Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee. I invite both the distinguished chairman and the distinguished ranking minority member, Senator Baucus, to come to the University of Maine sometime and look at the fabulous research that is being done in this area. It is extremely exciting. The wood reinforced with these composites is stronger than steel. I am very proud of the research that is going on in my State and I believe it can contribute greatly to the transportation future of this country.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to curtail a fraudulent practice known as slamming--the unauthorized change of a customer's telephone service provider. Telephone slamming is a widespread and growing problem. In Maine, for example, slamming complaints to the local telephone company increased by 100% from 1996 to 1997. Nationwide, slamming is also the number one telephone-related complaint to the FCC. While the FCC received a total of more than 20,000 slamming complaints in 1997, a significant increase over the previous year, estimates from phone companies indicated that as many as one million people were slammed last year. Last fall, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, undertook an extensive investigation of the slamming problem. On February 18th, I chaired a field hearing on slamming in Portland, Maine. My distinguished colleague, Senator Richard Durbin, joined me at the hearing, and we heard first-hand from several consumers about the problems they experienced with telephone slamming. At the Subcommittee hearing, Maine slamming victims explained how some long-distance companies used fraudulent or deceptive practices to change their telephone service. Witnesses used words such as ``stealing,'' and ``criminal,'' and ``break-in'' to describe practices employed by unscrupulous telephone companies to switch unsuspecting customers and boost profits. One witness, Pamela Corrigan from West Farmington, Maine, testified that she was sent an unsolicited ``welcome package'' in the mail, which looked like the stacks of junk mail that we receive every day. However, this ``junk mail'' was not what it appeared to be. This ``welcome package'' automatically signed her up for a new long distance service unless she returned a card rejecting the change. She was amazed and appalled that it was possible for a company to change her long distance service simply because she did not respond that she did not want their service. Another witness, Susan Deblois from Winthrop, Maine, testified that when she was slammed, her children were unable to use the 800 number she had for them to call home in case of an emergency. Slamming not only affects families but also small businesses and communities. For example, Steve Klein, the owner of Mermaid Transportation Company in Portland, Maine, testified that his business phone lines, which are critical to his livelihood, were tied up for four days which he was slammed by a long-distance telephone reseller which falsely represented itself as AT&T. Similarly, Ms. Corrigan, who is the town manager of Farmington, Maine, reported that the town's phone lines were also slammed. Simply put, Mr. President, no one is immune from this illegal activity. Victims of slamming are frustrated. They are angry. They should not have to spend their time and energy resolving problems that are not of their own making. People rely on their home and business telephone service, and they should be able to choose their own long-distance company without fear that their decision will be changed without their consent. Deliberate slamming is like stealing and should not be tolerated. The FCC must step up enforcement efforts to make sure that existing laws and regulations are followed by telephone companies, and Congress must act to strengthen penalties to halt this pernicious practice. The comprehensive legislation that I am introducing today, along with my colleague Senator Durbin, will attack the problem of slamming from all sides. First, the bill gets tough with those who engage in deliberate slamming. It would increase civil penalties and establish new criminal penalties for intentional slamming. Specifically, civil penalties would be increased to a minimum of $50,000 for the first slamming offense and $100,000 for a subsequent offense. Criminal penalties would be established for intentional slamming, the same as those for any other federal crime: a maximum of $100,000 and one year imprisonment for a misdemeanor and $250,000 and five years imprisonment for a felony. In addition, anyone convicted of intentional slamming will be disqualified from being a telecommunications service provider. The bill would also allow the states to bring action in federal court against slammers on behalf of its residents, a provision suggested by Senator Durbin. Second, our legislation increases consumer protection. It would give control back to consumers by taking the financial incentive away from companies that engage in slamming. Rather than paying the slamming company, consumers could pay their original carrier at their previous rate. It would further protect consumers by eliminating the so-called ``welcome package'' method of verification, a favorite tool of slammers, which is misused and deceptive. Third, the bill strongly encourages the FCC to step up its enforcement efforts against slamming. It would require local telephone companies to report a summary of slamming complaints to the FCC for further investigation, and it would require the FCC to report to Congress on its enforcement actions against slammers. Finally, the legislation would require the FCC to report to Congress on whether or not its current procedures contain sufficient safeguards to prevent unscrupulous telecommunications providers from receiving an FCC license in the first place. Mr. President, consumers have lost control over their telecommunications service to unscrupulous providers. The Collins- Durbin legislation would go a long way toward halting slamming. I urge my colleagues to join me in the fight against slamming by co-sponsoring the ``Telephone Slamming Prevention Act of 1998.'' For the information of all my colleagues, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a detailed summary of the provisions contained in this comprehensive anti-slamming bill.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 1740 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to curtail a fraudulent practice known as slamming--the unauthorized change of a customer's telephone service provider. Telephone slamming is a widespread and growing problem. In Maine, for example, slamming complaints to the local telephone company increased by 100% from 1996 to 1997. Nationwide, slamming is also the number one telephone-related complaint to the FCC. While the FCC received a total of more than 20,000 slamming complaints in 1997, a significant increase over the previous year, estimates from phone companies indicated that as many as one million people were slammed last year. Last fall, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, undertook an extensive investigation of the slamming problem. On February 18th, I chaired a field hearing on slamming in Portland, Maine. My distinguished colleague, Senator Richard Durbin, joined me at the hearing, and we heard first-hand from several consumers about the problems they experienced with telephone slamming. At the Subcommittee hearing, Maine slamming victims explained how some long-distance companies used fraudulent or deceptive practices to change their telephone service. Witnesses used words such as ``stealing,'' and ``criminal,'' and ``break-in'' to describe practices employed by unscrupulous telephone companies to switch unsuspecting customers and boost profits. One witness, Pamela Corrigan from West Farmington, Maine, testified that she was sent an unsolicited ``welcome package'' in the mail, which looked like the stacks of junk mail that we receive every day. However, this ``junk mail'' was not what it appeared to be. This ``welcome package'' automatically signed her up for a new long distance service unless she returned a card rejecting the change. She was amazed and appalled that it was possible for a company to change her long distance service simply because she did not respond that she did not want their service. Another witness, Susan Deblois from Winthrop, Maine, testified that when she was slammed, her children were unable to use the 800 number she had for them to call home in case of an emergency. Slamming not only affects families but also small businesses and communities. For example, Steve Klein, the owner of Mermaid Transportation Company in Portland, Maine, testified that his business phone lines, which are critical to his livelihood, were tied up for four days which he was slammed by a long-distance telephone reseller which falsely represented itself as AT&T. Similarly, Ms. Corrigan, who is the town manager of Farmington, Maine, reported that the town's phone lines were also slammed. Simply put, Mr. President, no one is immune from this illegal activity. Victims of slamming are frustrated. They are angry. They should not have to spend their time and energy resolving problems that are not of their own making. People rely on their home and business telephone service, and they should be able to choose their own long-distance company without fear that their