petroleum reserves. The global oil market is dominated by an international cartel with the ability to dramatically affect the price of oil. The eleven member countries of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries known as OPEC supply over 40 percent of the world's oil and possess 78 percent of the world's total proven crude oil reserves. Their control of the world's oil supply allows these countries to collude to drive up the price of oil. OPEC has power to dominate the market and when it wields this power, consumers lose. Mr. President, if OPEC operated in the United States, the Department of Justice would undoubtedly prosecute the cartel for violation of U.S. anti-trust laws, but the cartel is beyond the reach of our antitrust enforcement. To appreciate how much economic power OPEC wields, it is helpful to review the historical relationship between world oil prices and the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. When OPEC cuts production to increase profits, the American consumer suffers, as does our economy. Rising oil prices increase transportation and manufacturing costs, dampening economic growth. The chart behind me entitled, ``Oil is a Vital Resource for the U.S. Economy,'' was prepared by the Energy Information Administration of the Department of Energy. On this chart, world oil prices are represented by the blue line, and U.S. Gross Domestic Product is represented by the red line. It is easy to see the inverse relationship between the two. When world oil prices are high, U.S. Gross Domestic Product drops. For example, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, as the price of oil climbed, the U.S. economy slumped into a deep recession. Conversely, the strength currently enjoyed by the U.S. economy was until recently accompanied by low oil prices. If these historical trends hold, the current rise in crude oil prices is a serious threat to our economic prosperity. This second chart entitled ``EIA Crude Oil Price Outlook,'' shows that crude oil prices have risen since January 1999 and are expected to continue rising this winter. To a large extent, this chart demonstrates the ability of OPEC to drive the price of oil up. It is chilling, that the Federal agency responsible for projecting energy prices for the government is predicting that the price of oil will be above $25 a barrel into January of next year. This prediction underscores the need for the legislation Senator Schumer and I introduce today. The bottom line is that consumers, as well as businesses, are hurt by expensive petroleum products. A rise in crude oil prices increases the price of home heating oil and gasoline. Northern states like Maine are particularly hard hit by increased oil prices because of the need to heat homes through long cold winters. Since about 6 out of 10 Maine homes burn oil and the average household uses 800 gallons annually increases in oil prices have a dramatic impact on the state's population and particularly on low-income families and seniors. A rural state like Maine is also hard hit by increased gasoline prices at the pump since rural residents often travel further distances than those living in urban or suburban areas. For example, my constituents in Aroostook County are currently paying close to $1.50 a gallon for regular octane gasoline. At the same time, higher petroleum prices increase the cost of transporting oil and gasoline to rural areas, like Northern Maine. At a recent OPEC meeting, the member nations reasserted their resolve to maintain high crude oil prices through production quotas. This is particularly troubling considering that the Energy Information Administration has projected that if New England experiences a particularly cold winter, the price of home heating oil could reach as high as $1.20 per gallon. This is 50 percent higher than what New Englanders paid for oil last year. Even if this winter has normal weather, the Energy Information Administration predicts significantly increased oil prices due in large measure to the OPEC production reductions. This chart, ``Crude and Distillate Price Outlook Higher than Last Winter'' shows projections for steeply increased prices in crude oil and, consequently, home heating oil. As you can see, prices have risen already and are expected to reach levels higher than those experienced during the winter of 1996-97. Even if our diplomatic efforts fail to break OPEC's choke-hold on the world oil supply, we need not sit idly as oil and gas prices rise well- beyond where they would be in a normally-functioning market. The United States has a tool available to ease the sting of this unfair market manipulation. The United States owns the largest strategic reserve of crude oil in the world. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) consists of roughly 571 million barrels of crude oil held in salt caverns in Texas and Louisiana. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act allows the Secretary of Energy to sell oil from the reserve if the President makes certain findings set forth in the law. In order to tap into the Reserve, the President must determine that an emergency situation exists causing significant and lasting reductions in the supply of oil and severe price increases likely to cause a major adverse impact on the national economy. In the history of the Reserve, the President has only made this declaration once, during the Gulf War. The legislation I am proud to sponsor with Senator Schumer today, who has been a leader on this issue, will give the President more flexibility in using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to protect American consumers. Specifically, this measure will amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to authorize a draw down of the reserve when the President finds that a significant reduction in the supply of oil has been caused by anti-competitive conduct. While many, myself included, believe that the President currently should consider ordering a draw down to counteract OPEC's latest market-distorting production quotas, this legislation will make it clear that he has the power to do so. It will also ensure that the proceeds from a draw-down of the Reserve are used to replenish its oil. The bill does by mandating that the proceeds are deposited in a special account designed for that purpose. We want to give the President the authority to use the SPR to restore market discipline, but not to permanently deplete the reserve in the process. To further encourage the use of the SPR to offset harmful and uncompetitive activities of foreign pricing cartels, the Oil Price Safeguard Act will require the Secretary of Energy to consult with Congress regarding the sale of oil from the Reserve. If the price of a barrel of crude exceeds 25 dollars for a period greater than 14 days, the President, through the Secretary of Energy, will be required to submit to Congress a report within thirty days. This report will have four parts. First, it will detail the causes and potential consequences of the price increase. Second, it will provide an estimate of the likely duration of the price increase, based on analyses and forecasts of the Energy Information Administration. Third, it will provide an analysis of the effects of the price increase on the cost of home heating oil. And fourth, the report will provide a specific rationale for why the President does or does not support a draw down and distribution of oil from the SPR to counteract anti-competitive behavior in the oil market. The bill we are introducing today will grant important new authority to the President to protect consumers from the market-distorting behavior of foreign cartels. It will require the President to explain to Congress and the American people why actions available to the President have not been exercised to protect consumers. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Schumer and me in working for expeditious passage of this important measure. I yield to my colleague, the distinguished Senator from New York, so he may provide further explanation of our legislation. I commend him for his leadership on this issue.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it has been a pleasure to work with the Senator from New York on this issue.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Will the Senator withhold for a unanimous consent request?

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.J. Res. 80, the continuing resolution, and that Senators Kohl and Edwards be recognized for up to 5 minutes each, and at the conclusion of their remarks, the resolution be read the third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that, under the previous order, the Senator from North Carolina will speak for 5 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. It was my understanding that there was an agreement that at 2:15--and we are a little late in getting here--Senator Schumer and I were going to be able to introduce a bill as in morning business. We would need approximately 15 minutes, I would guess.

Ms. COLLINS. Reserving the right to object, I believe that--Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of S. 1516, legislation reauthorizing the Federal Emergency Administration's Emergency Food and Shelter program, I am very pleased that the Senate is about to pass this legislation and send it to the House of Representatives. I hope that our colleagues in the House will swiftly approve this important bill, so that it can be sent to President Clinton for his signature before our legislative session adjourns for the year. FEMA's Emergency Food and Shelter (EFS) program provides financial assistance to supplement community efforts to provide food, shelter, and other valuable items to homeless and hungry people around the country. Most of the EFS' monies are distributed directly to local boards, which are comprised of representatives from religious and charitable organizations from the surrounding area. These boards then award grants to non-profit, voluntary, and social service organizations, which assist individuals with their food, shelter, or emergency assistance costs. Using a local distribution network helps to ensure that the EFS' funds are targeted to those who most need assistance. To its credit, FEMA has been very successful in keeping the administrative costs of this program very low. In fact, these costs consume less than 3 percent of the funding, which is an inspiring example that all of the Federal Government's agencies and departments should strive to follow. In Maine, the EFS program has been extremely helpful. For example the Sister Mary O'Donnell Shelter, located in Presque Isle, Maine, received a $10,500 grant from this program. Amazingly enough, this shelter was able to use this modest funding to provide the equivalent of 1,974 nights of shelter for the homeless in northern Maine. EFS is a very successful program that carefully targets its resources where they are needed most, and does so with an absolute minimum of administrative expense. The Government Affairs Committee approved this legislation with a unanimous voice vote on November 3, 1999, and I hope the full Senate will do likewise.

