Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Senator Leahy has an amendment at the desk.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3111, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the bill be read a third time and passed, as amended, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, there is a substitute amendment at the desk submitted by Senator Fitzgerald, and I ask for its consideration.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Agriculture Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1733, and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Michigan for his leadership and his eloquent statement.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. Abraham, who has been a real leader on this bill, for any comments he might have.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the committee amendment, as amended, be agreed to, and the bill be read the third time. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the House companion bill, H.R. 2130, all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1561, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof. I further ask that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the amendment to the title be agreed to, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record. Finally, I ask that S. 1561 be placed back on the calendar.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 416, S. 1561.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Benjamin Brown, a legislative assistant in Senator Ted Stevens' office, be granted floor privileges for the 19th and 20th of November.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed to, the substitute amendment be agreed to, as amended, the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 158, S. 692.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am delighted the Senate has now sent S. 335, the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act that I introduced to curb deceptive mailings, to the President for his signature. The Senate originally passed this legislation by a vote of 93-0 on August 2. It will impose new disclosure requirements on sweepstakes mailings to protect consumers. It will also provide new authority to the Postal Service to take enforcement action against those companies sending deceptive mailings. I want to thank several people whose hard work has made passage today possible. I particularly want to acknowledge the contributions of Senator Levin of Michigan, the ranking minority member of the permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and the chief cosponsor of this important legislation. In addition, Senator Cochran and Senator Edwards were real leaders in this effort and contributed greatly to the legislation. There were many other Senators, as well, who cosponsored this measure. In particular, I want to recognize the contributions of several members of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, including Chairman Thompson, Senators Lieberman, Stevens, Durbin, Domenici, Akaka, and Specter. They were early cosponsors of this legislation. Senator Campbell has also played an important role. He first introduced legislation to curb some of the deceptive practices of sweepstakes companies. In addition, there are several Members of the House of Representatives who have also worked very hard to bring to about passage today. They include Congressman John McHugh, who is chairman of the Subcommittee on the Postal Service; Congressman Fattah, who is the ranking minority member of the subcommittee; Congressman LoBiondo, Congressman Rogan, Congressman McCollum, Congressman and Chairman Dan Burton, and Congressman Henry Waxman. All of them worked very hard to forge workable legislation that is going to make a real difference. I also want to express my thanks to the members of my staff who worked very hard on this. On the subcommittee staff, Lee Blalack and Kirk Walder were instrumental, and on my personal staff, Michael Bopp, my legislative director--all of them worked very hard. The requirements in this legislation will reduce the deceptive techniques that have caused countless Americans, hundreds of thousands of Americans, many of them elderly, to purchase products they do not need nor do they want. Once this legislation takes effect, mailings will be required to make crystal clear to consumers that no purchase is necessary to enter a sweepstakes and that making a purchase will not improve your chances of winning. That is the primary misconception our investigation identified. Too many consumers believe if they make a purchase, somehow they will improve their chances of winning, but nothing could be further from the truth. It is easy to see why they have that misconception because that is exactly the impression these deceptive mailings are intended to leave. In addition, the legislation will prohibit sweepstakes companies from telling people they are a winner unless they really have won a prize. Enactment of this legislation concludes a year-long investigation by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair. Prompted by complaints from my constituents in Maine, I began an investigation to examine deceptive mailings. Hearings before the subcommittee demonstrated that the deceptive techniques of major sweepstakes companies were misleading thousands of Americans into making purchases of products. Further investigation into the activities of the smaller sweepstakes companies, the ones that I call the ``stealth companies,'' showed that their practices were even more deceptive. In some cases, they bordered on outright fraud. The subcommittee heard heartbreaking testimony that deceptive sweepstakes can induce trusting consumers to buy