Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I send to the desk the managers' amendment.

Ms. COLLINS. Yes, I do. Of the several disclosures we require to be included in a mailing containing a sweepstakes or skill contest promotion, these two disclosures--that no purchase is necessary and that purchasing does not improve your chances of winning--are particularly important for the reader to see in a prominent way. The statements themselves should be clear and conspicuous, as required by the bill, and they should be prominent in three places in each mailing, so it would be very difficult for a recipient not to notice them. A number of sweepstakes and skill contest promoters currently include in their mailings the statement that no purchase is necessary. But this is often included only as a part of a lengthy set of rules or buried in other statements and notices that allow it to be easily overlooked. That is why our managers' amendment includes the requirement that these two statements be prominent, and clearly and conspicuously displayed. I thank the Senator from Michigan for his assistance on this issue. Amendment No. 1497 (Purpose: To provide a managers' amendment)

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on the majority side?

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, we are expecting additional speakers. In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that time be charged equally to both sides.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his very kind comments and for his strong support of this initiative. He has been a partner throughout this investigation into deceptive mailings, and I am very grateful for his support. different promotions for the same sweepstakes

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time remaining on the majority side be equally divided between Senator Thompson and Senator Burns.

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS. Yes, I agree with the Senator from Michigan. The practice of using different-looking promotional mailings without any information explaining that they are for the same sweepstakes serves no purpose except to lead recipients into believing that they are different sweepstakes. Once the recipient believes that they are different sweepstakes, the recipient who believes that a purchase either is required or will confer an advantage upon them will then believe that a separate purchase must be made for each unique-looking sweepstakes. Because these different-looking mailings do not clearly state that they are promoting the same sweepstakes, I agree with the Senator from Michigan that they can be deceptive. use of the word ``prominent''

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is now considering S. 335, the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act, legislation I authored along with my colleagues, Senator Levin, Senator Cochran, Senator Edwards, Senator Durbin, and Senator Specter. S. 335 is the product of an extensive investigation and 2 days of public hearings held by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair. This legislation would establish for the first time tough new Federal standards for sweepstakes and other promotional mailings. For example, these mailings would be required to clearly inform consumers that a purchase is not necessary to win the contest and that a purchase will not increase their chances of winning. In addition to these important consumer protections, the bill confers additional investigative and enforcement authority on the U.S. Postal Service and authorizes civil fines of up to $2 million for companies that violate the consumer protection standards. This comprehensive measure has the support of the AARP, the National Consumers League, and the U.S. Postal Service. I particularly recognize the leadership roles played by several members of the committee. Senator Levin, in particular, has long been a leader in the effort to curtail deceptive mailings. Senator Cochran held some of the first hearings on this issue. Senator Edwards, Senator Specter, and Senator Durbin all contributed greatly to our investigation. Let me also express my appreciation for the assistance provided by the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Thompson, and by the committee's ranking minority member, Senator Lieberman. In addition, I salute Senator Campbell, who was one of the first to call attention to the growing problems of deceptive sweepstakes mailings. Some of the provisions in our legislation are similar to those in a bill introduced by Senator Campbell. I first became aware of the growing problem of deceptive sweepstakes last year after receiving several complaints from my constituents in Maine. In order to learn more about this growing problem, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations began an investigation into the nature of deceptive mailings and the extent of sweepstakes and other promotional mailings. The subcommittee soon realized that the promotional mailing industry generates an enormous volume of mail that reaches the mailboxes of millions of Americans. In fact, the four major sweepstakes companies alone flood Americans with more than 1 billion solicitations every year. The subcommittee held 2 days of public hearings. At the first subcommittee