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 hearings entitled ``Private Banking and Money Laundering: A Case Study of Opportunities and Vulnerabilities.'' The upcoming hearings will examine the vulnerabilities of U.S. private banks to money laundering and the role of U.S. banks in the growing and competitive private banking industry, their services and clientele, and their anti-money laundering efforts. Witnesses will include private bank personnel, bank regulators, and banking and law enforcement experts. The hearings will take place on Tuesday, November 9, 1999, at 9:30 a.m., and Wednesday, November 10, 1999, at 1:00 p.m., in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Linda Gustitus of the Subcommittee's Minority staff at 224- 9505.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to explain my opposition to the African Growth and Opportunity Act. My decision was difficult because I wholeheartedly support provisions of the bill that would reauthorize of two important trade-related programs--the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). These programs provide vital benefits to the state of Maine and the nation. Although on balance, I believe that H.R. 434 unfairly damages Maine's economy, I take solace in the fact that the TAA and GSP programs are one step closer to being reauthorized. I would like to focus for a moment on these two programs. The TAA aids workers and firms in global economic readjustments. By providing funds to retrain workers, TAA's program offers both opportunity and a lifeline to workers displaced by market changes caused by imports. It helps firms threatened by increased imports through grants to explore new technology, manufacturing methods, and marketing techniques. I have seen the effectiveness and efficiency of the TAA program firsthand in my state of Maine and strongly support both its goal and methods. Mr. President, I would like to recount just one TAA success story of the many in Maine and the nation. Four years ago, when a shoe factory in Old Town, Maine closed, one of the employees laid off was a woman in her fifties. She had worked in shoe factories all of her working life. With no high school degree, unemployed, and no skills other than making shoes in an economy with few shoe-making jobs, this woman was in dire straits until she qualified for TAA assistance. Fortunately, she seized the retraining opportunity to earn her GED and then trained as a nursing assistant. She recently proudly stopped by the local retraining office to let them know of her new job as a nursing assistant. She now works in home health care, making more money and enjoying greater flexibility than when she worked in a shoe factory. In a true tribute to the effectiveness of the TAA program, she told the retraining officials, ``I wish I had been laid off sooner.'' This story exemplified why the TAA program must be expeditiously reauthorized. Similarly, the GSP program deserves swift reauthorization. It establishes a mechanism for extending duty-free treatment of certain products imported from designated developing countries. The GSP program allows for participation by only those countries that adequately protect intellectual and property rights, observe international standards of labor rights, employ certain economic policies, and satisfy other important criteria. Moreover, the GSP program is limited to products that are non-import sensitive, meaning American jobs are not threatened. In fact, the GSP program helps create jobs in America. The Foreside Company based on Gorham, Maine, depends on the GSP program to be able to import product necessary to create jobs in Maine. The Foreside Company, with over 150 employees, is one of the fastest growing companies in Maine. The energetic entrepreneur who runs this company tells me that if GSP is not renewed, it would harm this Maine business to the point that it would jeopardize dozens of jobs. I am disappointed that legislation reauthorizing the TAA and GSP programs were incorporated in H.R. 434, and not passed as independent bills. Unfortunately, H.R. 434 includes measures that I cannot support. The African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Carribean Basin Initiative are both deeply flawed proposals that would hurt Maine workers and companies. I want the record to clearly show, however, that in spite of my votes against H.R. 434, I remain strongly supportive of both the Generalized System of Preferences Extension Act and the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reauthorization Act and strongly advocate for reauthorization of both programs.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may consume from the time reserved for Senator Thomas.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, earlier this year the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, undertook an extensive investigation of the practices of sweepstakes companies. We held hearings in March and later in the year to examine the increasingly deceptive and aggressive marketing techniques used by many of the sweepstakes companies in this country. At these hearings, I was told repeatedly by these companies that they did not target the elderly, they did not use deceptive techniques to try to induce people to buy products they didn't really need or want, and that they were constantly reviewing their promotional language to make sure it was fair. They pledged to further improve their efforts to make sure their mailings were not deceptive. Recently, my constituents have sent me a number of examples of deceptive sweepstakes mailings. I tell my colleagues, they are just as deceptive as ever. I have seen absolutely no voluntary improvement by the sweepstakes industry, despite the extensive attention given to their deceptive practices. Let me share with the Senate some of the recent examples my constituents have sent me. This example is from