thousands of dollars of unnecessary and unwanted merchandise. One example was a magazine subscription extending to the year 2018 that one witness testified that her 82-year-old father-in-law purchased because of sweepstakes promotions. We found that our senior citizens are particularly vulnerable to these kinds of deceptive mailings. They are a trusting generation. Many seniors tend to believe what they read, particularly if it is endorsed by a trusted spokesman, comes from a well-known company, or involves a mailing that has been designed to appear as if it is from the Federal Government. Family members told us of loved ones who were so convinced that they had won a sweepstakes that they refused to leave their home for fear they would miss the Prize Patrol. One constituent of mine actually canceled needed surgery because she did not want to miss Ed McMahon's visit. Sadly, of course, Ed McMahon never showed up. We found cases of seniors enticed by the bold promises of sweepstakes who spent their Social Security checks, squandered their life's savings, and even borrowed money to buy unwanted magazines and other merchandise. I will never forget the testimony of one man who broke down in tears as he recounted how the sweepstakes companies had deceived him into purchasing $15,000 worth of products in an effort to win the big prize. The loss suffered by consumers cannot 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 train is now halted, the loss of her dignity is incalculable. Unfortunately, these are not isolated examples. According to a survey commissioned by the AARP, 40 percent of seniors surveyed believe there is a connection between purchasing and winning. It is easy to see why consumers believe they have already won or that they will win if they just purchase something as a result of these mailings. I would like to show you, Mr. President, and read from a sweepstakes mailing that I received last week at my home in Bangor, ME. As you can see, in bold print, it proclaims: ``Our sweepstakes results are now final.'' ``Ms. Susan M. Collins has won a cash prize of $833,337.'' ``A bank check for $833,337 is on its way to''--my address--``in Bangor.'' It further warns that I will forfeit the entire amount if I refuse to respond to this notice. On the back it says, again, ``A bank check for $833,337 in cash will be sent to you by certified mail if you respond now.'' I have a feeling you will not be surprised to learn that I am not the big winner. But if I relied on the information in this mailing, it would be easy to see why many people would be deceived into thinking they have, indeed, won the grand prize. Now, in the small print--not in the bold type--but in the small print it explains that I have to have the winning number to really win the prize. That message is overwhelmed by the bold proclamations telling me I am a winner. Of course, in case I am tempted not to enter, there is what appears to be a personal note that says, ``Please don't say no now,'' and implores me to enter and to buy the product offered. This is not unusual. This is typical of the kinds of deceptive mailings that are all too common and that flood the mailboxes of American consumers with more than a billion pieces of mail a year. You shouldn't have to be a lawyer, you shouldn't have to have a magnifying glass, to figure out the rules of the game and the odds of winning. Our legislation will make a real difference by requiring honest disclosures, by preventing sweepstakes companies from telling people they have won when they have not, and, most importantly, by making crystal clear to consumers that you don't have to make a purchase to win and that making a purchase will not increase your chances of winning. Mr. President, as I said, I am pleased that the Senate is now poised to send my legislation to curb deceptive mailings to the President for his signature. As I have described to my colleagues previously, you only have to look at some of these sweepstakes mailings to understand why. For example, one mailing by Publisher's Clearing House, which is famous for its Prize Patrol, tells the consumer to ``Open Your Door To $31 Million on January 31.'' This mailing suggests to the reader that his or her past purchases are paying off. Specifically, the mailing 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.'' Another mailing from American Family Publishers stated, ``It's Down to a 2 person race for $11,000,000--You And One Other Person In Georgia Were Issued the Winning Number . . . Whoever Returns It First Wins It All!'' Most people probably didn't see the fine print that declared, ``If you have the winning number.'' Unless the contestant reads and understands this fine print, the mailing leaves the unmistakable impression that the recipient and one other person have the winning number for the $11 million prize. Mr. President, the bill adopted by the Senate would curb these problems by, for the first time, establishing federal standards for a variety of promotional mailings, including sweepstakes mailings. Such mailings must clearly and conspicuously display several important disclosures, including statements that no purchase is necessary to enter the contest and that a purchase will not improve your chances of winning; the odds of winning; the value and nature of each prize; and the name and address of the sponsor. Sweepstakes mailings would also be required to include all the rules and entry procedures for the sweepstakes. This legislation also addresses another problem consumers experience in dealing with sweepstakes companies. The Subcommittee heard from many individuals who found it difficult to have their name or a parent's name removed from the mailing lists of sweepstakes companies, or