decision will be changed without their consent. Deliberate slamming is like stealing and should not be tolerated. The FCC must step up enforcement efforts to make sure that existing laws and regulations are followed by telephone companies, and Congress must act to strengthen penalties to halt this pernicious practice. The comprehensive legislation that I am introducing today, along with my colleague Senator Durbin, will attack the problem of slamming from all sides. First, the bill gets tough with those who engage in deliberate slamming. It would increase civil penalties and establish new criminal penalties for intentional slamming. Specifically, civil penalties would be increased to a minimum of $50,000 for the first slamming offense and $100,000 for a subsequent offense. Criminal penalties would be established for intentional slamming, the same as those for any other federal crime: a maximum of $100,000 and one year imprisonment for a misdemeanor and $250,000 and five years imprisonment for a felony. In addition, anyone convicted of intentional slamming will be disqualified from being a telecommunications service provider. The bill would also allow the states to bring action in federal court against slammers on behalf of its residents, a provision suggested by Senator Durbin. Second, our legislation increases consumer protection. It would give control back to consumers by taking the financial incentive away from companies that engage in slamming. Rather than paying the slamming company, consumers could pay their original carrier at their previous rate. It would further protect consumers by eliminating the so-called ``welcome package'' method of verification, a favorite tool of slammers, which is misused and deceptive. Third, the bill strongly encourages the FCC to step up its enforcement efforts against slamming. It would require local telephone companies to report a summary of slamming complaints to the FCC for further investigation, and it would require the FCC to report to Congress on its enforcement actions against slammers. Finally, the legislation would require the FCC to report to Congress on whether or not its current procedures contain sufficient safeguards to prevent unscrupulous telecommunications providers from receiving an FCC license in the first place. Mr. President, consumers have lost control over their telecommunications service to unscrupulous providers. The Collins- Durbin legislation would go a long way toward halting slamming. I urge my colleagues to join me in the fight against slamming by co-sponsoring the ``Telephone Slamming Prevention Act of 1998.'' For the information of all my colleagues, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a detailed summary of the provisions contained in this comprehensive anti-slamming bill.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today in support of S. 1173, the highway reauthorization legislation currently pending before the Senate. Passage of this ISTEA legislation will be very beneficial to the people of my State and to Maine's economy. Before beginning my remarks tonight, I commend the distinguished managers of this comprehensive legislation, Senator John Chafee and Senator Max Baucus. They have worked diligently to produce a broad, bipartisan consensus for this complicated 6-year reauthorization bill. I commend them for their efforts today, and I look forward to working with them as this legislation continues to move through the Senate, be passed by the House, be reconciled in conference and ultimately to be signed into law by the President. The State of Maine has 1.2 million people. They are spread out across roughly 34,000 square miles. Our State has, by far, the lowest population density in all of New England. Consequently, continuing to improve and upgrade our roads, our highways, our bridges is essential to Maine's future prosperity. Studies have shown that roughly 80 percent of all economic development occurs within 10 miles on either side of our interstate highway. Thus, the expansion and improvement of our transportation system are vital to increasing job opportunities for all the citizens of our State. From Maine's perspective, the 1998 ISTEA legislation builds upon the successes of the 1991 law and will continue to provide Maine with needed funding to build, repair, and maintain our surface transportation system into the 21st century. Madam President, Maine, like other northeastern States, is facing an aging transportation infrastructure. It requires maintenance, rehabilitation, and in some cases outright replacement. S. 1173, as amended, would provide Maine with vitally needed funds for transportation. It would provide a much-needed boost in the funding that would go to my State. Under the 1991 ISTEA law, Maine received approximately $118 million in annual highway funding. With the adoption of the amendment worked out by the Senator from Rhode Island last week, which I strongly supported, this legislation will now authorize $144 million in transportation spending for Maine annually. This, Madam President, is good news for our State. It represents a 22 percent increase over the average of the State under the 1991 law. Clearly, this increase will be very beneficial for the people of Maine. The ability of the economy of Maine to grow and offer new and exciting job opportunities to its people is directly related to the quality and the availability of our transportation system. In addition, the higher funding levels should enable the State to pursue some very high- priority transportation projects over the next 6 years. For example, Madam President, as a native of Aroostook County, I have long been a strong supporter of a four-lane, limited-access highway project in Aroostook County. We need such a highway--all the way from Houlton to Fort Kent--and I am committed to doing everything possible to assist in this vital effort. The higher funding levels authorized by this legislation should enable the State of Maine to continue moving this vitally important project forward by completing the next stage, the environmental studies. Another important transportation project for Maine will be the efforts to improve our roads and highways that cross the State in an east-west direction. There is also considerable interest in the State in undertaking studies to look at constructing an east-west highway to improve trade and opportunity throughout the State. In recent years, the prospect of an east-west highway has been getting more and more attention, and the increased highway funding contained in the legislation before us today will assist the State in exploring this exciting new opportunity. Madam President, the ISTEA legislation will also help the State of Maine with other important priorities, such as replacing aging bridges, developing our cargo ports, and improving critical economic corridors throughout the entire State. These suggest a few of the very important transportation projects that the State of Maine can and should consider moving forward with just as soon as this Congress completes action on the long-term surface transportation reauthorization. Madam President, the ISTEA legislation will help Maine and its people maintain and develop a transportation system that will meet the challenges of the future. Again, I commend the distinguished managers of this bill for all of their hard work, and I am very pleased to support their efforts in passing this much needed and vitally important legislation. I thank you, Madam President, and I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the previous order, the Senator from Ohio and I be permitted to proceed in morning business for 15 additional minutes.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Higher Education Reporting Relief Act, to reduce the burdensome reporting requirements imposed on educational institutions by the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credits. I am very pleased to be joined by my principal cosponsor, the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Senator DeWine, who has been a real leader in education issues. I am also pleased to have the Presiding Officer, Senator Gordon Smith, as one of my cosponsors as well as Senators Bond, Enzi, Faircloth, Hatch, Helms, Hutchison, and Roberts. Mr. President, when Congress created the Hope Scholarship and the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit, it, unfortunately, at the same time also created a very burdensome and costly reporting requirement for our universities, our colleges, and our proprietary schools. Beginning with the tax year 1998, the regulations will require schools to report to the IRS information on their students--including name, address, Social Security number, information about attendance status, program level, a campus contact, and the amount of qualified tuition and student aid. Mr. President, this is a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences. We have inadvertently imposed a costly burden on our institutions of higher education. In the words of the president of the University of Maine at Farmington: At a time when we are working to increase access and to contain college costs, new government reporting requirements are working against us. We will need to add personnel, not in support of our educational functions, but to comply with the new IRS regulations. This is not sensible and it is definitely