Charles M. Sias of Bangor, ME. Mr. Sias happens to be the head of the local AARP chapter, and he recently arranged for me to talk to a group of senior citizens in the Bangor area about sweepstakes. We developed a list of tips for them to be able to identify deceptive mailings. It is particularly ironic that Mr. Sias is himself receiving mailings that are clearly deceptive. He is very aware of what to look out for, so he is not going to be deceived by the language of these mailings. But, unfortunately, that is not the case with many other consumers who are inundated with mailings of this sort. Take a look at this mailing. It says, in very large print: The judges have decided: Charles M. Sias of Bangor is our $833,337 winner. And then: We will update our official winners list so that it reads--again, it lists Mr. Sias' name. Urgent: Mail back your prize number within 5 days. In the corner: This is your exclusive prize claim number--giving the appearance that Mr. Sias has already won. This particular mailing comes from a division of Time, Inc., known as Guaranteed & Bonded. It is very similar to the kinds of deceptive mailings we have seen during the past year. A representative of Time, Inc., testified at our hearings. She testified that this kind of mailing is fair but assured us they were continuing to evaluate the copy in their mailings and they were trying to improve it so there would be no question. This is a recent solicitation, and it is just as deceptive as previous ones. I think it is very disappointing to once again see the use of very large, bold headlines declaring that one of my constituents is the winner of more than $833,000 when obviously his chances of winning are less than his chances of being struck by lightning. Let me give another example provided to me by one of my constituents. In some ways, this letter from Publishers Clearing House, another one of the major sweepstakes companies, is even more insidious. It was personally addressed to the woman who sent it to me. It says: These are the certified cash winner documents we alerted you to watch for. The use of the words ``certified cash winner'' creates the image that my constituent has won a great deal of money. But this goes beyond the other mailing. The $100,000 figure appears to have been personally crossed out. On the side, it says it is now $200,000 my constituent is going to win, and it appears a woman named Dorothy, whom we know to be an employee of Publishers Clearing House, has written a personal note to my constituent, to this woman who lives in Portland, ME, and has written: ``$200,000--see enclosed urgent notification for details,''-- once again, creating the impression that my constituent is going to win not $100,000 but now $200,000. It is her lucky day. Again, if we look at the small print, we find that, in fact, the vast majority of people responding to this solicitation will receive just $1. It is extremely misleading. To add to the deception, Publishers Clearinghouse includes what appears to be a check of some sort. They call it a claim voucher. It is made out to my constituent. I have blocked out her name to protect her privacy. It appears to be personally signed in blue ink by the treasurer and by Dorothy Addeo, and it says: Cash value up to $100,000--although we know from Dorothy's helpful little note that it actually may be $200,000. My point is that this is clearly intended to deceive the people who are receiving these solicitations. The intent is to part people from their money, to get them to buy merchandise they don't really need or want, in the mistaken belief that somehow making a purchase will either guarantee they will be a winner or at least increase the odds of their winning that great prize, those hundreds of thousands of dollars. There is another harm that is done beyond the financial waste of senior citizens and others wasting their money buying products they don't really need or want. That is the injury that is done to a senior citizen's dignity when they realize they have been duped by these highly deceptive mailings. I recently received a letter from one of my constituents which I will share with my colleagues. It shows how tragic some of the results are of these sweepstakes. We found seniors who have wasted $10,000, $20,000, $60,000 on sweepstakes, thinking it would help them win the grand prize. In some cases, they have squandered their Social Security checks and even borrowed money. As I said, there is also the injury to a person's dignity once they realize they have been fooled. This letter captures that part of the problem. My constituent writes to Reader's Digest in this case: Several days ago my father received your ``announcement'' that he had been nominated to fill ``your newest position'' on the ``exclusive Winners Advisory Board.'' With its official looking certificates and ``personal'' Internal Selection Record you had him convinced that he was indeed being asked to serve in some official, though honorary capacity. When he realized that this was another sweepstakes gimmick, and that he was no more special to you than the thousands of others who received this same ``special'' announcement, he was devastated. My father shared your ``announcement'' with me because he was proud that he was being recognized by a company he has supported for many, many years. What a cruel game you have played with a man who has truly been a good customer. What a cruel game you play with every person who received this same, or similar letter, and who, like my father, are vulnerable because they believe the best about people. I think my constituent has described the problem very eloquently. These kinds of deceptive mailings prey on people who believe what they read, who want to trust that they are not being misled. Mr. President, on August 2, the Senate unanimously approved legislation that I, Senator Levin, Senator Cochran, Senator