hearing in March, we examined the practices of the four major sweepstakes companies: American Family Publishers, Publishers Clearinghouse; Time, Inc.; and Reader's Digest. I want to make clear that they all run legitimate sweepstakes, legitimate in the sense that they do award the prizes, they do deliver the merchandise orders, and they do not seek to conceal their identities. However, there is a critical distinction between running a legal contest and treating consumers fairly, without resorting to misleading or deceptive practices. Our hearings in March examined the key issue of whether consumers are being clearly informed that no purchase is necessary to enter sweepstakes and that buying something does not increase their chance of winning. That is the biggest misconception. Far too many consumers believe that if they make a purchase in response to the sweepstakes solicitation, they somehow improve their chances of winning. Nothing could be further from the truth. The subcommittee heard testimony indicating that the existing disclaimers used by the large sweepstakes companies are of very little value. They are too often deceptively worded or they are contradicted by the glowing promises in the promotional copy. In addition, they are hard to locate on the mailing, and they are often written in very tiny print that is difficult to read. Our hearings in March prompted over 1,000 letters from across the country to the subcommittee. Many of those letters included mailings from smaller sweepstakes companies with which the subcommittee had not been familiar. This public response prompted an expansion of the subcommittee's investigation into the deceptive practices of these smaller sweepstakes companies. Those smaller companies were the focus of the subcommittee's second hearing in July. Many of these smaller companies tend to be fly-by- night operations that use multiple trade names to hide their identities and to confuse consumers. In fact, we found one company that sent out solicitations under 40 different trade names. That was obviously very confusing to consumers because they believed they were getting a chance to enter 40 different contests when, in fact, it was just one sweepstakes company using 40 different names. In some cases, these smaller companies are run by promoters for a year or two and then shut down. The operator then starts up a new company under yet another name, often one that is specifically chosen to lend credibility to the contest or to deceive consumers. These companies profit not only from their extremely deceptive mailings but also by reselling the names of their customers to other operators who then inundate the unlucky consumer with still more mailings. Unfortunately, our investigation suggests that this practice, this business, is quite lucrative. The smaller companies investigated by the subcommittee sent approximately 100 million mailings in 1998 and received over 4 million purchases, which we conservatively estimate cost consumers in the neighborhood of $40 million. In return, most individuals received a discount coupon book that was frequently followed by additional numerous other mailings urging consumers to purchase the exact same coupon book once again. Anonymity, as our hearings demonstrated, is crucial to the success of many of these small operators. They depend on working in the shadows and underneath the radar of State and Federal regulators. They are, in many ways, the ``stealth'' sweepstakes companies--difficult to detect, to track, and to stop. Our investigation discovered that most of these companies attempt to conceal their identities through multiple corporate names and various mailbox drops in several different States. Their mailings are often designed to deceive even the most cautious and wary consumer. Our investigation and hearings demonstrated that sweepstakes companies, both large and small, use deceptive and aggressive marketing techniques far too often to entice consumers into making purchases that they do not need or want, in the mistaken belief that a purchase will improve their chances of winning that grand prize. Indeed, we heard testimony that deceptive sweepstakes mailings can induce trusting consumers to purchase thousands of dollars of questionable merchandise. One example that was related to us by a witness was a magazine subscription extending to the year 2018 that had been purchased by her 82-year-old father-in-law in response to repeated solicitations. The subcommittee found that many of our senior citizens are particularly vulnerable to such deceptive mailings. They come from perhaps a more trusting generation. Many seniors tend to believe what they read, particularly if it is endorsed by a trusted spokesman, such as Ed McMahon or Dick Clark, or if it comes from a well-known company, such as Reader's Digest or Time, or if it involves a mailing that appears to be official. At the subcommittee's hearings, family members told of loved ones who were so convinced that they had won a sweepstakes that they refused to leave their home for fear of missing the Prize Patrol. One of my constituents in Maine actually postponed needed surgery because she was absolutely convinced that that was going to be the day her winnings were delivered to her. The subcommittee investigated many cases of