not in the interests of the people we are here to serve. Mr. President, she said it very well. This is not sensible and it is not in the interests of the people that we are here to serve. Yet another example from my State comes from the University of Maine at Presque Isle, a small campus with fewer than 1,000 students. The President there has told me that he may well need to hire an additional person to oversee the data collection and reporting requirements of this new law. Indeed, Mr. President, analysis of these reporting requirements indicate that they will cost America's postsecondary educational institutions as much as $125 million, and that is just to set up the system. In addition, tens of millions of dollars will have to be spent each year on an ongoing basis to comply with these onerous new regulations. Mr. President, this simply does not make sense. The Collins-DeWine bill will repeal the provision of the Internal Revenue Code that requires a school to report this information for its students. Instead, Mr. President, we will treat these educational tax credits just the way we would treat any kind of tax credit. Taxpayers will be required to report the necessary information on their tax returns and to maintain records of their expenses that will support any tax credits that they claim. Mr. President, the rationale for the Hope and Lifetime Learning education credits is to make postsecondary education both more affordable and thus more accessible to lower income individuals. But in this case, Mr. President, what Congress is giving with one hand it is taking away at least in part with its regulatory hand. The cost of conforming to these regulatory requirements will inevitably result in increases in tuition, chipping away at the very benefit of these tax credits. Mr. President, the American Council on Education strongly supports this bill. It will help avoid a wasteful expenditure of the resources, the scarce resources, of America's colleges and universities. I ask unanimous consent a letter from the president of the American Council on Education endorsing our bill on behalf of seven national education associations be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Higher Education Reporting Relief Act, to reduce the burdensome reporting requirements imposed on educational institutions by the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credits. I am very pleased to be joined by my principal cosponsor, the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Senator DeWine, who has been a real leader in education issues. I am also pleased to have the Presiding Officer, Senator Gordon Smith, as one of my cosponsors as well as Senators Bond, Enzi, Faircloth, Hatch, Helms, Hutchison, and Roberts. Mr. President, when Congress created the Hope Scholarship and the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit, it, unfortunately, at the same time also created a very burdensome and costly reporting requirement for our universities, our colleges, and our proprietary schools. Beginning with the tax year 1998, the regulations will require schools to report to the IRS information on their students--including name, address, Social Security number, information about attendance status, program level, a campus contact, and the amount of qualified tuition and student aid. Mr. President, this is a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences. We have inadvertently imposed a costly burden on our institutions of higher education. In the words of the president of the University of Maine at Farmington: At a time when we are working to increase access and to contain college costs, new government reporting requirements are working against us. We will need to add personnel, not in support of our educational functions, but to comply with the new IRS regulations. This is not sensible and it is definitely not in the interests of the people we are here to serve. Mr. President, she said it very well. This is not sensible and it is not in the interests of the people that we are here to serve. Yet another example from my State comes from the University of Maine at Presque Isle, a small campus with fewer than 1,000 students. The President there has told me that he may well need to hire an additional person to oversee the data collection and reporting requirements of this new law. Indeed, Mr. President, analysis of these reporting requirements indicate that they will cost America's postsecondary educational institutions as much as $125 million, and that is just to set up the system. In addition, tens of millions of dollars will have to be spent each year on an ongoing basis to comply with these onerous new regulations. Mr. President, this simply does not make sense. The Collins-DeWine bill will repeal the provision of the Internal Revenue Code that requires a school to report this information for its students. Instead, Mr. President, we will treat these educational tax credits just the way we would treat any kind of tax credit. Taxpayers will be required to report the necessary information on their tax returns and to maintain records of their expenses that will support any tax credits that they claim. Mr. President, the rationale for the Hope and Lifetime Learning education credits is to make postsecondary education both more affordable and thus more accessible to lower income individuals. But in this case, Mr. President, what Congress is giving with one hand it is taking away at least in part with its regulatory hand. The cost of conforming to these regulatory requirements will inevitably result in increases in tuition, chipping away at the very benefit of these tax credits. Mr. President, the American Council on Education strongly supports this bill. It will help avoid a wasteful expenditure of the resources, the scarce resources, of America's colleges and universities. I ask unanimous consent a letter from the president of the American Council on Education endorsing our bill on behalf of seven national education associations be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, there is much in the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky that I support. I particularly support its expansion of outreach efforts designed to help emerging small businesses compete for Federal contracts. I think that those specific provisions of the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky would truly be very helpful to a lot of small businesses regardless of their ownership. Moreover, I share the opposition of the Senator from Kentucky to numerical quotas. I don't like the numerical quotas that are in current law. Whether or not they are constitutionally suspect, they are certainly inflexible, and they are often unfair. I am also opposed to creating a permanent entitlement or preference for businesses based upon their ownership by minorities or women. We should be providing such businesses a hand up, not a permanent handout. However, I believe that the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky goes too far. In my view, the programs funded under ISTEA should include a nonnumerical goal--not a quota, not a 10-percent set- aside, but a goal aimed at increasing participation by disadvantaged business enterprises. Unfortunately, the Senator from Kentucky has indicated that he is unwilling to alter his proposal in this manner, and, for that reason, I am going to vote against his amendment. Mr. President, we all talk about the legalities of this issue. But I would like to try to put a human face on the matter before us. Let me tell you of a specific example of the benefits of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program, a specific case involving a woman from Maine named Tina Woodman. Tina, in her own words, went from being a waitress to being an ironworker, to being the president of her own company. As a matter of fact, I talked with Tina just this afternoon about her story, with which I was already very familiar. Tina, after receiving specialized training, was able to go from being a waitress for 10 years to learning to be an ironworker, to opening up and becoming president of her own company, Maine Rebar Services. In fact, she and her company worked this past summer on the Casco Bay Bridge project in Maine, one of the largest construction projects our State has ever had. By building her own business, Tina has not only been able to provide for her 6-year-old daughter, but for the first time in her life she has also been able to buy her own home. She told me, and her daughter told me, that the best part of this was that they could now plant flowers in their own front yard. Every time I drive across or see the Casco Bay Bridge, I think of Tina Woodman, and I think of her daughter and the flowers growing in their front yard. All of this wonderful story would never have come about but for the opportunity given to Tina through the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program. Hers is the kind of success story that this kind of program can bring about when it is properly applied. Mr. President, we do need to reform this program. We need to make sure that it is carefully tailored so as to give people a little bit of a hand up so that they can participate in the American dream. For this reason, Mr. President, I am going to reluctantly oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky. I hope, however, that he and others will be willing to work with me in order to reshape these programs. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the managers of the bill, and I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, thank you. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the compromise amendment offered by our distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Maine, and the Senator from Vermont. Mr. President, I am confident that the original language in the McCain-Feingold bill relating to the issue ads would have withstood constitutional scrutiny. But the careful work of the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Vermont certainly removes any doubt on that score. They have done an artful job in crafting this language, and I hope it will receive the support of every Senator. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the time has come to strike an important blow for our democracy by making some limited, but urgently needed, repairs to our campaign finance laws. Mr. President, the legislation currently pending before this body is dramatically different from the original McCain-Feingold bill, which I cosponsored and supported. It does not seek to radically alter how we finance our campaigns. Indeed, I submit that it does not alter at all the basic framework that Congress established more than two decades ago. Nevertheless, Mr. President, the bill before us today is vitally important. Before us today is a bill designed to close election law loopholes that undermine the protections the American people were promised in the aftermath of Watergate. Unlike the prior version of the bill, it will not make new reforms to our campaign finance system. Rather, it will merely restore prior reforms. Let me be more specific, Mr. President. Gone from S. 25 are the provisions intended to create a different system for financing campaigns. Gone are the voluntary limits on campaign spending. Gone is the free TV time. Gone is the discounted TV time. Gone is the reduction in PAC limits. Most of these reforms continue to be very important, and they are reforms to which I remain personally committed. But in the interest of securing action on the major abuses in the current system, we, the proponents of the McCain-Feingold proposal, have agreed to significant compromises. What, then, is left? The principal purpose of today's bill is to close two immense loopholes that have recently been exploited to evade the restrictions and the requirements of current law. I refer, of course, to soft-money contributions and bogus issue ads. It is fair to ask whether these are, in fact, loopholes or whether they are practices that were contemplated when our election laws were enacted in the 1970s. To be more specific, when Congress put a $1,000 limit on campaign contributions, was it intended that individuals could make unlimited contributions to political parties that, often following a circuitous route, would wind up financing ads clearly designed to help or to harm particular candidates? Clearly, Mr. President, the answer is no. Similarly, when Congress established political action committees as a legitimate and needed mechanism for unions, corporations, and other groups to contribute to campaigns, did it intend that these entities could nevertheless also make unlimited expenditures for political attack ads as long as certain words were avoided and some reference, however flimsy, was made to an issue? Again, the answer to this question is obviously no, and history bears out this conclusion. Go back to the early 1980s when soft money was used only for party overhead and organization expenses, and you will find that contributions totaled only a few million dollars. By contrast, in the last election cycle, when soft money took on its current role, these contributions exceeded $250 million. Bogus issue ads were such a small element in the past, that it is impossible to find reliable estimates on the amounts expended on them. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case, and these expenditures have now become worthy of study. The most prominent of these studies estimates that as much as $150 million was spent on bogus issue ads in 1995 and 1996. Mr. President, simple logic also shows that soft money, as it is currently used, and bogus issue ads could not have been intended by those who drafted our election laws. There would have been little purpose in limiting contributions to candidates if unlimited money could be given to parties to run ads effectively promoting those candidates. There would have been little purpose in placing monetary limits on contributions to and by PACs, as well as subjecting them to reporting requirements, if the entities for which they were designed could avoid all of that by simply running issue ads. Mr. President, some may still ask whether any of this matters. Why should we be concerned if the campaign contribution limits have been rendered a sham by unlimited soft-money donations? Why should we care if the PAC safeguards have been eviscerated by bogus issue ads? Starting with soft money, one need only consider the situation of the Hudson Band of Chippewa Indians, an impoverished tribe in the State of Wisconsin. Mr. President, this tribe has every reason to believe and every reason to suspect that the denial of their casino application was driven by the expectation of large soft-money donations by the wealthy tribes who opposed them. Allowing such unlimited contributions subverts the proper operation of government or at least creates the appearance that it has been subverted. It is a sign of how extensive the corrupting effect has become that even Native Americans believe they must play the soft money to participate in our democracy. The situation with bogus issue ads is not better. That practice undermines the two major objectives of our election laws, namely, placing limits on contributions and disclosing the identity of those making the contributions. Without such disclosure, we lose accountability. A recent study found that as accountability in political communications declines, levels of misinformation and deceit rise. Thus, it is no surprise that bogus issue ads almost always carry a negative message, something which all in this body purport to decry. The question is--are we willing to do something about it? In my view, it is imperative that we do something real about these problems. Mr. President, I spent much of my first year as a Member of this body listening to endless hours of testimony before the Governmental Affairs Committee about the campaign finance practices in the 1996 elections. While reasonable people can disagree on the solutions, those hearings demonstrated beyond any doubt that the current system is in shambles precisely as a result of the loopholes I have described. Mr. President, let me briefly comment on the argument that S. 25 would violate the first amendment. I personally do not believe that to be the case, but more important, there are scores of constitutional scholars who support that conclusion. But the reality is that we can play the game of dueling law professors forever, and it will not resolve the issue. We are dealing with an area of great uncertainty. Indeed, in the seminal case of Buckley v. Valeo, a majority of the Supreme Court Justices could not agree on a single opinion. On the subject of what constitutes issue advocacy, Federal Courts of Appeals have handed down conflicting decisions. Thus, no member of this body can say with certainty how the Supreme Court will decide the issue. Our role is to craft election laws that strengthen our democracy, knowing that the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court alone will ultimately determine the constitutionality of our actions. It is also essential to eliminate two myths about this bill. It will not stop any American, whether acting as an individual or as part of a group, from running ads advocating for or against a position on any issue. It will also not stop any American, whether acting as an individual or as part of a group, from advocating for or against the election of a candidate, as long as the contribution limits and reporting requirements of our election laws are satisfied. Statements to the contrary are false, and their constant repetition does not make them true. Let me close, Mr. President, by returning to my original point. When I ran for a seat in this body, I advocated a major overhaul in our campaign finance laws. Regrettably, that goal must await another day. The challenge before us today is far more modest. Are we prepared to close loopholes that subvert the intent of the election laws that we enacted more than two decades ago? Are we willing to restore to the American people the campaign finance system that rightfully belongs to them? I sincerely hope, Mr. President, that at the end of this debate, the answer will be yes and that the Senate will take an initial step on the road to restoring public trust in government. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senators Jeffords and Enzi in introducing the Preventing Addiction to Smoking Among Teens Act. Tobacco is the No. 1 preventable cause of death in the United States, accounting for more than 400,000 deaths a year and more than $50 billion in health care costs. Clearly the single most effective thing we can do to improve our Nation's health and control health care costs is to stop smoking. While recent headlines detailing the settlement of multimillion dollar lawsuits against the tobacco industry might delude us into thinking that we are winning the war against tobacco, the facts tell a far different story. Despite extensive public health campaigns linking smoking to heart disease and cancer, smoking rates are actually going up, particularly among our young people. Tragically, addiction is increasingly a ``teen-onset'' disease: in fact, Mr. President, 90 percent of all smokers began smoking before age 21, What is particularly alarming is that children, especially girls, are smoking at younger and younger ages. Smoking is at a 19-year high among high school seniors and has increased over 35 percent among eighth graders and 43 percent among tenth graders over the last 7 years. Moreover, of the 3,000 teens who enter the ranks of ``regular smokers'' every day, one-third will die tobacco-related deaths. Mr. President, I am very proud of many of the accomplishments and achievements of my great State of Maine, but there is one area where we do need to do much, much better. The sad fact is that my State of Maine has the dubious distinction of having the highest smoking rate among people age 18 to 34 in the entire United States. In Maine, almost 40 percent of high school students smoke. They purchase 1.4 million packs of cigarettes illegally each year. If this trend continues, more than 31,000 young people in Maine currently under the age of 18 will die prematurely from tobacco-related diseases. If we are to put an end to this tragic yet preventable epidemic, we must accelerate our efforts not only to help more smokers to quit, but also to discourage young people from ever lighting up in the first place. The Preventing Addiction to Smoking Among Teens Act, which we are introducing today, adopts a comprehensive approach to prevent teens from smoking and builds upon and improves the public health components of the tobacco settlement announced last summer. It is not designed to deal with every question and every issue raised by the settlement. Rather, it focuses on what I believe should be the prime goal of any tobacco settlement, and that is to reduce teen smoking. Among its provisions, this legislation gives clear and comprehensive authority to the FDA to regulate tobacco products and their components. The tobacco industry will have to turn over all--all--of its documents to the FDA related to cigarette research and health, and the FDA will be able to require the companies to reduce or to eliminate harmful ingredients or to require safer technological improvements through informal rulemaking. Moreover, after 10 years, the FDA could can propose an outright ban on cigarettes or smokeless tobacco products. However, should such a prohibition be required or undertaken, it would require congressional approval. I think that is appropriate. I think that a decision of that magnitude should come back to Congress. In my judgment, these provisions represent a marked improvement over last summer's proposed tobacco settlement. The settlement has been criticized for requiring the Food and Drug Administration to go through an arduous formal rulemaking process. Moreoever, unlike the tobacco settlement, our bill does not require the FDA to prove the absence of a black market--which critics have rightly pointed out would be impossible--in order to regulate a product. Finally, to provide the resources necessary for their expanded regulatory powers, the bill requires the FDA to assess a ``user fee'' of $100 million annually on all manufacturers selling FDA-regulated tobacco products in the United States. The bill also incorporates very important recommendations on combating teenage smoking. It calls for strong warning labels. It calls for a ban on vending machine sales that make tobacco products so available to teenagers, it would ban outdoor advertising and the brand- name sponsorship of sporting events, and it would prohibit the use of images like Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man. It also, Mr. President, holds the tobacco companies accountable by imposing stiff financial penalties if the smoking rate among children does not decline by 30 percent in 5 years, 50 percent in 7 years, and 60 percent in 10 years. Moreover, under our bill, there is no cap on penalties, and the price goes up the more the companies miss the targets. These are very important, tough new improvements over the proposed settlement. Our bill incorporates strong measures to ensure that restrictions on youth access to tobacco products are tough and enforceable. It promotes the development of State and community action programs designed to educate the public on addiction and the hazards of tobacco use and to promote the prevention and the cessation of cigarette smoking. It calls for a national public education campaign to deglamorize the use of tobacco products and to discourage young kids from smoking. And finally, it calls for a comprehensive tobacco related research program to study the nature of addiction, the effects of nicotine on the body, and how to change behavior, particularly that of children and teens. Mr. President, I believe that the legislation we are introducing today can serve as a basis for broad, bipartisan support to deal with the public health issues that should serve as the foundation for any national health policy in this area. I look forward to working with Chairman Jeffords, Senator Enzi, and my other colleagues on the Labor Committee as Congress deals with this important issue.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as the Congress grapples with the problem of maintaining the solvency of the Medicare program and with proposals to expand Medicare coverage, we must not overlook a critical problem that threatens the financial integrity of this vital social program, which provides health care services to 38 million older and disabled Americans. I am talking, Mr. President, about the problem of waste, fraud and abuse in this program. The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, has undertaken an extensive investigation into Medicare fraud. At our first hearing last summer, we learned from the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services that an astounding $23 billion a year is lost to waste, fraud, abuse and other improper payments. In more recent hearings, Mr. President, we discovered that career criminals, with absolutely no background in health care, were able to be certified as Medicare providers and enter the system for the sole purpose of ripping it off. For example, one case that the subcommittee investigated involved a totally fictitious durable medical equipment company that was located in the middle of the runway of the Miami International Airport, if it had in fact existed. I am not talking here, Mr. President, about legitimate providers or innocent mistakes or honest billing errors. I am talking about outright fraud. We need to do a better job of screening providers and controlling their entry into the Medicare system. Mr. President, the vast majority of health care professionals are dedicated and caring individuals who deliver vital services to millions of Americans across the country. They are as appalled by this kind of fraud as any of us. Recently, I met with the members of the Home Care Alliance of Maine concerning the issue of fraud in the health care industry. The Home Care Alliance of Maine has a longstanding commitment to ensuring the highest quality home health care in the State of Maine. It has adopted a policy of zero tolerance on fraud and abuse in the home health industry. Its members recognize that unscrupulous home health providers not only tarnish the reputation of legitimate health care professionals, but that these unscrupulous individuals jeopardize the very availability of Medicare. I ask unanimous consent the position statement of the Home Care Alliance of Maine be printed in the Record so my colleagues and organizations representing home health care agencies across the United States can have the benefit of the very fine work this organization has done.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed in morning business until the Senator from West Virginia comes to the floor to give his statement. I ask unanimous consent for only 5 minutes or until such time as the Senator arrives.