Edwards, and many others have worked on, which would curtail these kinds of deceptive sweepstakes mailings. I want to thank the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Postal Service, Congressman John McHugh, for his excellent work in securing approval by the House of a strong measure to prevent these types of deceptive sweepstakes mailings. In addition, Congressman Frank LoBiondo, who introduced a strong sweepstakes disclosure measure in the House, has made a valuable contribution to the effort to curb deceptive mailings. Congressman James Rogan and Congressman Bill McCollum have also introduced legislation to address this problem, and have given their strong support to the effort to reform the current practices. I also appreciate the support and assistance given by Congressman Chaka Fattah and Congressman Henry Waxman, who have provided both excellent ideas and leadership during House consideration of legislation to address the problem of deceptive sweepstakes. The Senate bill was passed, as I said, unanimously, and it is now pending in the House Government Reform Committee. It has been unanimously approved by the Postal Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee, and it is my fervent hope that before we adjourn this year we can clear this important legislation and see it signed into law. It is time to put an end to these deceptive and unfair mailings that prey on the hopes and dreams of our senior citizens. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and seeing no one seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my friend and colleague, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, in discussing the passage of a resolution we introduced designating this week, October 24 through the 30th, as National Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Week. Senator Reed has been such a strong advocate and leader on lead poisoning issues. I have enjoyed working with him on this important public health issue. It is my hope the designation of this week as National Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Week will help to increase awareness of the significant dangers and prevalence of childhood lead poisoning across our Nation. Great strides have been made in the past 20 years to reduce the threat that lead poses to human health. Most notably, lead has been banned from many products, including residential paints, food cans, and gasoline. These commendable steps have significantly reduced the incidence of lead poisoning. But unfortunately, contrary to what many people think, the threat has not been eradicated. In fact, it remains and continues to imperil the health and well-being of our Nation's children. In fact, lead poisoning is the No. 1 environmental health threat to children in the United States. Even low levels of lead exposure can have serious developmental consequences, including reductions in IQ and attention span, reading and learning disabilities, hyperactivity and behavioral problems. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently estimates that 890,000 children, age 1 through 5, have blood levels of lead that are high enough to affect their ability to learn--nearly a million children. Today, the major lead poisoning threat to children is posed by paint that has deteriorated. Contrary to popular belief, it is the dust from deteriorating or disturbed paint, rather than paint chips, that is the primary source of lead poisoning. Unfortunately, it is all too common for older homes to contain lead-based paint, particularly if they were built before 1978. More than half of the entire housing stock and three-quarters of homes built before 1978, contain some lead-based paint. Paint manufactured prior to the residential lead paint ban often remains safely contained and unexposed for decades. But over time, often through remodeling or normal wear and tear, the paint can become exposed, contaminating the home with dangerous lead dust.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer congratulations to one of Maine's most impressive athletes. At the age of 95, Mr. Napoleon ``Nappy'' LaChance of Westbrook, ME, will be our State's oldest participant in the National Senior Olympics. Mr. LaChance, who earned a gold medal in the fast walk competition in the last Maine Senior Olympics, will travel to Orlando, FL, tomorrow, October 23, to represent the State of Maine in that event. Equally impressive, Mr. LaChance does not excel in just one sport. Not only did he win a gold medal for fast walking in the Maine Senior Olympics, but he also has won gold medals for golfing and bowling. Mr. LaChance has achieved success in his career as well as in athletic competitions. In 1917, Mr. LaChance began working at Valee Pharmacy as a floor sweeper and errand boy. Through hard work and dedication, he became a registered pharmacist and managed the pharmacy until his retirement. For his dedication to his community's well-being, Mr. LaChance has been rewarded with the respect, affection, and admiration of his customers, neighbors, family, and friends. Mr. LaChance's accomplishments are an inspiration to anyone who aspires to be the best they can be. Whether old or young, athlete or artist, social worker or science teacher, those who seek to be the best share the dedication and the determination exhibited for so long by Mr. LaChance. I extend to him my heartfelt congratulations and best wishes as he competes in the National Senior Olympics representing the great State of Maine. Regardless of the outcome of the race, I know Mr. LaChance will make Maine proud. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in its statement, the Maine Medical Association states that ``such a ban would deny a patient and her physician the right to make medically appropriate decisions about the best course for that patient's care. . . . The intervention of legislative bodies into medical decisionmaking is inappropriate, ill advised and dangerous.'' The MMA statement goes on to say: . . . when serious fetal anomalies are discovered or a pregnant woman develops a life or health-threatening medical condition that makes continuation of the pregnancy dangerous, abortion-- Unfortunately, I add-- may be medically necessary. In these cases, intact dilation and evacuation procedures may provide substantial medical benefits or, in fact, may be the only option. This procedure may be safer than the alternatives . . . [may] reduce blood loss, and reduce the potential for other complications. That is what the experts are telling us. That is what the doctors are telling us. Our amendment goes far beyond, in many ways, what the Senator from Pennsylvania is attempting to accomplish. His legislation would only prohibit one specific medical procedure. It will not prevent a single late-term abortion. Let me emphasize that point. The partial-birth legislation before us would not prevent a single late-term abortion. A physician could simply use another, perhaps more dangerous, method to end the pregnancy. By contrast, the Durbin-Snowe proposal would prohibit the abortion of any viable fetus by any method unless the 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 our bill to grievous injury to the mother's physical health. It would not allow late-term abortions to be performed simply because a woman is depressed or feeling stressed or has some minor physical health problem because of pregnancy. Moreover, we have included a very important second safeguard. The initial opinion of the treating physician that the continuation of pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health must be confirmed by a second opinion from an independent physician. 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. The Durbin-Snowe-Collins amendment 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. This amendment presents an unusual opportunity for both ``pro-choice'' and ``pro-life'' advocates to work together on a reasonable approach, and I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting it. Exhibit 1 The Maine Medical Association takes no position on the moral or ethical issue of abortion. Our membership includes individuals who are ``pro-choice'' and ``pro-life.'' Still, abortion currently is a legal medical procedure in the United States. Accordingly, the Maine Medical Association opposes any legislation proposed to ban any legal medical procedure whether that be abortion, ``intact dilation and extraction'' (partial birth abortion), or another medical procedure. Such a ban would deny a patient and her physician the right to make medical-appropriate decisions about the best course for that patient's care. The determination of the medical need for and effectiveness of a particular medical procedure must be left to the patient and her physician acting in conformity with standards of good medical care. In addition, imposing civil or criminal sanctions on physicians who perform abortions would have a chilling effect on physicians' willingness to perform legal abortions. Doing so would limit patients' access to safe abortions. The Maine Medical Association opposes such efforts to ``criminialize'' the practice of medicine. An abortion performed in the second or third trimester or after viability is extremely difficult for everyone involved. The Maine Medical Association does not support elective abortions in the last stage of pregnancy. However, when serious fetal anomalies are discovered or the pregnant woman develops a life or health-threatening medical condition that makes continuation of the pregnancy dangerous, abortion may be medically necessary. In these cases, intact dilation and evacuation procedures may provide substantial medical benefits or, in fact, may be the only option. This procedure may be safer than the alternatives, maintain uterine integrity, reduce blood loss, and reduce the potential for other complications. Also, this procedure permits the performance of a careful autopsy and, therefore, a more accurate diagnosis of a fetal anomaly. This would permit women who wish to have additional children to receive appropriate genetic counseling and better prenatal care and testing in future pregnancies. The intact dilation and extraction procedure may be the most medically appropriate procedure for a woman in a particular case. The intervention of legislative bodies into medical decision-making is inappropriate, ill-advised, and dangerous. The Maine Medical Association urges the Maine Legislature and the People of Maine to allow the patient and her doctor to determine the most appropriate method of care based upon accepted standards of care in the medical profession and upon the patient's individual circumstances.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, and the senior Senator from Maine to ban all late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions that are not necessary to save the mother's life or to protect her health 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 they should be banned. However, I also 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 physical health from grievous harm. Fortunately, late- term abortions are extremely rare in my State where, according to the Maine Department of Human Services, just two late-term abortions have been performed in the last 16 years. 