seniors who, enticed by the bold promises in deceptive sweepstakes, actually spent their Social Security checks, squandered their life's savings, and even borrowed money in order to continue to make purchases through these sweepstakes mailings. I will never forget one of our witnesses who actually broke down in tears before the subcommittee as he recounted how he had been enticed to spend $15,000 on merchandise he did not want because he thought it would bring him closer to winning millions of dollars. Time and again, family members have described sweepstakes companies literally bombarding elderly relatives with repeated mailings. Our witnesses explained that their elderly family members spent thousands of dollars in the vain hope that if they just bought one more trinket, or one more videotape, or one more magazine subscription, it would greatly improve their chances of winning. Of course, it never did. The losses suffered by consumers could not, however, be measured in dollars alone. As one elderly gentleman put it: My wife has finally come to realize that she has been duped by the sweepstakes solicitations for all these years. Although the financial drain is now halted, the loss of her dignity is incalculable. Unfortunately, these are not isolated examples. According to a recent survey commissioned by the AARP, nearly 40 percent of seniors surveyed believed there was a connection between purchasing and winning, that either making a purchase would help you to win or it would ensure that you would win a prize. You have only to look at some of these sweepstakes mailings to understand why consumers draw these conclusions. For example, one mailing by Publishers Clearinghouse, which is famous for its Prize Patrol, tells consumers to ``open your door to $31 million on January 31.'' You can see the personalized mailing, although we blocked out the name of the person involved. This mailing clearly suggests to the consumer that his or her--her in this case--purchases are paying off. It specifically states: You see, your recent order and entry has proven to us that you're indeed one of our loyal friends and a savvy sweepstakes player. And now I'm pleased to tell you that you've passed our selection criteria to receive this special invitation. . . . Mr. President, this is clearly and blatantly designed to deceive the consumers into drawing a connection between making a purchase and winning the prize. Let me show you another example. The next example is a mailing from American Family Publishers. It states: It's down to a 2 person race for $11 million--you and one other person in Georgia were issued the winning number. Whoever returns it first wins it all. Most people don't see the very fine print that declares: . . . if you have the winning number. Unless the contestant reads and understands this fine print, the mailing leaves the unmistakable impression that this recipient, this lucky person, and one other person, have the winning number for the $11 million prize. This mailing actually caused a number of contestants to fly to Florida in the hope that their entry would be received first. After all, it says, ``Whoever returns it first wins it all.'' It also prompted lawsuits by several States' attorneys general, and American Family Publishers eventually agreed to a multistate settlement. I wish the misleading mailings from the largest sweepstakes companies represented the worst of the lot. Unfortunately, they do not. Let's take a look at a couple of examples of deceptive practices of some of the smaller sweepstakes companies. As you will recall, these were the companies that were brought to the subcommittee's attention by outraged consumers from across this country who wrote to us after our first round of hearings. This solicitation, or promotion, from Mellon, Astor & Fairweather is a deceptive attempt to make the consumer think that a prestigious firm--presumably an accounting firm--is ready to give him or her money. Despite describing Mellon, Astor & Fairweather as the ``trustee of record,'' the sponsor of this mailing admitted under oath to the subcommittee that Mellon, Astor & Fairweather is not a trustee for any group or individual. In fact, there is no ``Mellon,'' ``Astor,'' or ``Fairweather'' associated with this company. The name was completely made up to give an air of legitimacy and credibility to this mailing-- in short, to deceive people. Moreover, the sweepstakes promoter admitted that this is actually the address of a Mail Boxes, Etc., and that the company's offices are located not in Lake Forest, IL, but in Las Vegas, NV. Another problem the subcommittee found was the use of words or symbols that give the impression that the mailing is connected with the Federal Government. Here is another example of this kind of mailing. It says at the top--it is hard to read: The Official United Sweepstakes of America. Yes, this mailing implies a Government connection to the sweepstakes. It includes a photo of the U.S. Treasury building, and by using the address of 611 Pennsylvania Avenue, Southeast, Washington, DC, it sounds like a very prestigious Pennsylvania Avenue address of a Federal agency. In fact, once again, this is an address of a Mail Boxes, Etc. And, of course, the Federal Government does not sponsor sweepstakes, contrary to the