who were told that the name removal process might take as long as six months. To address this problem, this legislation includes a section developed by Senator Edwards that would require companies sending sweepstakes or skill contests to establish a system allowing consumers to call or write to have their names removed from the companies' mailing lists. The House made several modifications to this section of the bill, including extending the time from 35 days to 60 days by which companies must remove names of consumers who do not wish to receive future sweepstakes or skill contest mailings. Non-profit mailers who use sweepstakes contests requested a time limit of longer than 35 days, arguing that their limited resources might not allow the establishment of a system to quickly remove names. The 60-day limit in the bill, however, should not be used by any company to continue to inundate with more mailings those consumers who have asked to be removed from sweepstakes mailing lists. Accordingly, companies should make every effort to remove names as quickly as possible. The House also added provisions to allow consumers to bring a private right of action in state court if they receive a mailing after previously requesting to be removed from the mailing list of a skill contest or sweepstakes promoter. Sweepstakes promoters will have an affirmative defense if they have established and implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and procedures to effectively prevent mailings that would violate the section on name removal. The notification system in the bill passed by the Senate, and modified by the House, requires companies to include in every mailing the address or a toll-free telephone number of the notification system, but does not require that consumers submit their name in writing to comply with the removal system. Companies are encouraged to adopt a consumer friendly system for the removal of names from their mailing lists, which may include the ability to have names removed by calling a toll-free number. Under this legislation, companies using a toll-free number to permit the removal of names would not need to require a consumer to also provide their name in writing. Any appropriate method of establishing a record of removal requests by consumers would comply with the requirements of Section 8(d) of the legislation. For example, companies may wish to electronically verify the consumer's election to be removed from their mailing list. The legislation would strengthen the ability of the Postal Service to investigate, penalize, and stop deceptive mailings. It grants the Postal Inspection Service subpoena authority, nationwide stop mail authority, and the ability to impose tougher civil penalties. The House made several changes in the subpoena authority, including requiring the Postal Service to develop procedures for the issuance of subpoenas and their approval by the General Counsel or a Deputy General Counsel of the Postal Service. The new subpoena authority will give the Postal Inspection Service better ability to investigate and stop deceptive mailings, and I encourage the General Counsel of the Postal Service to recognize that effective enforcement of this legislation requires the timely issuance of subpoenas. Mr. President, S. 335 will provide important new consumer protections against the many deceptive techniques currently used in promotional mailings. I thank my colleagues for their support of this measure. I yield to the subcommittee's ranking minority member, Senator Levin. As I explained earlier in my remarks, he has been the chief cosponsor of this legislation and a true leader in the effort to crack down on deceptive mailings.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the amendment of the House.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 335) to amend chapter 30 of title 39, United States Code, to provide for the nonmailability of certain deceptive matter relating to sweepstakes, skill contests, facsimile checks, administrative procedures, orders, and civil penalties relating to such matter, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 335) entitled ``An Act to amend chapter 30 of title 39, United States Code, to provide for the nonmailability of certain deceptive matter relating to sweepstakes, skill contests, facsimile checks, administrative procedures, orders, and civil penalties relating to such matter, and for other purposes'', do pass with the following amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. For the information of all of our colleagues, I inform Senators that we are still working out some last-minute issues that will then allow the Senate to move a number of important bills that have been cleared on both sides. While we are waiting for these last- minute glitches to be resolved, I want to take this opportunity to respond to some of the comments made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle this morning. I am disappointed in some of the process, and I do not support all of the provisions of the omnibus appropriations bill which we will consider later this day, but I very much disagree with the assertions made by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we have not accomplished anything during this Congress. We have, in fact, accomplished a great deal of which we can be proud. Rather than engaging in harsh partisan rhetoric, we should be coming together in these final hours of this session to celebrate what we have done for the American people. First of all, I think we can take great pride in the accomplishment that we will be producing a balanced budget for the first time in decades, one which does not raid the Social Security trust fund. This is a tremendous