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy. (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 1648 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senators Jeffords and Enzi in introducing the Preventing Addiction to Smoking Among Teens Act. Tobacco is the No. 1 preventable cause of death in the United States, accounting for more than 400,000 deaths a year and more than $50 billion in health care costs. Clearly the single most effective thing we can do to improve our Nation's health and control health care costs is to stop smoking. While recent headlines detailing the settlement of multimillion dollar lawsuits against the tobacco industry might delude us into thinking that we are winning the war against tobacco, the facts tell a far different story. Despite extensive public health campaigns linking smoking to heart disease and cancer, smoking rates are actually going up, particularly among our young people. Tragically, addiction is increasingly a ``teen-onset'' disease: in fact, Mr. President, 90 percent of all smokers began smoking before age 21, What is particularly alarming is that children, especially girls, are smoking at younger and younger ages. Smoking is at a 19-year high among high school seniors and has increased over 35 percent among eighth graders and 43 percent among tenth graders over the last 7 years. Moreover, of the 3,000 teens who enter the ranks of ``regular smokers'' every day, one-third will die tobacco-related deaths. Mr. President, I am very proud of many of the accomplishments and achievements of my great State of Maine, but there is one area where we do need to do much, much better. The sad fact is that my State of Maine has the dubious distinction of having the highest smoking rate among people age 18 to 34 in the entire United States. In Maine, almost 40 percent of high school students smoke. They purchase 1.4 million packs of cigarettes illegally each year. If this trend continues, more than 31,000 young people in Maine currently under the age of 18 will die prematurely from tobacco-related diseases. If we are to put an end to this tragic yet preventable epidemic, we must accelerate our efforts not only to help more smokers to quit, but also to discourage young people from ever lighting up in the first place. The Preventing Addiction to Smoking Among Teens Act, which we are introducing today, adopts a comprehensive approach to prevent teens from smoking and builds upon and improves the public health components of the tobacco settlement announced last summer. It is not designed to deal with every question and every issue raised by the settlement. Rather, it focuses on what I believe should be the prime goal of any tobacco settlement, and that is to reduce teen smoking. Among its provisions, this legislation gives clear and comprehensive authority to the FDA to regulate tobacco products and their components. The tobacco industry will have to turn over all--all--of its documents to the FDA related to cigarette research and health, and the FDA will be able to require the companies to reduce or to eliminate harmful ingredients or to require safer technological improvements through informal rulemaking. Moreover, after 10 years, the FDA could can propose an outright ban on cigarettes or smokeless tobacco products. However, should such a prohibition be required or undertaken, it would require congressional approval. I think that is appropriate. I think that a decision of that magnitude should come back to Congress. In my judgment, these provisions represent a marked improvement over last summer's proposed tobacco settlement. The settlement has been criticized for requiring the Food and Drug Administration to go through an arduous formal rulemaking process. Moreoever, unlike the tobacco settlement, our bill does not require the FDA to prove the absence of a black market--which critics have rightly pointed out would be impossible--in order to regulate a product. Finally, to provide the resources necessary for their expanded regulatory powers, the bill requires the FDA to assess a ``user fee'' of $100 million annually on all manufacturers selling FDA-regulated tobacco products in the United States. The bill also incorporates very important recommendations on combating teenage smoking. It calls for strong warning labels. It calls for a ban on vending machine sales that make tobacco products so available to teenagers, it would ban outdoor advertising and the brand- name sponsorship of sporting events, and it would prohibit the use of images like Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man. It also, Mr. President, holds the tobacco companies accountable by imposing stiff financial penalties if the smoking rate among children does not decline by 30 percent in 5 years, 50 percent in 7 years, and 60 percent in 10 years. Moreover, under our bill, there is no cap on penalties, and the price goes up the more the companies miss the targets. These are very important, tough new improvements over the proposed settlement. Our bill incorporates strong measures to ensure that restrictions on youth access to tobacco products are tough and enforceable. It promotes the development of State and community action programs designed to educate the public on addiction and the hazards of tobacco use and to promote the prevention and the cessation of cigarette smoking. It calls for a national public education campaign to deglamorize the use of tobacco products and to discourage young kids from smoking. And finally, it calls for a comprehensive tobacco related research program to study the nature of addiction, the effects of nicotine on the body, and how to change behavior, particularly that of children and teens. Mr. President, I believe that the legislation we are introducing today can serve as a basis for broad, bipartisan support to deal with the public health issues that should serve as the foundation for any national health policy in this area. I look forward to working with Chairman Jeffords, Senator Enzi, and my other colleagues on the Labor Committee as Congress deals with this important issue.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, will hold a field hearing over the President's Day Holiday in Portland, Maine on Unauthorized Long Distance Switching (``Slamming''). This hearing will take place on Wednesday, February 18th, 1998, at 9:30 a.m., at the Portland City Hall Council Chambers, 389 Congress Street, Portland, Maine. For further information, please contact Timothy J. Shea of the Subcommittee staff at 202/224-3721. committee on rules and administration

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I would be happy to yield.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, the senior Senator from Maine, to describe just some of what the people of Maine have experienced in recent weeks, namely, the worst natural disaster in our State's history. The ``Ice Storm of the Century,'' as we refer to it in Maine, began innocently enough with a light rain on Wednesday, January 7. By the time it let up 4 days later, however, the storm had encased the State in a layer of ice up to 10 inches thick and left well over $100 million in damages in its wake. When all we need to do to restore power is to flip a switch in our fuse boxes, it is very easy to take for granted just how essential power is to every aspect of our lives. Electricity allows us to cook our meals, heat our homes, and communicate with our neighbors and our friends. From the second we wake up in the morning, usually from the buzz of an electric alarm clock, power plays an integral role in our daily lives. Think for a moment of everything that you are able to do today so far because of power. Then just imagine how you would cope without power for 10 days or even longer as many Maine residents had to do. This ice storm was the single most devastating natural disaster to hit Maine in recorded history. Over 800,000--that is approximately 7 out of 10--of our residents lost power for at least some part of the storm, some for as long as 2 weeks or even longer. As you can see from these pictures, Mr. President, power lines, telephone poles and trees were snapped in two by the massive onslaught of ice. This is a picture that appeared in the Bangor Daily News of power lines and of poles, telephone poles, and as you can see the tops of them have been sheared off by the massive weight of the ice. Mr. President, I grew up in northern Maine. I am very used to mighty winter storms but never, never in my life, have I experienced a storm like this one. As I looked out from the window of my home in Bangor, limbs from my favorite maple tree in the front yard came crashing down on my roof and against the picture window in my living room. Transformers lit up the night with blue sparks as ice brought them tumbling down as well. And I was much more fortunate than many Maine residents. Many businesses were forced to close due to the lack of power. People took to placing signs in the snow with arrows pointing to their homes reading ``No Phone No Power.'' Even the National Weather Service located in Gray, ME, lost power for over a week and had to rely on a not-so-reliable generator to track the latest weather developments and to help keep Mainers safe and informed. These pictures of a twig and a tiny blade of grass covered with 2 inches of ice were taken on the lawn adjacent to the National Weather Service office. As you can see, telephone poles were snapped in two, trees were coated by ice. Mr. President, this is literally a blade of grass. We have a closeup that I am going to show you next on this. This shows you just how amazing the ice was from this storm. A single blade of grass is photographed here encased with ice. Adding insult to injury, on Saturday, January 25, just as Mainers had begun to return to life as usual, a second ice storm hit, knocking out power to 165,000 Mainers and crippling the electric grid in a region that had managed to come through the first storm relatively unscathed. By all accounts, the worst of natural disasters brought out the best in Mainers. Volunteers flocked to shelters to lend a hand and to help serve meals. The State's television stations joined forces to raise money for the Red Cross, and our radio stations and newspapers provided practical tips and encouragement to help keep up the spirits of Mainers during our worst natural disaster. Heartwarming stories of people with little