implication of this mailing. Yet another deceptive mailing shows how fraudulent operators link their company to the Government. This is a blowup of a postcard sent to me by a constituent from Machiasport, ME. As you can see, it is marked ``Urgent Delivery, A Special Notification of Cash Currently Being Held By the U.S. Government is Ready for Shipment to You.'' It mimics the typical postcard the Postal Service uses. It is designed to look like that. The mailing asks the consumer to send $9.97 to learn how to receive this cash. Of course, this was not in any way a legitimate postcard from the Federal Government. It was merely a ploy used by an unscrupulous promoter to trick an unsuspecting consumer into sending money. Fortunately, my consumer did not fall for this scam. But many others did, leading the Postal Service to bring action against the promoter of this scam. Sadly, these are just a few of the many examples of deceptive mailings that the subcommittee uncovered during its investigation. The simple fact is that far too many consumers regularly fall victim to increasingly deceptive and sophisticated marketing techniques used in these mailings. I want to emphasize that sweepstakes can, of course, be a legitimate marketing technique. While I have concerns about the deceptive nature of far too many sweepstakes mailings, I don't want to give the impression that all sweepstakes are deceptive, or that they should be outlawed. Our legislation is setting clear standards for them to follow to avoid the kind of deception that we found to be rampant in the industry. Let me outline the major provisions of the legislation before the Senate today. First, S. 335 requires sweepstakes mailings to clearly and conspicuously display several important disclaimers and consumer notices, including a clear statement that no purchase is necessary to win the contest, and, most of all, a statement that a purchase will not improve your chances of winning. I think that is the most important disclaimer of all. These statements have to appear in three places--on the solicitation, in the rules, and on the order form. In addition, the mailings must state the odds of winning, the value and the nature of the prize, and the name and the address of the sponsor of the sweepstakes. Sweepstakes mailings would also be required to include all the rules and entry procedures for the contest. The bill would prohibit mailings from describing the recipient as a ``winner'' unless the recipient has really won a prize. You can see from some of the mailings that we have discussed here today why that protection is so important. Second, this legislation includes the provision drafted by Senator Edwards to require companies sending sweepstakes or skill contests to establish a system that will allow consumers to request that they be removed from sweepstakes mailing lists. Companies sending sweepstakes mailings must include either a toll-free number or the address at which the consumer may request that their name be removed altogether from future sweepstakes mailings. Companies would be required to remove such individuals from sweepstakes lists within 35 days. Our hearings showed that far too many consumers had great difficulty in turning off the spigot of sweepstakes mailings to themselves, or, as was often the case, to an elderly family member. Senator Edwards' provision will assist consumers who want relief from the flood of solicitations. Third, our legislation strengthens the current law regarding ``Government look-alike'' mailings by prohibiting mailings that imply a connection to, approval, or endorsement by the Federal Government through the misleading use of a seal, insignia, reference to the Postmaster General, citation to a Federal law, or any other term or symbol unless the mailings carry true disclaimers. The bill imposes new Federal standards for facsimile checks that are sent in any mailing. These tests must include a statement on the check itself stating that it is non-negotiable and has no cash value. Finally, S. 335 will strengthen the ability of the Postal Service to combat deceptive mailings. Under existing law, the Postal Inspection Service does not possess subpoena authority, is unable to obtain a judicial order to stop the deceptive mailing at multiple mailboxes in different States, and may only seek financial penalties after a company has violated a previously imposed order for sending deceptive mailings. Our legislation grants the Postal Service subpoena authority, nationwide stop mail authority, and the ability to impose strong civil penalties for the first violation. At our hearings in July, the Postal Service testified that civil penalties would be a significant deterrent against deceptive mailings. We can't just have minor penalties that are treated as a cost of doing business. The penalties under our legislation can reach as high as $1 million, and, if a company violates an order, that penalty is doubled and can range as high as $2 million. The current penalties--capped at $10,000 per day--are simply inadequate to deter deceptive mailings, especially since they can only be imposed after the mailer has evaded or failed to comply with a prior order. Our bill recognizes the important role played by the States in investigating and prosecuting deceptive mailings. We do not preempt any provision of State or local law. In many instances, it is the States that have taken the strong action against deceptive sweepstakes mailings largely because of the gap in Federal law. During our investigation, we worked very closely with the National Association of Attorneys General. I would like to close my initial statement by urging my colleagues to support S. 2335, the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act, so that the Senate, by passing this legislation later today, can take an important first legislative step in curtailing deceptive sweepstakes and protect the American consumer. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:10 today Senator Edwards be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes, with the time coming from the time controlled by the Senator from Michigan, that the Senator from Michigan be permitted to speak for 5 minutes following Senator Edwards, and that I be permitted to speak for 5 minutes immediately prior to the 5:30 vote.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of S. 335: Lee Blaylock and Michael Bopp.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I offer this managers' amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Levin to clarify certain provisions of S. 335. As I described in my opening statement, this legislation imposes a number of new standards on promotional mailings. The managers' amendment further defines the ``clear and conspicuous'' standard for the disclaimers and notices required in this bill. All disclaimers and notices must be ``clearly and conspicuously displayed,'' which means ``in a manner that is readily noticeable, readable and understandable to the group to whom the applicable matter is disseminated.'' During its investigation into deceptive sweepstakes mailings, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found numerous examples of mailings that misled consumers into believing that they must purchase a product to win a prize, or that a purchase will improve their chances of winning. The investigation showed that many mailings did not clearly inform consumers that no purchase was necessary to enter the sweepstakes and that buying a product did not increase their chances of winning. The disclaimers and notices in many existing sweepstakes mailings are of little value because they are too often buried in tiny print or contradicted by the promotional copy. Consumers should not need a law degree or a magnifying glass to read the rules or to decipher how to enter a sweepstakes without placing an order. In order to give some value to the disclaimers and consumer notices mandated by this bill, S. 335 requires each of these disclosures to be ``clearly and conspicuously displayed.'' The managers' amendment defines ``clearly and conspicuously displayed'' in a manner that is consistent with previous agency and court rulings. As the committee report for this legislation explains, the Federal Trade Commission has issued opinions on the meaning of ``clear and conspicuous'' and this standard is a staple of commercial law. The definition of clear and conspicuous, as used in S. 335, is meant to be consistent with the interpretation of the standard as developed in previous regulatory opinions, statements, and case law. Thus, as the definition states, the required disclosures must be readily noticeable, readable, and understandable to the group to whom the matter is mailed. As the committee report notes, in some instances, the language may need to be highlighted, in bold letters, or placed in a visible location. We recognize that the format and layout of promotional mailings differ dramatically and, accordingly, the presentation of each required disclosure will necessarily vary. Thus, we believe it is unwise to dictate the size, font, color, or placement of each disclaimer imposed on promotional mailings. The definition in this managers' amendment, however, gives the regulators broad guidance to interpret on a case-by-case basis what is required for a disclaimer or notice to qualify as ``clearly and conspicuously displayed.'' The committee report accompanying S. 335 provides a detailed description of the clear and conspicuous standard as enunciated by the Federal Trade Commission and in court decisions. The standard was designed to prevent deception, and we expect those enforcing this Act to make use of this standard to protect consumers receiving promotional mailings from deceptive practices. We agree with the Federal Trade Commission that deception occurs if there is a representation, omission, or practice that is likely to mislead the reasonable consumer or his or her detriment. Furthermore, the managers' amendment adds the word ``prominently'' to the two most significant disclosures required by S. 335: first, that no purchase is necessary to enter the sweepstakes; and second, that a purchase will not increase an individual's chances of winning with that entry. S. 335 already places significance on these two disclaimers by requiring that they appear in three different places in most sweepstakes mailings: (1) the mailing, (2) the rules, and (3) the entry or order form. Because the subcommittee's investigation found strong evidence that some consumers believed a purchase would increase their chances of winning, we view these