accomplishment and it establishes a new milestone in fiscal responsibility. It has been the Republican caucus that has held firm in their determination to prevent one penny of the Social Security trust fund from being diverted to support expensive new unrelated Government programs. We have succeeded. We have kept that commitment. We have fulfilled our obligation to the senior citizens of this country. For the first time in 30 years, the Congress has produced a balanced budget which will result in a surplus that does not rely on funds from the Social Security trust fund. The raid on the Social Security trust fund has been stopped cold. I give a great deal of credit to Senator Domenici, to Senator Stevens, to Senator Abraham, and to all colleagues in the Republican caucus who have united in their determination to secure the Social Security trust fund for our seniors and for future generations. That is an accomplishment of which we can be proud. Second, I am delighted the omnibus appropriations bill includes what has been my highest priority in the last few months and that is to restore some of the unintended cuts made by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 as well as by onerous regulations imposed by the Clinton administration that have impaired the ability of our rural hospitals, our home health care agencies, and our nursing homes to provide much needed quality health care to our Nation's senior citizens. The Presiding Officer has been an early supporter of legislation that I have introduced to provide financial relief to our distressed home health care agencies. America's home health care agencies allow our senior citizens and our disabled citizens to receive the health care where they want it, in the security and the privacy of their own homes. Unfortunately, under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and exacerbated by misguided policies of the Clinton administration, America's home health agencies have found their ability to provide this care has been jeopardized. This care is so important to our Nation's senior citizens, particularly those who are living in rural areas of our country where access to home health care may spell the difference between staying in their own homes and having to travel many miles to receive health care. Unfortunately, since cutbacks in home health care have gone into effect, there has been a devastating impact on the senior citizens of our country. Let me use the example of the State of Maine. As you can see, in just a year's time, more than 6,000 Maine senior citizens have lost their access to home care. In fact, it is 6,600 Maine seniors who have lost their access to home health care. The number of home health care visits in Maine has declined by more than 420,000. Reimbursements to Maine's home health agencies have declined in a year's time by more than $20 million. Maine's home health agencies have had a long tradition of providing low-cost compassionate care. We are not talking about home health agencies that were in any way abusing the system, making too many visits, or overbilling Medicare. We are talking about home health agencies that were cost effective and efficient, providing quality low- cost care throughout the State of Maine. I have visited with many of these seniors who have lost access to home health care. One was a retired priest in my hometown of Caribou, ME. He relied on his home health services and has now had to dig deeply into his savings to provide for the care out of his own pocket because Medicare is no longer providing the services he needs. In another case, I visited an elderly couple in rural Maine who were able to stay together in their own home rather than go into a nursing home because of the valuable services provided by home health care nurses. The woman in this case was severely diabetic. She was confined to a wheelchair and had a wound that was not healing. It was home health care nurses who came three times a week to clean the wound, to change the dressing, to take care of her other health care needs. Home health care allowed her and her elderly husband to stay together in their golden years. It is that kind of service which has made such a difference to the quality of life of our senior citizens, and it was that kind of service which has been so jeopardized by the ill-advised Clinton administration regulations and the unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The legislation I introduced was a bipartisan bill. It was cosponsored by more than 30 of my colleagues, to reverse these unintended consequences. The Balanced Budget Remedies Act that is included in the omnibus appropriations bill does not go as far as I would like, frankly, but it is a good and necessary first step. I commend the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, as well as Senator Moynihan, for working with us to come up with legislation that we can enact to ensure our senior citizens do not lose access to much needed health care. That is also a very important bill to our rural hospitals. In our hospitals, in States such as Maine, we have been suffering from the cutbacks that jeopardize their ability to provide care. These hospitals, in most cases, are the only hospital in the community. If they are forced to close because of unfair and inadequate reimbursements from Medicare, it will devastate the communities. It will leave many of our senior citizens and others in the community without access to health care at all when they become ill and need hospitalization. One of the features of the cutbacks in home health care troubles me. I wonder what has become of these nearly 7,000 Maine citizens. In some cases they have been forced to pay for the care themselves. Many of the