or nothing giving all that they could were commonplace during this tragedy. For 10 straight days, for example, one man opened his home to his neighbors every single night, housing the elderly and infants in his town and helping to remove the heavy branches from roads and from his neighbors' driveways. On a personal note, when I ran out of wood after my fourth day without power, a neighbor quickly came to the rescue to help keep my pipes from freezing. Acts of kindness like this one exhibited by my neighbor were repeated over and over again in countless communities throughout the State. One in particular touched me deeply. When I was visiting the Red Cross shelter in Bangor at the Air National Guard base, I talked with an elderly woman in a wheelchair who had been forced to leave her home because of the storm. She was obviously a victim of a stroke and was unable to move much of her right side. In addition, it was obvious that she was a person of very modest means. Nevertheless, she said to me, ``Could you help me by reaching into my pocketbook. I have $2 there that I would like to donate to the Red Cross.'' Mr. President, that is the kind of spirit, of generosity and kindness that characterizes Maine people. Even in her dire situation, this woman was able to think of people less fortunate than herself. That spirit of kindness and generosity helped us to survive the ``Ice Storm of the Century.'' Unfortunately, while kindness and good will and generosity and a sense of community helped us to get through the worst of the storm, they alone cannot complete the recovery. Mainers experienced serious financial and property losses as a result of the storm. Early estimates put the damages to homes, businesses, utilities and public property at well over $100 million, and it is still growing. The estimated cost of repairs to Maine's power grid alone is a staggering $70 million, and that is money the ratepayers of Maine will have to bear unless there is assistance forthcoming from the Federal Government. However, simply attaching a dollar amount to the damage fails to provide a true picture of the devastation experienced by virtually the entire State of Maine. To give you a more vivid idea of the destruction of the ice storm of 1998, I want to share some statistics with my colleagues. During this ice storm, 7 out of 10 Mainers lost power, some for as long as 14 days; schools across the southern and central portion of the State closed for many days, some for over 2 weeks; all of Maine's 16 counties were declared Federal disaster areas; at just one hospital in central Maine, more than 80 people were treated for carbon monoxide poisoning, 4 people, unfortunately, died of carbon monoxide poisoning; thousands of families were forced into more than 100 emergency shelters across the State, hundreds of thousands of others spent the night with their families, with family members, neighbors or friends; more than 11 million acres of Maine's forest lands--that is more than half of the State's total--were damaged by the storm. Of this total more than 3 million acres are classified as severely damaged; 1,200 utility crews from as far away as Nova Scotia to North Carolina were sent to Maine to help restore power lines. We are very grateful for that assistance; our telephone company, Bell Atlantic, dispatched 625 fieldworkers, several of whom were on loan from other States; in a remarkable development, the Department of Defense actually airlifted bucket trucks and power crews to help us with the repairs; manufacturers of electric parts from as far away as Alabama worked overtime for 10 days to help meet our power company's needs; 3 million feet of electrical cable were irreparably damaged and nearly 3,000 utility poles had to be replaced. Think of how sturdy a utility pole is. We lost 3,000 of them during this storm. Even after the debris has been removed and our electric infrastructure has been repaired, much of Maine's natural resources based economy will take years to recover. Dairy farmers, maple syrup producers, apple growers, and our forestry industry were particularly hard hit. In addition, because of the countless downed trees and limbs, some of the 11 million acres of damaged forest lands will remain vulnerable to fire and to insect attacks for years to come. Neighbors, Government agencies and nonprofit organizations rallied to the support of the hundreds of thousands of Mainers displaced by the ice storm, but it will take a strong commitment from the Federal Government for Mainers to truly complete the process of putting their homes, their bases and their communities back together. Vice President Gore's tour of the hardest-hit areas and the prompt assistance of FEMA, HUD and SBA demonstrate the Federal Government's concern for Mainers and their commitment to recovery efforts. But additional help is needed. So as we enjoy the comfortable spring-like temperatures in Washington, DC, I urge my colleagues not to forget the Mainers buried in ice and snow. I hope that my colleagues will remember these statistics and the photographs that the senior Senator from Maine and I have shown you today in the coming weeks as we join with other members of the Maine delegation in asking for my colleagues' assistance through a supplemental appropriation for disaster relief. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, will hold hearings on Fraud on the Internet: Scams Affecting Consumers. This hearing will take place on Thursday, February 10, 1998, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Timothy J. Shea of the Subcommittee staff at 224-3721.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, 1998 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. On January 28, 1948, the Senate adopted a resolution converting the Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program (better known as the ``Truman Committee'' for its first chairman, Missouri Senator Harry Truman) into a permanent subcommittee. The special committee looked into charges of waste and abuse in defense contracting during the Second World War. After its first chairman resigned to become Vice President and then President of the United States, the Committee continued to investigate fraud and corruption in the postwar years. Its many successes convinced the Senate of the need to retain an ongoing mechanism to combat wrongdoing and to keep government honest. Today, we celebrate a half century of these endeavors. As Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I wish to pay tribute to all of the Senators who have served on the Subcommittee, and to offer a brief survey of the highlights of the Subcommittee's activities over the years. Senator Ralph Owen Brewster of Maine chaired the ``Truman Committee'' during the Republican Eightieth Congress, but when the Senate transferred the functions of the special committee to the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments--a precursor of Governmental Affairs Committee--Senator Brewster was not a member of that committee and could not chair the new subcommittee. The Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Branch already had a subcommittee to Investigate Surplus Property Disposal, chaired by Michigan Senator Homer Ferguson. Senator Ferguson, a former judge, had also been a member of the Truman Committee, and had occasionally served as its acting chairman. Assuming the leadership of the new subcommittee, which was to be called the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Ferguson inherited the special committee's authority, functions, and powers. He merged its staff members with those from his subcommittee to Investigate Surplus Property Disposal. Notably, he retained the Truman Committee's chief counsel William Rogers (who later served as Secretary of State) and its chief clerk, Ruth Young Watt (a Maine native who served as chief clerk from the Subcommittee's beginning until her retirement in 1979). While technically reduced to a Subcommittee of a standing committee, the Permanent Subcommittee exercised authority almost as a separate entity, selecting its own staff and determining its own investigatory agenda. Senator Homer Ferguson's Chairmanship ended with the election of 1948, which changed the Senate's majority and made Senator Clyde Hoey, a North Carolina Democrat, Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. The last U.S. Senator to wear a long frock coat and wing-tipped collar, Mr. Hoey was a distinguished southern gentleman of the old school. During his leadership, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations won national attention for its investigation of the ``five percenters,'' Washington lobbyists who charged their clients five percent of the profits from any federal contracts they obtained for them. The ``five percenters'' investigation raised allegations of bribery and influence-peddling that reached right into the White House and implicated some members of President Truman's staff. When Republicans regained the Senate's majority in 1953, at the beginning of the Eisenhower administration, Wisconsin's junior Senator, Joseph R. McCarthy, took over as Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee. Two years earlier, as Ranking Minority Member, Senator McCarthy had removed from the Committee another Republican Senator, Margaret Chase Smith of Maine. Senator Smith had issued a ``Declaration of Conscience'' against