two disclosures as particularly important. As such, and because of the brevity of these disclosures, we believe that it is particularly important that they be easily identifiable by the reader. The Federal Trade Commission has used a variety of terms to describe clear and conspicuous, including sufficiently clear and prominent. Because many of the other disclosures required by S. 335 may be lengthy and may only appear in one place in a mailing, we believe that what is ``clear and conspicuous'' for one disclaimer may differ from what is necessitated by another. A disclosure of a few words, such as ``no purchase necessary,'' would by its very nature dictate a different yardstick than would the entire contest rules, which might consist of several hundred words. We expect all disclosures to be clear and conspicuous but these two disclosures should be ``prominent'' in the three required places in each mailing. The managers' amendment also makes several technical changes. it removes duplicative language from several different disclosures required by S. 335. These deletions, however, are not intended in any way to weaken the overall requirement that disclosures must be ``clearly and conspicuously displayed.'' The managers' amendment also deletes a somewhat duplicative requirement relating to advantages that a sweepstakes might imply are given to those entries that accompany a purchase. Given the disclaimer which states that a purchase will not improve the contestant's chance of winning, we determined that this provision was superfluous. Finally, the managers' amendment replaces section 8 of the bill reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee with new language requiring all companies sending sweepstakes or skill contest mailings to establish a system for removing the names of individuals who do not wish to receive such mailings. Section 8, as reported out of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, established a uniform notification system for most sweepstakes and contest mailings. Under the new provisions companies would be required--on a company- by-company basis--to include on their mailings a notice of the address or toll-free telephone number that individuals could contact to request that their names be removed from future mailings. Such names must be removed within 35 days after appropriate notice. If a mailing is recklessly sent to consumers who have requested not to receive further solicitations, the mailer shall be subject to a penalty of $10,000. This section shall take effect one year after enactment of this legislation. We commend our colleague and friend Senator Edwards for his strong leadership in crafting this proposal. In closing, I thank my colleagues, particularly Senator Levin, for their assistance in crafting this managers' amendment, and I urge its adoption.

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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Domenici and Senator Feingold be added as cosponsors to the pending legislation S. 335.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, let me start by expressing my deep appreciation to the members of the subcommittee and the full committee who worked so closely with me on this legislation. In particular, I recognize the enormous contributions of the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin; the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Edwards; and the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran. Without their help, we would not have been able to craft such an effective bill. I am very grateful for their assistance and support. We have heard very eloquent statements from a number of Senators today about the need for this legislation. In closing this debate, let me quote from a 74-year-old woman who wrote to me about how deceptive sweepstakes put her deeply into debt. In her letter, she said: My only source of income is a monthly Social Security check totaling $893. I estimate that I have spent somewhere between $10,000 and $20,000 in the last 19 years. What money I did not have, I borrowed from my daughter who is now responsible for my total financial support. I am deeply in financial debt. Their mailings were worded in such a way that I was certain I was going to win anywhere from $1 million to $10 million. I truly wish I could recoup the moneys that I squandered in the hope that a real payoff would come my way. Unfortunately, it is too late for this woman, but today the Senate can act to avoid financial hardship, wasted savings, and a great deal of heartache for countless other vulnerable citizens by passing this legislation. It is my hope that we will have a very strong vote today and that it will prompt the House to act and we will see this important legislation signed into law before we adjourn this year. I yield back the remainder of my time. I ask for the yeas and nays. I think they have already been ordered, but if they have not, I request the yeas and nays.

Ms. COLLINS. I believe the vote is slated for 5:30 p.m. Seeing no other speakers requesting time, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, be added as a cosponsor of the bill S. 335.

Ms. COLLINS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to H.R. 2480, the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.