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 postviability abortions be legally available. The sponsors of this amendment--and I am pleased to be a cosponsor--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 legislation introduced by the Senator from Pennsylvania, has said: The intervention of legislative bodies into medical decisionmaking is inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous. Most of us 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 physicians and their clergy. The Maine Medical Association agrees with this assessment. I ask unanimous consent that an April 1999 statement from the Maine Medical Association be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an extraordinary Maine family, distinguished both by its record of public service and the accomplishments it has achieved in many other walks of life. The Washburn family included three sisters and seven brothers who helped guide this country through the Civil War and prepare our Nation for the 20th century. I am proud, as all Mainers are, that the Washburns hailed from Livermore, Maine, where the Norlands Living History Center still honors their memory and provides people of all ages with a chance to experience rural life in the late 1800's. Israel and Martha Washburn raised 10 children in Livermore, Maine, during the early years of the 19th century. Included among the children were seven brothers who made substantial contributions to our Nation. The Washburns hold the distinction of being the only family in the history of our Nation to have three brothers serve in Congress simultaneously. In the 1850's Cadwallader Washburn representing Wisconsin, Elihu Washburn representing Illinois, and Israel Washburn, Jr., representing Maine were all Members of Congress in the tumultuous era leading up to the Civil War. Years later, William Washburn followed his brothers to Congress, representing Minnesota for three terms. William concluded his time in Washington with a term in the United States Senate. The Washburns served the public outside of Washington as well. Cadwallader Washburn was elected Governor of Minnesota in 1872. His brother, Israel, was Governor of Maine from 1861 to 1863 and is ranked as one of the great ``war governors'' of the Civil War era for his skill and dedication in raising and equipping volunteer regiments for the Union cause. Israel was also an early member of the Republican Party and is given credit by some for naming the party. The Washburns also served their country abroad. Charles Washburn served as a Minister to Paraguay in the 1860's. During the War of the Triple Alliance, he was forced to flee the country when the dictator of Paraguay, General Francisco Solano Lopez, accused Washburn and other embassy staffers of conspiring with Paraguay's enemies. Elihu Washburne, who added the English ``e'' to his last name, was also a diplomat. After 16 years in the House of Representatives, where he was known as the ``watchdog of the Treasury'' for his unyielding oversight of the ``peoples money,'' he was appointed to a 2-week term as President Grant's Secretary of State. Following the courtesy appointment, he was selected as our Nation's Ambassador to France. Elihu rose to diplomatic greatness during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871, which resulted in the fall of Napoleon III and the French Empire. Throughout the Siege of Paris and the upheaval of the Commune, he alone among foreign ambassadors remained at his post and gave refuge to hundreds of foreign citizens trapped in the city. His memoirs, ``Recollections of a Minister to France, 1869-1877,'' provide an important historical accounting of the end of France's Empire and his service is a model of exemplary diplomatic performance during a crisis. The Washburn brothers also served our Nation in the military. Samual Washburn spent his life on the sea and served in the U.S. Navy during the Civil War as the captain of the gunboat Galena. Cadwallader recruited and commanded the Second Wisconsin Volunteer Cavalry, which served with distinction in the Civil War's southwestern theater. He rose to the rank of major-general, serving with Grant at Vicksburg and later as military commander of the Memphis District of the Army of the Tennessee. As remarkable as they were, the achievements of the Washburn Brothers were not limited to military and governmental pursuits. Four of the brothers, Israel, Elihu, William, and Cadwallader, were lawyers. Charles was a writer and journalist who invented a typewriting machine that was sold to the Remington Company. Algernon Sydney Washburn was a successful banker in Hallowell, Maine. ``Sid,'' as he was known, provided loans to his brothers that financed many of their ventures. Cadwallader was also a successful businessman and founded a large milling operation in Minneapolis that produced Gold Medal flour, which can still be found on the shelves of America's grocery stores. Today, his company is known as General Mills. William also engaged in milling, and his company later merged with the Pillsbury Corporation. Though the adventures of the seven brothers Washburn took them all over the globe, the Norlands in Livermore, Maine, was always their home. In 1973, their descendants donated the property, which included the family mansion, surrounding historic buildings, and hundreds of acres of land, to the non-profit Washburn-Norlands Foundation. Today, the property that was once home to this remarkable family is a living history center. Each year, approximately 25,000 visitors have the opportunity to sample life in the 1800's through Norland's hands-on educational programs. Moreover, the museum and property honors the many accomplishments of a family that is nearly without peer in the history of public service to this great nation. The Norlands Living History Center is significant for both the history it preserves and the innovative education it provides, and I commend those associated with the center for the important work that they do. Mr. President, the legacy of the Washburn family is yet another example of why Maine and its people are so special. I am grateful for having had this opportunity to share with you the story of this remarkable family and to acknowledge the important work being done by the dedicated staff and friends of the Norlands Living History Center to protect and share this important piece of our heritage.