those who made unfounded charges and used character assassination against their political opponents. Although Senator Smith had not named a specific offender, her remarks were universally recognized as criticism of Senator McCarthy's accusations that Communists had infiltrated the State Department and other government agencies. Senator McCarthy retaliated by eliminating Senator Smith from his Subcommittee and replacing her with the newly elected senator from California, Richard M. Nixon. When Senator McCarthy became Subcommittee Chairman, he staged a series of highly publicized anti-communist investigations, culminating in an inquiry into communism in the U.S. Army, which became known as the Army-McCarthy hearings. During the latter portion of these hearings, in which the Committee examined the Wisconsin Senator's attacks on the army, Senator McCarthy recused himself, and South Dakota Senator Karl Mundt served as Acting Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Gavel-to-gavel television coverage of the hearings raised public concern about Senator McCarthy's treatment of witnesses and his irresponsible use of evidence. In December of 1954, the Senate censured Senator McCarthy for unbecoming conduct, and the following year the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations adopted new rules of procedure that better protected the rights of witnesses. These actions vindicated the courageous stand of Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith. In 1955, Senator John McClellan of Arkansas began eighteen years of service as Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Senator McClellan appointed the young Robert F. Kennedy as the Subcommittee's Chief Counsel. That same year, Members of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations were joined by Members of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee on a special committee to investigate labor racketeering. Chaired by Senator McClellan and staffed by Robert Kennedy and other staff members of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, the special committee directed much of its attention to criminal influence over the Teamsters Union, calling Teamsters' leaders Dave Beck and Jimmy Hoffa to testify. The televised hearings of the special committee introduced Senators Barry Goldwater and John F. Kennedy to the nation, and led to passage of the Landrum- Griffin Labor Act. After the special committee completed its work, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations continued to investigate organized crime. In 1962, the Subcommittee held hearings in which Joseph Valachi outlined the activities of La Cosa Nostra, or the Mafia. Robert Kennedy, by then Attorney General, used this information to prosecute prominent mob leaders and their accomplices. The investigations also led to passage of major legislation against organized crime, most notably the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) provision of the Crime Control Act of 1970. Under Chairman McClellan, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations also investigated fraud in the purchase of military uniforms, corruption in the Department of Agriculture's grain storage program, securities frauds, and civil disorders and acts of terrorism. From 1962 to 1970, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations conducted an extensive probe of political interference in the awarding of government contracts for the TFX (``tactical fighter, experimental''). In 1968, the Subcommittee also looked into charges of corruption in U.S. servicemen's clubs in Vietnam and elsewhere around the world. Senator Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson, a Democrat from Washington, replaced Senator McClellan as Chair of the Permanent Subcommittee in 1973. Senator Jackson continued most of the Subcommittee staff but added Howard Feldman as Chief Counsel. During these years, Chief Clerk Ruth Young Watt noted that the Subcommittee's Ranking Minority Member, Senator Charles Percy, an Illinois Republican, was even more active on the Committee than was the Chairman, who was balancing his Chairmanship of the Interior Committee and his active role on the Armed Services Committee. It had not been uncommon in the Subcommittee's history for the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member to work together closely despite their partisan differences, but Senator Percy was unusually active in the minority--even chairing one investigation of the hearing aid industry. Senator Percy continued to work in tandem with Senator Sam Nunn, who succeeded Senator Jackson as Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in 1979. As Chairman, Senator Nunn continued the Subcommittee's investigations into the role of organized crime in labor-management relations and also investigated pension frauds. The regular reversals of political fortunes in the 1980s and 1990s saw Georgia Democrat Sam Nunn alternate the Chairmanship with Delaware Republican William Roth. Senator Nunn Chaired the Subcommittee from 1979 to 1980 and again from 1987 to 1995. Senator Roth served as Chair from 1981 to 1986, and again from 1995 to 1996. Senator Roth led a wide range of investigations into commodity investment fraud, offshore banking schemes, money laundering, airline safety, child pornography, and computer security. Senator Nunn pursued federal drug policy, the global spread of chemical and biological weapons, abuses in the federal student aid programs, and health care fraud. Senator Nunn also appointed the first woman counsel, Eleanore Hill, who served as Chief Counsel to the Minority from 1982 to 1986 and then as Chief Counsel from 1987 to 1995. Ms. Hill is now the Inspector General at the Department of Defense. In January 1997, I became the first freshman and woman to Chair the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and I appointed Timothy Shea as Chief Counsel. During the first session of the 105th Congress, the Subcommittee held hearings into Medicare fraud and penny stock fraud, as well as an oversight review of the Office of the Inspector General at the Treasury Department that led to the resignation of the Inspector General. Now we have reached the Subcommittee's fiftieth anniversary, which marks another significant milestone. Unlike most standing committees of the Senate, whose previously unpublished records open for scholarly research after a period of twenty years has elapsed, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, as an investigatory body, may close its records for fifty years to protect personal privacy and the investigatory process. Over the past half century, scholars have studied and written about many of the Subcommittee's investigations by using its voluminous public hearings, newspaper accounts, oral histories, and the personal papers of the Senators who served on the Subcommittee, but they have also expressed keen interest in examining the Subcommittee's own historical records. With this fiftieth anniversary, the Subcommittee's earliest records, housed in the Center for Legislative Archives at the National Archives and Records Administration, will begin to open seriatim. The records of our predecessor committee--the Truman Committee--were opened by Senator Nunn in 1980. I trust that the new scholarship that emerges from these records will further national awareness of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations' role and its numerous accomplishments. The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations does not intend to rest on its historical laurels. As Chair, I pledge a continuation of the Subcommittee's mission of vigilant exposure of government malfeasance, social and economic wrongdoing, and serious violations of the public trust. We will focus on problems that affect the American people in their daily lives so that our work will help and protect the people of Maine and Americans across the nation. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record a list of all the Chairmen, Ranking Minority Members, and Chief Counsels of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations over the past fifty years. The list follows: Chairs of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Homer Ferguson (R--Michigan), 1948-1949 Clyde R. Hoey (D--North Carolina), 1949-1952 Joseph R. McCarthy (R--Wisconsin), 1953-1954 John L. McClellan (D--Arkansas), 1955-1972 Henry M. Jackson (D--Washington), 1973-1978 Sam Nunn (D--Georgia), 1979-1980, 1987-1994 William V. Roth, Jr. (R--Delaware), 1981-1986, 1995-1996 Susan M. Collins (R--Maine), 1997-present Ranking Minority Members John L. McClellan (D--Arkansas), 1948-1950, 1953-1955 Joseph R. McCarthy (R--Wisconsin), 1950-1952, 1955-1957 Karl E. Mundt (R--South Dakota), 1958-1971 Charles H. Percy (R--Illinois), 1972-1980 Sam Nunn (D--Georgia), 1981-1986, 1995-1996 William V. Roth, Jr. (R--Delaware), 1987-1994 John Glenn (D--Ohio), 1997-present Chief Counsels William P. Rogers, 1948-1950 Francis D. Flanagan, 1950-1953 Roy M. Cohn, 1953-1954 Robert F. Kennedy, 1955-1957 Donald F. O'Donnell, 1957-1970 Jerome S. Adelman, 1970-1971 John P. Constandy, 1971-1973 Howard J. Feldman, 1973-1976 Owen J. Malone, 1977-1979 Lavern Duffy, 1979 Marty Steinberg, 1979-1981 S. Cass Weiland, 1981-1984 Daniel F. Rinzel, 1984-1987 Eleanore J. Hill, 1987-1995 Harold Damelin, 1995-1996 Timothy J. Shea, 1997-present