seniors in Maine simply cannot afford that kind of out-of-pocket expense. They are living on Social Security, on limited incomes. They already have a very difficult time affording their prescription drugs. Some of them have become sicker because they have lost their access to home health care and have prematurely been forced into nursing homes or have been subject to repeated hospitalization which would have been avoided had the home health care services been provided. The irony and the wrongheaded effect of this policy is we are probably going to end up paying more for the care for these senior citizens who have lost access to their home health care because hospitalization and nursing home care is so much more expensive than home health care. Surely this has been a shortsighted policy. I am pleased this legislation is going to take the first steps we need to provide much needed financial relief to our Nation's home health care agencies, our rural hospitals, and our nursing homes. It is going to make a real difference. There is much else that is very valuable in this legislation for our Nation's families. Not only our senior citizens but our children are going to benefit from this legislation. When you hear the rhetoric in this Chamber about education, you would think that somehow there has been an attempt to slash education funding. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the Republican Senate increased--increased, Mr. President--education spending by $500 million beyond what was requested by President Clinton in his budget. The increase also represents a substantial hike in spending for education programs over last year's spending levels. In fact, the legislation we are about to consider increases education spending by $2 billion over the last fiscal year, and, again, the increase is $500 million over what the President proposed. Clearly, there is a deep and heartfelt commitment in the Senate to increase education spending and to recognize its importance to the future of this country and to ensuring a bright future for our Nation's children. The issue has not been about money. The issue has been who is best able to make education decisions. That is the debate we will continue next year. To me, the answer is obvious. We do need to increase the Federal investment in education, but at the same time we need to empower our local school boards, our parents, our teachers, and our principals to make the decisions and set the priorities. We need to hold them accountable for improved education achievement, but we do not need a Washington-knows-best, a one-size-fits-all approach to education policy. There is other good news in the omnibus appropriations bill, and that is good news for students and their families who are pursuing higher education. Since I have come to the Senate, one of my highest priorities has been to increase Pell grants and student loans so that no qualified student faces a financial barrier that makes it impossible for him or her to attend college. Prior to coming to the Senate, I worked at a small business and health college in Bangor, ME, known as Husson College. It was there that I first became aware of how critically important Federal financial assistance was for students who are attending college. Eighty-five percent of the students at Husson College could not afford to attend college but for the assistance they were provided from student loans and from Pell grants. This assistance was absolutely essential in allowing them to attend college. Many of them were first- generation college students. They were the first people in their families to have the opportunity to attend college. They were taking a big step they knew would ensure a brighter future for them and more opportunities. We know the vast majority of new jobs that are being created into the next century will require some kind of postsecondary education, either attendance at a technical college, a private college, or a university. We are going to need more and more skills, more and more education, if we are to compete for the jobs of the future. That is why I am so delighted the legislation provides a significant increase for Pell grants. As you can see, the maximum Pell grant will be increased in the appropriations bill. Currently, it is $3,125. The President proposed $3,250. The appropriations bill passed by the Senate proposed $3,325. Those are good steps. They will help make college a little bit more affordable for our Nation's young people; indeed, also for older adults who are returning to college because they realize they need additional skills. Once again, it is important we emphasize, the Senate increased spending for these essential Pell grants beyond what the President recommended. This is a budget of which we can be proud. It does not include every provision each of us would like. It reflects hours, weeks, and months of work. It reflects compromise. That is what the system is all about. Each of us would write this bill differently. Each of us wishes the process could be cleaner, that we could work to get our legislation accomplished earlier, that we had more cooperation with the White House in achieving this goal. But the fact is, this legislation will ensure brighter futures for the families of America. I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight on these important issues. The bill, which will be before us later today, is not perfect but it is good legislation that deserves the support of all our colleagues. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I also ask unanimous consent that he be followed by the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, for not to exceed 5 minutes, and that I be recognized to transact legislative business.